Sitting of 22 January 2004

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

    Call Centres
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What assessment she has made of the number of call centre jobs being exported to (a) eastern Europe and (b) Asia. [149731]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I well understand people's concerns about the offshoring of UK service jobs, whether to eastern Europe or to Asia. To understand better what is happening and how we should respond, I have issued a consultation document on offshoring. I have also commissioned a competitiveness study of UK call centres, and I will host a round-table discussion next month with businesses, trade unions and others concerned about this issue.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's answer, but it does not tell us whether she is worried enough about the export of call centre jobs. The Secretary of State for Wales is equally confused. He said that the loss of the jobs would contribute to our prosperity, but the following day he said that he would fight to save every call centre job. Will the right hon. Lady straighten out the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to answer business questions later this morning?
    Ms Hewitt: It is the Conservative party that is in a complete muddle on this issue. Just four months ago, the then shadow trade spokesman said:
    "Reducing barriers to free trade is essential to raising living standards worldwide."
    I am very clear that the loss of any jobs, including call centre jobs, is devastating for the workers concerned, and for their families. That is especially true for communities that were devastated years ago by the loss of manufacturing jobs. However, I am also clear that we can protect people in this country without resorting to the protectionism that the hon. Gentleman seems to want. We will go on growing call centre jobs and other good jobs in our country by competing on quality and skills, not on costs.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is concern about the loss of jobs that may need better qualifications than call centre jobs do? Such jobs include the back-office accounting functions that are being transferred out of this country. As a result, there has been a reduction in training for people in those important areas of business, and some companies use that as an excuse for not meeting their responsibilities to continue to train staff.
    Ms Hewitt: A growing proportion of call centre jobs are done by people who are well trained, highly skilled and well paid. That is why we are determined to keep our call centre sector competitive. Some companies are undoubtedly moving more of their back-office operations abroad, especially to India, but other companies—both British companies and inward investor firms—are growing their call centre operations here. I have no doubt that those good jobs will continue to grow in the UK. If call centre jobs also grow in India, as they will, that is also good news. Labour Members, at least, want India to become more prosperous, for two reasons: first, that is right for people in India and, secondly, as India grows, it will spend even more on goods and services from this country than the £2.5 billion that it already spends every year.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: Last month, the Secretary of State said that she looked forward to getting help from the Conservatives, instead of the usual whingeing about red tape. Also last month, however, the British Chambers of Commerce said that additional regulation on business since Labour came to power in 1997 had added £20billion every year to UK plc's costs. Was the BCC whingeing? Does not the right hon. Lady see the connection between Labour's red tape and jobs leaving Britain?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman seems completely ignorant of the fact that there are more people in work in the UK than ever before. Unemployment is falling in every region and nation of the UK. We will go on working—with the chambers of commerce and all the other business organizations—to simplify regulation. That is what we have been doing, which is why the new year survey of European business leaders by the German economic newspaper Handelsblatt ranked the UK as No. 1 for competitiveness. It is also why the review by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that we have almost the lowest administrative costs of any EU country, with fewer regulations for entrepreneurs.
    All the surveys confirm that we are doing better than almost any industrialised country. Indeed, British Gas's most recent survey shows that small and medium-sized enterprises are spending less time dealing with red tape. In that respect as well as others, things are getting better than was the case under the Conservatives.
    David Taylor: New technology creates jobs but newer technology can export those jobs to other firms, countries and continents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is every reason for optimism, given this country's tradition of entrepreneurial skills, adaptability and investment? As jobs disappear to other nations and

    1453
    continents, successor jobs will use even newer technology, which we are in a strong position to utilise and deploy.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. We will continue to grow good jobs in our country and employ our people by continuing to secure business, to develop better products and services and to move up the value-added chain. My hon. Friend is also right about India. Last year, more than 440 Indian companies invested in Britain, which helped to create jobs here. On the issue of quality, some of my hon. Friends know that Littlewoods recently announced that it is moving its call centre operation back from India to the UK in order to secure its required quality of customer service.
    All my hon. Friends, especially those from the north-west, will welcome my publication this morning of the Competition Commission report on the completed acquisition by March UK of GUS's home shopping and home delivery businesses. The Competition Commission has cleared the merger, and I hope that that news reassures call centre workers all over our country.
    Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the concerns about how some companies are handling the outsourcing of jobs and about the lack of consultation with the work forces affected? Given the expansion of trade and investment between eastern Europe and especially India and the UK, does she agree that there are opportunities to reinvest the funds provided by that overseas investment in new technology, and especially in smaller businesses, which are increasing their productivity at a much higher rate than large businesses that are investing abroad? Will she do more to ensure that we train more computer technologists in this country so that we can add value to our computer industry and ensure that we secure the niche at the top end?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to continue to raise the level of skills in the IT sector as well as across the economy generally. That is why we are making difficult reforms that will allow us to put some £1 billion of additional funding into our universities to raise the quality of teaching for undergraduates. We are expanding modern apprenticeships, investing in basic skills and working hard with the e-skills training body to attract young women as well as young men—and older women and men for that matter—into that expanding sector.

    Steel Industry
    Helen Jackson: If she will make a statement on the future of the steel industry. [149732]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): Last Thursday, I chaired a steel workshop to discuss key issues affecting the sector and to consider what action may be taken to ensure its future. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, other hon. Members, the industry and trade unions for their contribution to the success of that event. It is clear that the steel industry faces major global challenges, but it is also clear that high technology and growing industries such as
    1454
    aerospace and construction require high-value steel products. Working together, we need to ensure that the UK steel industry can respond to the opportunities created by those new demands.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and the workshop was certainly useful. In south Yorkshire, we know that steel is the backbone of engineering and manufacturing as well as of high technology—it is a crucial industry. We know that the big players in the industry must make the shift from contracting to taking advantage of the new world markets through new investment, ideas and skills. What specific support and measures are the Government examining to help the big players make the crucial shift from contraction to future expansion?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has a good record on ensuring that both the steel industry in south Yorkshire and the Government are focused on practical initiatives to enable the industry to go forward. Support is already in place through the metals industry competitive enterprise scheme, which shares best practice among steel producers. It is important to ensure that the expertise in the National Metals Technology Centre is used to develop high-technology innovative processes, because that will lead to success. In partnership with Yorkshire Forward, we are discussing with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members what more we must do to ensure that key manufacturers in south Yorkshire can work together in the most effective way.
    Michael Fabricant: Of course we need to specialise in the specialised manufacture of steel, but does the Secretary of State agree with the United States Government, who maintain that there is dumping of cheap steel from the far east, and if so, what practical steps is she taking, with the World Trade Organisation, to stop that practice?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: what we can most effectively do for our steel manufacturers in terms of international competition is to ensure that we all operate on the basis of fair and free trade. That is why the UK, along with its partners and through the OECD, is working to ensure that we develop multilateral agreements that will reduce trade distortions and provide the fair opportunities that our steel manufacturers deserve.
    Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present trading range of sterling, enabling the UK steel industry to buy in dollar-denominated raw materials advantageously and to export to the eurozone highly competitively, provides a remarkable opportunity for the industry to recover market share at home and abroad? Will she encourage the industry to seize that opportunity, and will she tell the House yet more about the Government's practical plans for working with the UK steel industry to enable it to achieve that end?
    Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the current international opportunities for steel manufacturers. I have already outlined some opportunities in respect of the growing

    1455
    demand in the UK; for example, Government spending on construction is providing an important opportunity for our UK steel manufacturers. An important outcome of the steel workshop held last Thursday is the strong possibility of our being able to work with representatives from the industry, for example, to consider developing an innovation and growth team, as we have for other key sectors. With the industry, we can identify key factors for innovation and opportunity that will enable the sector to grow. My officials working with the industry are currently looking into how we can take that work forward so that we develop the type of practical initiative for which my right hon. Friend calls.

    Company Profitability
    Richard Ottaway: What assessment she has made of changes in the profitability of UK companies since 1997. [149733]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The severe global downturn of 2001 and 2002 has inevitably affected the profitability of UK companies. With the global economy now on the path to recovery, UK profitability has started to improve, increasing for each of the last four quarters and taking profits to their highest level for almost four years.
    Richard Ottaway: I agree that there may have been a short-term upturn, but is it not correct that corporate profitability is at its lowest level for 10 years and that the lack of competitiveness is a key factor? Does the Secretary of State agree that, if we are to turn things around, we need a sustained period of economic growth at more than 2.5 per cent. per annum, but that, with interest rates set to rise and consumer spending set to fall, it is pretty unlikely to happen?
    Ms Hewitt: I do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He is wrong about his facts. In the last 10-year period for which we have full figures, profitability for the business sector was 9.6 per cent. in 1992—one of several Conservative years in which profits fell to single digits. In 2002, however, business profits were up to 11.4 per cent., and in the latest quarter of 2003 for which we have figures—the third quarter—profits were at an almost four-year high at 12.6 per cent. In fact, profits are well above their long-run average of 9 per cent. We are seeing a recovery in business investment and I believe that we shall soon see a recovery, especially in manufacturing investment, which will make more of British business even better placed for the global recovery.
    Richard Burden: If we are to boost competitiveness, which is obviously an important element of profitability and in building for profitability, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we continue to set up mechanisms and networks that allow firms, especially those in the supply chain of manufacturing industry, to improve their processes? Will she comment on initiatives such as the accelerate programme, pioneered in the west midlands, which has done so much to boost competitiveness among motor manufacturing suppliers?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The accelerate programme has done a wonderful job with supply companies in the automobile sector, particularly in the west midlands, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has been doing with groups in the motorsports industry—where, again, we have a world-class cluster of businesses. We are backing them and ensuring, through Government support, that we will get skilled people into our manufacturing industry, which is the best source of our future competitiveness.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Secretary of State's answer a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) was worryingly complacent. She knows that the relative reversal in the decline in profitability of UK companies primarily reflects the improvement in just two sectors—construction and the utilities—so against the background today of independent forecasters predicting rising interest rates, of consumer spending being set to slow, of productivity growth halving under this Labour Government compared with the last Conservative Government and foreign direct investment halving according to the latest figures—2002 against 2001—and of the latest available figures produced by the Engineering Employers Federation showing manufacturing investment at a new low in terms of capital expenditure as a percentage of value added, will the Secretary of State undertake to do something to help UK business that is within the Government's and her direct control: take action now to reverse the Chancellor's catastrophic raid on pensions, which UK companies are having to try to replenish by diverting moneys from investment in their businesses that would have boosted future profitability?
    Ms Hewitt: I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman, once again, talking down British business and the British economy at a time when we have record levels of employment, low inflation and historically low interest rates. We can see business investment growing rapidly. We have seen manufacturing output expanding and forecast growing confidence in the manufacturing sector, which will be followed, I believe, by a growth in manufacturing investment, which is badly needed now that profitability and output are recovering. It is this Government who have created the economic stability and invested in innovation, skills and infrastructure, which give all our businesses—manufacturing and services alike—one of the best economic and business environments in the world. I can assure him and the House that we will continue to do so, and to ensure that we create the jobs and the prosperity for all our people in the future.
    Mr. O'Brien: There was not a word about pensions, which the question was about—so no joy from the Government for UK business. Let us try again. We know from the latest Office for National Statistics figures, released just nine days ago, that UK manufacturing fell a further 0.7 per cent. in November—its biggest decline in more than a year. With the CBI warning that another 50,000 manufacturing jobs are likely to be lost this year, does the Secretary of State recognise that the British Chambers of Commerce's burdens barometer, alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East

    1457
    Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) during the first question, which tracks the total cost of the burdens of regulation on UK business—again, an issue directly under the right hon. Lady's control—now estimates that the cost on UK businesses, eating away at their profitability, doubled to an eye-watering £20.6 billion last year? Will she now undertake to put a freeze on introducing yet more regulations on business, start promoting business and stop her burgeoning £8 billion Department being the arch regulator-in-chief against business?
    Ms Hewitt: Again, the hon. Gentleman completely ignores what we have done to simplify regulations and reduce the cost of red tape. In the 1990s, an entrepreneur needed 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations to start a business. We have slashed that; we have made it far easier to start a business in Britain and, in part as a result, we have seen an increase of nearly 100,000 small businesses in our country since 1997.
    Michael Fabricant: How many?
    Ms Hewitt: That is net increases in businesses. We have simplified VAT, we have taken nearly 750,000 small businesses out of VAT and we have cut their audit costs. We have raised the qualifying threshold for investment allowances, so more small businesses are benefiting. When the hon. Gentleman talks about sweeping away regulations, does he want to get rid of the regulation that raised the capital gains tax allowance, or the one that prevents money laundering, or those on disease control? Does he want to get rid of paternity leave, maternity leave or family friendly working—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the Secretary of State that I want to get to Question 4.

    Racism (Trade Unions)
    Mr. David Heyes: What steps she is taking to prevent racist activism within trade unions. [149734]
    Syd Rapson: What steps she is taking to prevent racist activism within trade unions. [149739]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Last week, on Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government will introduce amendments at the Commons Committee stage of the Bill to allow unions to exclude or expel racist activists from membership.
    Mr. Heyes: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the Secretary of State's commitment, which will, I know, be welcomed by Unison and the other trade unions that have campaigned for the amendments. Does he think that it is absolutely despicable that far-right groups specifically encourage their members to join unions and then point out where they are standing as candidates in elections in order to try to raise political funds by winning compensation at tribunal?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why I was pleased on Second Reading last week that the principle of what the Government are trying to achieve was accepted by Members on both sides of the House, although clearly we must examine the detail of the amendments. Such actions are deceitful, but they are typical of the organisations about which we are talking.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the Government consider putting pressure on national union executive members to take action against racists in their midst, because the shop floor can easily become infiltrated and there is a fear of reprisals when such matters are raised locally?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend is right. We shall consider what he says during the passage of the Bill. including the responsibilities of the unions.
    Mr. Mark Field: I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but one could equally argue that it is not really for this, or any, Government to interfere in the way in which trade unions run their affairs—[Laughter.] I accept that that might apply the other way round more easily. I am concerned because much as all of us disapprove of racism and racist activity, we want to avoid some sort of witch hunt. Does the Minister envisage that membership alone of the British National party or other racist parties would exclude individuals, or would people have to undertake out-and-out racist activism to be excluded?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his original comments about the previous Government's failure to deal with unions appropriately and fairly. He raises a serious point. We shall have to consider the detail of the difference between the definitions of passive and active membership during the course of the Bill.
    Chris Grayling: Hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome any steps to reduce racist activism, but will the Minister ensure that as he attempts to remove racism and race discrimination from our society, we do not place on employers—like trade unions—a burden of proof of innocence that does not exist in any other part of our judicial system? Will he ensure that people are fairly treated by the system and that they are not assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way round?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says because that is the principle that we will try to operate. I am sure that he will examine the detail of the amendments when they come forward.

    Working Parents' Rights
    Mr. Russell Brown: What steps she will take to ensure that the recently introduced rights for working parents will be fully implemented in small and medium-sized enterprises. [149735]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Government have consulted small and medium-sized enterprises fully on these important rights, and are running an awareness campaign that includes the direct mailing of SMEs with full details of the benefits. ACAS has been running employer training seminars.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Maternity and paternity leave can occasionally cause small businesses cash flow problems. Can he offer them any help with that aspect of the new support that we want to give to working parents?
    Nigel Griffiths: Yes. To tackle cash-flow problems, small businesses can claim money up front from the Inland Revenue for maternity and paternity pay, and the Chancellor is increasing the threshold for small employers' relief to £45,000 from 6 April.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Does the Minister recognise that implementing working parents' rights is not a problem for large wealthy corporations—they might not want to do it, but they can certainly afford it—but that, unless the arrangements are implemented flexibly, it could be the difference between a small business surviving and going under? Will he give us an assurance that there will be flexibility for small businesses, which do so much to create new jobs?
    Nigel Griffiths: Yes.
    Ms Meg Munn: Small businesses in my constituency tell me that one of their problems when introducing new rights or responding to new regulations is that, although information may be provided initially, they do not have the benefit of large personnel departments to provide the information subsequently. What are the Government doing to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have ready access to advice and information on these rights and on other regulations?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Consumers, the Secretary of State and the Department have been at pains to ensure that proper advisory services and guidance notes are available. I have seen the guidance note pack that is being sent out, and it is excellent. It was drawn up in full consultation with the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and others. I know that the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Consumers is grateful for their input and takes the point made by my hon. Friend very much to heart.

    Large Combustion Plant Directive
    Paddy Tipping: What research she has undertaken into the effect that the implementation of the large combustion plant directive will have on the UK coal industry. [149736]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): In June, the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs published a
    1460
    consultation on the implementation of the directive informed by analysis commissioned by external consultants. We continue to assess the directive's potential impact on the coal industry and its major customers, the coal-fired electricity generators. That assessment includes external research, and we are in detailed discussion with the industries themselves.
    Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for that reply and for the personal interest that the Minister has taken in this matter. Does he accept the figures that come from the coal industry and the generators showing that if the national plan, which appears to be the Government's favoured option, is pursued, 15.000 jobs will be at risk, at a cost to the economy of £700 million?
    Mr. Timms: I have seen those figures, and I want to emphasise that no final decision has been taken on how to implement the directive in the UK. It is certainly the case that the coal industry and most, but not all, coal-fired electricity generators prefer the alternative emission-limit values approach. I shall meet industry representatives of both viewpoints in the next few weeks, to help us to finalise our decision. There are very different views about how the national plan approach would affect the coal industry, and the analysis so far indicates that it would impose a lower cost overall on the economy, but we need to look carefully at all the issues to ensure that we make the right decision.

    Gas
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: When she expects that the UK will become a net importer of gas. [149737]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): In about 2006.
    Mr. Djanogly: For the first time in a generation Britain needs to face up to the prospect of becoming a net gas importer. Knowing that, why do the Government continue to shirk their responsibilities and duck the hard decisions required, including those on nuclear and coal power, to ensure the security of supply and a viable platform for promoting renewable energy sources?
    Mr. Timms: We are certainly not shirking any responsibilities, and, as the hon. Gentleman must know, we have done a great deal to encourage and promote the big investment in renewable electricity generation that we need. Every G7 country except for Canada and the UK is a net energy importer, so the position in which we will find ourselves is by no means unusual. The security of UK gas supply will require sufficient infrastructure and gas of the right specification available for import, and there is a great deal of activity to make sure that we have security of supply; for example, in October I reached agreement with my Norwegian counterpart on the principles for a treaty on a new gas pipeline from Norway to the UK. We are taking all the necessary steps to ensure future UK energy security.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend consider the situation whereby at present we are exporting gas to the European Union, owing to the complete failure of the European Commission to open up the gas market in the EU? That is having serious adverse effects on energy-dependent industries, such as the ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent, and forcing up gas prices in this country because of the artificial gas market in the EU. Will my hon. Friend take the matter seriously and treat it as a priority, and will he see what he can do to ensure that the EU opens up its gas market, as it has pledged to do, without any further undue delay?
    Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of an open market for gas in the European Union. We are making progress, but certainly in the past it was not as rapid as we might have hoped. However, we are now making headway. I talked about the importance of infrastructure in ensuring that industries in my hon. Friend's constituency as well as gas users around the country have the security of supply that they need, which is why we are looking at doubling the capacity of the UK/Belgium interconnector. There is also a proposal for a new interconnector from the Netherlands. Using all those methods, we can secure the gas that industries and household users will need in future; but I agree that it is important to have open markets across the EU.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The workers at British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. in my constituency will be concerned by the Minister's exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). They are aware that the Government are putting significant resources into research into nuclear fusion by funding projects at JET—the Joint European Torus—and CERN, but they are worried that similar support is not being provided for research into nuclear fission to develop new forms of conventional nuclear power station so that we can increase our energy security in future. Will the Minister look again at the balance of that research funding?
    Mr. Timms: We made it clear in the energy White Paper that it is important that the nuclear option remain open, which has implications for future research funding. We are looking at how much funding there should be and where it should be directed in the work leading up to the spending review next summer. The issue raised with the right hon. Gentleman has been raised with me as well.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall that a few weeks ago we met him and the Prime Minister in a room behind the Speaker's Chair to discuss why we were going to become a net importer of gas? The reason is that after the pit strike in 1984–85, 170 coal mines were left, and the Tories closed 153 of them in the run-up to the 1997 election. To ensure that we keep that handful of pits open, and to prevent the importing of too much gas, will my hon. Friend keep in mind the solution that we gave him and which he promised to look at? Coalfields such as Selby and
    1462
    Hatfield in Yorkshire and many more will benefit from the European directive, and if he takes up our proposals, he will help to stave off more gas imports.
    Mr. Timms: I vividly recall the meeting that my hon. Friend refers to. We had a good discussion about the large combustion plant directive and alternative ways of implementing it. I assure my hon. Friend that, bearing that meeting in mind, I am looking extremely carefully at these issues.
    Adam Price: Is the Minister aware of the major explosion on Monday night in the Algerian town of Skikda, where the main complex for the export of liquefied natural gas to the European Union is situated? Does not the fact that almost a third of Algeria's gas export capacity was wiped out overnight give rise to concerns about the Government's policy on security of supply?
    Mr. Timms: Yes, I am aware of that event, and I believe that the whole House would want to join me in expressing sadness about the loss of life. The LNG industry has a very good safety record, despite that tragic event in the past few days. I understand that that particular facility does not currently export gas to the UK, but exports it elsewhere. However, it is important that that the highest standards of safety should apply in the industry, as they should in other energy industries. That is a clear requirement in the UK, and we are happy to work with other suppliers around the world to ensure that equally high standards apply elsewhere.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is it not the case that whether we use our own or imported gas, gas will continue to be the main source of our power generation for many years to come? Does my hon. Friend agree that we could get near-zero CO2 emissions from gas-fired power generation if we captured the carbon dioxide and stored it by injecting it into underground oil reservoirs, at the same time maximising the recovery of our oil reserves, and oil revenues? Will he undertake more research into that? Is it not a win-win solution?
    Mr. Timms: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in that idea, and I pay tribute to him for all his work on behalf of the offshore oil and gas industry, which is greatly appreciated in the industry and in Government. We have conducted research—we have sponsored research jointly with industry since the mid-1980s—on the use of carbon dioxide injection into mature fields to recover more hydrocarbons. We are currently investigating the feasibility of demonstrating the use of CO2 for enhanced recovery in the North sea, and we expect to publish the findings of that investigation in March.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), are the Government concerned that the renewables target of only 3 per cent. is not being met? There are environmental pressures on the coal industry, as we heard. The nuclear industry does not know whether it has a future. The situation was not helped by the comments of the Minister's noble Friend Lord Davies, who said of the nuclear industry:

    1463
    "We don't envisage that we will need one."
    Is the Minister not concerned that because of that situation, we will become over-reliant on imported gas? Is he concerned that the Government have not investigated the possibilities of gas from Russia and other countries, as they might have done? Is there not a greater urgency to see whether we can bring gas all the way from Russia safely? There is a big question about the security of supply, and we on the Opposition Benches are worried that the Government are rather complacent about the medium-term energy supply.
    Mr. Timms: We are certainly not complacent. There are clearly big changes going on in the energy market and we are working hard and carefully to make sure that we secure our future supplies. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we had not done much about Russia. In fact, last summer I signed with the Russian Energy Minister a memorandum of understanding on the proposed north European gas pipeline, so we are vigorously pursuing that option.
    There are three major proposals for liquefied natural gas import projects, two at Milford Haven and one on the Isle of Grain. Centrica has put in place long-term gas supply contracts with Gasunie of Holland and Statoil of Norway. I have spoken about the interconnectors and the agreement with Norway. There is a great deal of activity, as there needs to be, in order for us to be confident of our future supplies of gas.

    Government Contracts
    Mr. Michael Foster: What plans she has to reduce the regulatory burdens on British manufacturing companies to enable them to compete successfully for Government contracts. [149738]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are committed to British manufacturing and in particular to helping British manufacturers to compete successfully for public procurement. That is why, in the pre-Budget report, we set out what we are doing on public procurement, including making sure that British businesses can compete on a level playing field in Europe.
    Mr. Foster: First, on behalf of the 3,000 workers at GUS Home Shopping in Worcester, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the announcement she made earlier. Does she agree that it is about time we got businesses, trade unions and other interested parties together to take forward the procurement agenda that is in the best interests of UK manufacturers?
    Ms Hewitt: I thank my hon. Friend for his first point. On the second point, I entirely agree. I very much welcome the fact that the CBI and the TUC have been working together and working with Government on the crucial issue of public procurement. We put in place in 2002 a new defence industrial policy, which was the context for the decision to award the contract for Hawk. That was hugely important in securing jobs in many parts of our country. Last September I brought together a number of the unions and business, the Office of Government Commerce and other Departments to focus on that, and since then we have done a great deal
    1464
    more to make sure that our manufacturers are working closely with Government Departments responsible for procurement worth £109 billion a year. We need to make sure that our businesses are geared up to win those competitions and create more jobs here in Britain.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: At a time when manufacturing profitability in the latest quarter is a miserable 7 per cent. and investment in manufacturing is at very low levels, does the right hon. Lady accept that the awarding of Government contracts is extremely important? Does she further agree that it would be a disaster for British manufacturing competing for overseas Government contracts if Export Credits Guarantee Department cover were withdrawn from defence contracts, as the Liberal Democrats propose?
    Ms Hewitt: I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on that last point. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has a very important role to play in supporting British manufacturers and other exporters in a number of different world markets. I am glad to say that we have recently appointed a new chairman of the board of the ECGD, and we are in the process of recruiting a new chief executive. I have no doubt that the ECGD will go from strength to strength in supporting aerospace and other parts of British manufacturing.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her department will continue to examine ways of reducing burdens by using the regulatory reform procedure? Here I refer to the Regulatory Reform Committee, which I chair. Is she not surprised that Conservative Members put in almost zero attendance? They are very rarely seen in the Committee.
    May I, on behalf of the 800 workers at GUS/Reality in Burnley, welcome the announcement that my right hon. Friend made earlier?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and thank him in turn for his work on the Committee responsible for regulatory reform orders. They are a very important part of the reforms that we have put in place to simplify some of the out-of-date regulation that we inherited. I share my hon. Friend's surprise and disappointment that Opposition Members are not doing more to contribute to that work.

    VAT-registered Businesses
    Simon Hughes: What assessment she has made of the number of businesses in London registering for VAT in (a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [149740]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): In 2001, 34,845 businesses registered in London. We raised the VAT threshold to the highest in Europe, so thousands of businesses in London no longer have to register for VAT. In 2002, London's rate of VAT registrations was 54 per cent above the national average. For 2003, early indications show a significant rise in VAT registrations. VAT registrations, of course, do not tell the whole story.
    Simon Hughes: If the intention was to hide the real truth. I have never heard a better answer. The Minister

    1465
    knows that between 2000 and 2002 the number of businesses in London went down by 15 per cent., the greatest fall of any region in England, and in the region with the highest unemployment rate of any region in England. Given that economic policy for London is the joint responsibility of the present Government and the current Mayor of London. what will the Minister do about the failing policy both from this place and from city hall?
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not take lesson on statistics from the Liberals. I note that the hon. Gentleman was not interested in responding to my comments about the 2003 figures, because they are too optimistic for him to stomach. Why does he not take the figures from Barclays, which show that the latest survey reveals that the number of start-ups in London increased by 2.5 per cent., to 41,000, in the last year for which figures are available? I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in congratulating the Mayor of London on the part he may have played in the growth of businesses there.

    Doha Development Agenda
    Liz Blackman: What action she has taken to seek to revive the Doha development agenda. [149741]
    The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Since September my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have had discussions on reviving the Doha development agenda with a wide range of Trade Ministers in Europe and across the world. In recent weeks I have already visited India and my right hon. Friend has visited China to discuss these issues. This weekend I shall meet EU Trade Ministers in Brussels, and my right hon. Friend will meet ministers from other countries at Davros.
    Liz Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. A key objective of the UK Government at Cancun was to support the voice and interests of poorer developing countries. My hon. Friend mentioned India, a country with enormous economic potential. In the light of his recent visit, what assessment has he made of the potential for progress of the Doha negotiations in the coming year?
    Mr. O'Brien: There was a great deal more optimism at the meeting I had with Arun Jaitley, the Trade Minister, than there was in the immediate aftermath of the Cancun summit in September. Indeed, the letter from Bob Zoellick, the trade representative, was very encouraging, and the US has set out a positive agenda for further meetings on the Doha development agenda. A mood is now developing that I hope will be reflected in the views of EU Trade Ministers when I talk to them at the weekend. It is possible to create a broad-based set of parameters for further negotiations that will in due course lead to an agreement that can lift 300 million people out of poverty. There is not only a commercial and economic imperative to get this going again, but a moral one.

  The Minister for Women was asked 2014;
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Iraq
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: If she will make a statement on steps she is taking to help Iraqi women's non-governmental organisations play a full part in the reconstruction of Iraq. [149751]
    The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I am working very closely with Iraqi women's groups so that they can play a full part in the reconstruction of their country. In particular, I am supporting the establishment of the Iraqi women's higher council, which will be an umbrella organisation for women's non-governmental organisations that is intended to act as an advisory body to the new Iraqi Government.
    Mrs. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend remember that there was a time when Iraqi women, unlike those in surrounding countries, were well represented in all the professions? What steps is her Department taking to help those women to regain prominent positions, including in the leadership of the country?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Decades ago, Iraq had a leading position in terms of the prominence of women and their participation in the professions and in public life, and Iraqi women want to get back to that. We have already worked hard to try to get more women into leadership positions, and they now include three members of the governing council, a Minister and four deputy Ministers, and the many women who are, I am glad to say, taking up positions on local councils. I am delighted that the Iraqi authorities have appointed their first woman ambassador to the United States. The position is improving, and there is no doubt that Iraqi women are hugely grateful for the British Government's support. However, there is a long way to go if they are really to fulfil their potential and to rebuild their country as they want to.
    Sandra Gidley: I hope that the Minister agrees that we can learn from the lessons of the past. She will be aware of the recent article in Amnesty arguing that the international security assistance force failed to protect women, which hindered their participation in the post-conflict rebuilding process. What is she doing to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes in Iraq?
    Ms Hewitt: I have discussed that with Iraqi women and with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. There are security problems, particularly in Baghdad and the immediate area, that affect both men and women. Until now, it has not been possible for the security services or the emerging Iraqi police force to give the additional attention that is needed to protect women from sexual assault and rape, which many of them fear and some, unfortunately, have

    1467
    experienced. We have built that into the training that we are carrying out for the new Iraqi police force, and as the general security situation improves, as it will, Iraqi women will be free and able to take on more of a role in their country, as they wish to.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, Iraqi women have long enjoyed some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world. Can she assure people in this country and in Iraq that the recent decision by the governing council to introduce sharia law was a minority decision, and that there is no intention by Ambassador Bremer or anybody else to sign it into law?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend has played an outstanding role in supporting the Iraqi people in their struggle against tyranny, and the House and I pay tribute to her. I agree with her about the consternation that the decision has aroused in Iraq and more broadly. We share her anxiety and are working to ensure that sharia law does not become the basis for the new constitution of Iraq.

    Gender Equality Directive
    Mr. Robert Syms: If she will make a statement on the implementation of the gender equality directive. [149752]
    The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): The Government welcome the draft proposal for a new gender equality directive. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women has spoken to Commissioner Diamantopolou to express our commitment to it and to share the positive UK experience of successful domestic legislation that outlaws gender discrimination in goods and services. The UK looks forward to working constructively with the Commission and other member states.
    Mr. Syms: Does the Minister know that there are concerns, especially in the financial services industry, about the directive's implementation? Car insurers judge women under 35 apparently to be better drivers and consequently give them better insurance premiums. There is anxiety that the directive might place higher costs on women drivers.
    Jacqui Smith: First, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is proposed that the directive, like the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, will rightly cover financial services. It is unacceptable that pregnant women could be disadvantaged when accessing mortgages simply because of their pregnant state. It is unacceptable that married women could access credit only if their husbands acted as guarantors, and that part-time workers, most of whom are women, should not be able to apply for loans. In all those cases, British women already enjoy protection rights under the Sex Discrimination Act. We want other European women, including British women who live abroad, to have those same basic rights.
    1468
    I am however aware of the specific anxieties of the UK insurance industry about the new directive and its effect on risk-based pricing on the basis of gender. I recently met representatives of the Association of British Insurers and we have heard and will continue to listen to their concerns and those of other stakeholders. We shall negotiate constructively when developing the directive to ensure that the final agreement fully reflects UK priorities and concerns, including those of UK business interests.
    Keith Vaz: Will the Minister join me in commending the Belgrave Beheno project in Leicester for its work on promoting the gender equality directive? It is in my constituency, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women has visited it many times. Will my hon. Friend condemn the decision of the Liberal-Conservative council to cut the grant of £129,000 to the project? That will have a serious effect on its ability to campaign on the directive and other women's issues.
    Jacqui Smith: I am reassured that the project must be very good if both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women speak so highly of it. My view is simple: it is no good people talking about a commitment to tackling inequality and discrimination if, as apparently happens with Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, when they are in power, they cut the money to support it.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: All too often, the Government enthusiastically embrace European directives without doing a proper cost-benefit analysis or working out their impact if implemented here. Perhaps their enthusiasm for the directive may be tempered by considering the ways in which women in Britain will lose out. The financial services industry traditionally recognises the reality of the difference between the sexes, for example, through car insurance. It acknowledges the greater longevity of women and awards them an advantage. The directive creates an artificial position: it removes the differences, but also some of the financial advantages that women enjoy. Beyond simply listening and being aware, will the Government seek to derogate in line with the advantages of both sexes?
    Jacqui Smith: First, the hon. Lady makes an important point about ensuring that we push for full regulatory impact assessment, to which I referred earlier, of all European directives. We are doing that throughout Europe and will continue to do it. It is important to acknowledge that we already have a significant advantage in evaluating the effect of the directive because it replicates many of the rights for men and women that we already take for granted in the Sex Discrimination Act. However, alongside my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I undertake to listen to the insurance industry's concerns on the specific issue of risk-based pricing in relation to gender and, as I said earlier, to negotiate constructively to ensure that UK concerns are represented as the directive progresses. We must none the less make progress with the directive, because it will be an important step forward in terms of equality for men and women across the whole of Europe.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Common (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
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—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill.
I can confirm to the House that shortly after the conclusion of Lord Hutton's statement, the Prime Minister will come to the House to make a statement.
THURSDAY 29 JANUARY—Motion on Members estimate matters.
FRIDAY 30 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Motion to approve the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004.
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Child Trust Funds Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Hutton Report.
THURSDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Police Grant Report and Local Government Finance Reports.
FRIDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us that business, but he will recall that he was asked last week about the presiding officer on the Woolsack. Has he seen early-day motion 444, and does he have anything further to report on it?
[That this House notes the report prepared by the House of Lords' Select Committee on the Speakership of the House of Lords and its recommendation that the senior Lord presiding on the Woolsack should be known as the Lord Speaker; further notes that the Committee recognized the argument that this might lead to confusion with the Speaker of the House of Commons, but dismissed it; respectfully consider that there would be considerable scope for such confusion to occur, particularly in respect of Mr Speaker's role in representing this House at home and overseas; and calls upon the Government to facilitate consultations between both Houses about this important and sensitive issue.]
The Leader of the House will remember that I asked him for two days in which to debate the Higher Education Bill. Given the great interest in that matter in all parts of the House, does he agree that his decision to allow just one day is misconceived, particularly when one considers what other business has been allowed a long prime-time allocation? On Tuesday this week, the debate on truancy did not last its course, and there was a very light House. The Times ran the story of that
1470
miserable debate on its front page, under the headline, "So, chaps, just how should we tackle truancy?" It pointed out that only seven Members were prompted to speak and showed a photograph of an almost empty Chamber. Should not the Leader of the House get his priorities right and give adequate time to the issues that really concern us all?
I know that the Leader of the House is currently considering the structure of the debate on the Hutton inquiry, but he has announced only one day for it. Given that the business for the week after next is still provisional, will he accept that many right hon. and hon. Members, including those on the relevant Select Committees, will wish to take part in that debate, and agree that it needs at least two days? What assurances can he give me that he will look at setting aside adequate time for that debate?
Does the Leader of the House accept that there will inevitably be a need to investigate in a separate debate how we can improve the effectiveness of our Select Committees so that they can obtain the kind of documents and witnesses that have been denied to them but were made available to Lord Hutton? Surely that would involve a detailed review of how Select Committees are treated by the Government and how the rules do not seem to give Select Committees real teeth. What plans does the right hon. Gentleman have for a debate on that important subject?
Finally, there will be justified outrage in the House and the country if we have an inadequate debate on the Hutton inquiry but are then faced with yet more feeble, poorly attended Adjournment debates on matters considered by hon. Members, including the Leader of the House's own Back Benchers and some Ministers, to be less important. Is it not right that in this place we should have a serious amount of time set aside for us to debate really serious subjects?
Mr. Hain: Of course I agree that there should be plenty of time to debate really serious subjects, which is precisely why I have announced the business today as it is. First, on the Hutton report, the hon. Gentleman has asked for two days to debate it. There will be a statement next week by the Prime Minister, which will go on for as long, Mr. Speaker, as you wish to let it go on. The Prime Minister is committed to answer all the questions that are put to him, which will certainly take some time. In the following week, there will be a full day's debate on top of that.
The hon. Gentleman is seeking to make mischief and to try it on. Oppositions do that kind of thing; we did it on Scott. As the Labour Opposition, we asked for two days on the Scott report. The Conservative Government whom he supported had a one-day debate. That is the precedent, which we will continue to follow.
While I am discussing Hutton, I must add that the Leader of the Opposition has been behaving in a distasteful fashion by questioning the Prime Minister's integrity. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will, in advance of the Hutton report, put it to his right hon. and learned Friend that if that report does not question the Prime

1471
Minister's integrity, he should apologise right away. We want to know now whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make an apology, in view of the serious statements—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are, of course, discussing next week's business.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am doing precisely that.
As for the presiding officer on the Woolsack, to whom early-day motion 444 refers, I repeat what I said last week in relation to the title of Lord Speaker: I do not have any further information, and the House of Lords is still considering the question.
The hon. Gentleman asked again for two days' debate—no doubt this will become a Conservative ritual—on the Higher Education Bill. The single day that has been allocated to the Bill, on top of all the debate in and outside the Chamber, is absolutely normal for a Bill of that kind, and that is how we intend to proceed.
On the truancy debate, and the pictures showing an empty Chamber, one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), wrote an interesting letter to The Times in which he pointed out that many Members were involved in Select Committees and other business of the House at that precise time. The hon. Gentleman should not therefore play to a media gallery in trying to suggest that the House is not doing its work. In fact, Members were busy in all Committee Rooms of the House undertaking important Select Committee work.
That brings me to the hon. Gentleman's important questions about the effectiveness of Select Committees. By all means, I would be happy to receive representations and to review the role of Select Committees, and the House may wish to do so over the coming period. As a Government, however, we have agreed extra resources for Select Committees. The Prime Minister, for the first time ever, has agreed to appear before the Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairs. By doing that, he has made himself more accountable to Select Committees, because we believe in those Committees, and in their holding Ministers accountable. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to endorse that principle, at least we can agree on that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I hope that we do not need to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not just a Cabinet Minister but the Leader of the House, and he therefore has a special responsibility to Members on all sides of the House to make sure that we have proper opportunities to do our job. In that respect, may I address again the question of the debate that he has announced on the Hutton report on Wednesday 4 February? As we understand it, that debate will have to deal with issues of accountability at the heart of government, the future of public service broadcasting and the BBC, and, as he said, the way in which this House, through its Select Committees, scrutinises the Executive. Those are all extraordinarily important issues.
Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said about the position of his party when in Opposition, may I put it to him that two wrongs do not make a right? May I draw
1472
his attention to the fact that in business questions on Thursday 22 February 1996, the then Labour spokesman, now Lord Rooker, a Minister in the other place, described the decision of the then Government to have a debate on the Scott report on the Adjournment as "parliamentary cowardice"?
He said that it was
"parliamentary cowardice not to table a motion on which the House could divide."
Can the Leader of the House assure us that the debate on the Hutton report will not just be an Adjournment debate, but one that will give the House the opportunity to divide on a motion and, if necessary, to amend it? On that occasion, my party was consistent, because my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) said that he thought that the Government were
"hiding behind the procedural device of an Adjournment motion".—[Official Report, 22 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 510–11.]
Since when does the Leader of the House believe that because the Conservatives did something, it gives Labour an excuse to do the same? At the same time, I understand his point about a two-day debate, but can he at least tell us whether he is prepared to table a motion to suspend the 7 o'clock cut-off, so we can carry on until 10 o'clock? There is nothing to stop us doing that. Those extra three hours would be particularly valuable for Back Benchers. Finally on that issue, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will do everything he can to restrain the length of speeches from those on the Front-Benches, so that Back Benchers have a real opportunity to contribute to the debate?
On a small matter, the Leader of the House announced that on 5 February there will be separate motions—in the plural—on the police grant and the local government finance arrangements. Given the extremely important implications of this year's police precept and council tax—with threats of major increases—can we have two debates, as used to be the practice, on those two orders, rather than amalgamating them, in which case the police grant tends to be submerged?
Mr. Hain: I understand why the hon. Gentleman raised the last point, but the difficulty is that the two budgets come together in some respects, so it is better to handle them that way. However, there will be plenty of time for him and others to debate both issues.
May I add to the points I made to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about having a two-day debate on the Hutton report? We shall have plenty of time to discuss that report. As I explained earlier, the Prime Minister will make a statement, as he promised, and he will lead the debate, as he promised, so there will be plenty of opportunities for people to ask questions and make their points.
On the status of the debate, I ask the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) to await the publication of the report. We should all do that, and see what it says. I will then be in a position to announce at business questions the following day exactly what the handling of the forthcoming week's business, including that particular issue, will be. I will take careful note of the point that the hon. Gentleman made, as is my duty.

1473
As to the hon. Gentleman's first point about the length of the debate, I do not intend to go beyond the moment of interruption. We have agreed sitting times and, save for exceptional circumstances—
Mr. Tyler: These are exceptional circumstances.
Mr. Hain: Well, by exceptional circumstances I mean what occurred shortly before prorogation at Christmas and just before the summer recess, when hon. Members, having booked holidays and so forth, would not have wanted us to extend the sittings into the recess. In those circumstances, we had to go beyond the moment of interruption. Much of the House's business is important every day of the week. As I explained, we are following precedence on the Scott report, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree was also serious and important, and will handle the Hutton report in a similar fashion. With those reassurances, and in view of the hon. Gentleman's own points about the arrangements, I hope that he will accept my response.
Julie Morgan: I welcome the announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health with responsibility for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), that, in future, people conceived by donated sperm, eggs or embryos will have the right to know the identity of the donor. That important announcement is in the best interests of the child, and I welcome it as the right way to proceed. Can the Leader of the House tell me whether the House will have an opportunity to debate that important issue and, if so, when?
Mr. Hain: I agree that that is a very important issue, and the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, yesterday announced a wide-ranging review of these matters. It will include public consultation next year to which people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and other Members of the House can submit their views. She also has an opportunity to apply for a debate at any time and to question the Minister when she comes to the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Michael Jack: I had hoped to be able to press the Leader of the House for a debate on the document produced by the No. 10 performance unit on the performance of this Government. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has denied public access to that document, praying in aid the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I can only assume that its contents are so bad that he does not want it in the public domain. Therefore, may I take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the House when the debate that he indicated should take place on the defence White Paper will actually happen?
Mr. Hain: I will be in a position to announce that in future weeks. On the right hon. Gentleman's specific
1474
question, I remind him that we as a Labour Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act, because we believe in freedom of information.
Donald Anderson: Can my right hon. Friend indicate when the text of the Hutton report will be available to Members?
Mr. Hain: Lord Hutton has made it clear that he will make his statement and, I guess, it will take some time. At the end of that statement, the report will be made available in the House and you, Mr. Speaker, will be consulted on this matter in accordance with Lord Hutton's wishes.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to review the extraordinary revelations this morning in the Scottish press about the lack of preparedness for Scottish troops, particularly the Black Watch, as they entered theatre without enough nuclear, biological and chemical armoury? Lieutenant Colonel James Cowan said:
"If decisions had been taken earlier then the right kit could have been in place."
Can we have a debate in Government time to establish why that was not the case?
Mr. Hain: I have not had the pleasure—if that is the word—of reading the Scottish press this morning. I am sure that the Minister concerned will note the hon. Gentleman's points. He also has the opportunity to apply for a debate.
Mr. Tom Watson: In light of the Electoral Reform Society report on proportional representation for local government, which claims that the British National party would not take control of Burnley council if we had PR, will the Leader of the House allow us a debate on PR for council elections so that we can dispel such bunkum? Does he agree that PR in local councils is the local government equivalent of the assisted-places scheme for fascists?
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the BNP has not got control of Burnley council now, and certainly nothing should be done to encourage that. On the contrary, I hope that the BNP candidates are roundly defeated by Labour candidates, or by the candidates of every other party represented here if Labour cannot beat them, as well. We need to get that poison out of our political system. I think that he and I have similar views on proportional representation systems, but I am not sure whether he supports my view that we should have the alternative vote in single-Member constituencies.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Following the good wishes of the Leader of the House last week for my attempts to secure a debate on the health aspects of phone mast technology, Mr. Speaker has granted such a debate in Westminster Hall at 2 o'clock next Wednesday. In view of the fact that this debate may take place at the same time as important business in this Chamber, will the Leader of the House

1475
consider whether the debate in Westminster Hall might be moved or suspended if it coincides with a statement on Hutton?
Mr. Hain: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talk to Mr. Speaker about this matter. I am not in a position to suspend the debate nor would I wish to do so. However the situation can be resolved in other ways.
Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 433?
[That this House is appalled at the distress caused to 40 families in the Newport village of Peterstone Wentloog (Llanbedr Gwynllwg) by demands from Mr Mark Roberts that they pay 9 per cent, of the value of their property for the right of access to their homes; urges the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government to accelerate reforms in the manorial laws and to extend section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to Wales to prevent this unscrupulous exploitation of ancient titles; and condemns the attempted parasitic extortion by Mr Mark Roberts and his solicitors Darwin Gray of Cardiff through the misuse of ancient titles that revive the unjust privileges of feudal laws.]
Distress was caused to 40 of my constituents who faced injunctions on new year's day from Mr. Mark Roberts of Barry island, who claims ownership of the common land near their homes and is demanding 9 per cent. of the value of their houses. They have been informed that taking the matter to court might cost each of them between £50,000 and £60,000. Is it not important that we look into parasites such as Mr. Roberts, who is trying to revive the injustices of feudal law by pretending to be the manorial lord of the area?
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's motive for raising that extraordinary case. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to apply for a debate.
Pete Wishart: Can the Leader of the House explain why only two Opposition parties will have early access to the Hutton report? The Conservatives and Liberals, quite rightly, will have access to the report six hours ahead of its publicationߞyet that privilege will not be extended to my party and to colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Ulster parties. Surely all parties should be treated equally. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that appalling discrimination?
Mr. Hain: I understand that a representative of the minority parties has written to the Prime Minister, who is considering the matter. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await a reply. The minority parties decided to break with the tradition of working through the Liberal Democrats but that is a matter for them. As I said, the Prime Minister is considering his request.
Mr. Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend will know that there is a requirement to review the sitting times in this Chamber. Does he agree that we will appear rather eccentric and wholly out of touch to the people we represent if we insist that we cannot deal with the business of Parliament without regularly sitting late into the evening?
Mr. Hain: I announced a few weeks ago my intention to review that matter through the Modernisation
1476
Committee. The Procedure Committee—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)—has already sent out a questionnaire, which I understand has received a good response.
Sir Nicholas Winterton indicated assent.
Mr. Hain: I received a good response to my letter, so I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's observation. It is in the interests of the House to reach a consensus on the issue but if that is not possible, we shall have to face the consequences.
Mr. David Ruffley: The Leader of the House should grasp the fact that the education debate earlier this week cannot be compared in any way, in terms of current importance, with the issues for debate on the Higher Education Bill and the Hutton report. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that it would be a dereliction of duty if he does not deliver to the House two-day debates on each of those subjects, which are of vital and immediate national interest?
Mr. Hain: I appreciate that that is the Conservative message for the day. I have already answered that point. The precedent was established by the Scott report.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): He nodded.
Mr. Hain: Yes, the hon. Gentleman nodded in agreement.
Mr. Ruffley: I did not.
Mr. Hain: I would much welcome an Opposition day debate on Conservative policies for university funding. We learned today that they are about to announce a policy of privatising universities, abolishing grants and cutting student numbers—whereas the Government stand for widening access, bringing back grants and helping poorer students. That is the choice.
John Cryer: Most constituencies have post offices located inside commercial premises. A problem arises when such premises close down, because the post offices are closed with them—as happened at Roneo Corner in Hornchurch, without any notice or warning. As a result, pensioners were in a panic because the source of their pension payments disappeared. Can a statement be made on the closure of post offices within commercial premises, with a view to undertaking a survey that would show when and where such problems are likely to arise in future?
Mr. Hain: I recognise that is a severe problem and it is one on which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has answered questions. My right hon. Friend will doubtless note the circumstances that my hon. Friend described, which arise from the difficulty of locating post offices in commercial premises. We must ensure that when that is done, pensioners and others receive the same standard of service, for that is vital.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has a difficult job finding time for debates, but the right hon.

1477
Gentleman has as one of his responsibilities the interests of Back Benchers in all parts of the House. If it appears from representations made to the Leader of the House that more time is required to debate the Hutton report, will he reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and at least consider extending that debate beyond the point of interruption at 7 o'clock? It is important that the House has the opportunity fully to debate the Hutton report, with as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible taking part. The Liaison Committee believes that Hutton will have implications for Select Committees. Also, will the Leader of the House respond shortly to the Procedure Committee's report on Sessional Orders and resolutions, whose recommendations could solve some of the problems facing the House?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman quite properly makes his point and will be aware that the Prime Minister is due to appear before the Liaison Committee after the publication of the Hutton report—which will provide another opportunity to subject the issue to the Committee's closest possible expert scrutiny. Given the precedent set by the Scott report—which I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees also dealt with a serious matter—the one day allocated to debating Hutton is entirely proper. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will note the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to catch your eye and will allot the time available for speeches accordingly.
Mr. Alan Hurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that just before Christmas, Conservative-controlled Essex county council decided to end the provision of meals at primary and secondary schools? He will appreciate that that decision has caused great concern among head teachers and governors—particularly in small schools. Terling primary school in my constituency, which has just 100 pupils, estimates that it will cost an extra £4,000 per annum to maintain the provision of meals privately. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that important issue?
Mr. Hain: I am horrified by my hon. Friend's account and hope that his constituents will follow his lead in protesting against that dreadful policy.
Mr. Graham Brady: Following press reports today, does the Leader of the House share my concern that the Deputy Prime Minister appears to be travelling around the country spreading confusion about the future of the Barnett formula? Given that the right hon. Gentleman has called for a great debate on that formula, can there be an early statement on Government policy—preferably before the Government rely upon the votes of Scottish Members to force tuition fees on my constituents and those of other English Members?
Mr. Hain: All right hon. and hon. Members are equal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed we are. Or is it the new policy of the Conservative party to Balkanise the House of Commons and insist that certain right hon. and hon. Members will be able to vote only on certain issues?
1478
Down that road lies absolute pandemonium. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Ulster Unionist and other Northern Ireland Members will not be allowed to vote on issues that do not affect them? That is a very dangerous road.
The Deputy Prime Minister, quite properly, made a number of comments about funding regional government. Government policy on the Barnett formula is well known. We are in favour of maintaining that formula, which has operated effectively over time, and have distributed resources across the United Kingdom in accordance with its provisions. The Opposition can call for a debate on that issue at any time.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Ministers are quoted in the press today as saying that the Government do not have the numbers to win next Tuesday's vote. Are there any circumstances in which the Higher Education Bill will be withdrawn?
Mr. Hain: No.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I associate myself with the concerns expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan)? He referred to this morning's report in the Scottish press about the equipment given to troops in Iraq. I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House a report that appears on the front page of one newspaper. It refers to a regimental sergeant-major in the Black Watch, and states:
"The requirement was for there to be three NBC"—
that is, nuclear, biological or chemical warfare—
"suits for each soldier, but he had struggled to make two available. Equipment that was out of date was simply redated to extend its shelf life, none of the detection equipment had been calibrated, rendering it unusable, and there was nothing available to decontaminate vehicles if there was an attack."
The report quotes the sergeant-major as saying:
"None of the stuff worked. It was a good job that nothing happened out there."
Those are serious allegations. Surely the Secretary of State for Defence—either the current one or his successor—should come to the House and confirm or deny them.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises this matter quite properly. Obviously, he will seek to pursue it, either through a debate in his own name or by other means. However, as I have said consistently—and I repeated it on Sky television on Sunday—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing an outstanding job. He is a very valued Cabinet colleague, and he will listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. The hon. Gentleman should address the specifics of this matter to my right hon. Friend, or raise them in other ways.
Keith Vaz: May we have a debate on the shocking decision to change the name of East Midlands airport to Nottingham airport? As my right hon. Friend knows, the airport is owned by Manchester airport. The equivalent would be to rename Manchester airport Salford airport or, to give a Scottish example, Glasgow airport Rutherglen airport. The chief

1479
executive of East Midlands airport, Graham Kelly, has agreed to meet Members of Parliament on this matter, but there is widespread concern in Leicester and elsewhere in the east midlands about the way in which the decision was made.
Mr. Hain: I understand why my hon. Friend raises this matter. I guess that I would take a similar view if I were a Leicester Member of Parliament. However, this is a commercial decision by the airports group involved. We do not have any power to intervene, and my hon. Friend must raise the matter with the company. The Civil Aviation Authority has said that it is content that there are no safety implications. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to make the fiercest representations with local people on this matter, and I recognise that that is what he is doing now, quite properly.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: The Leader of the House is quite right to see as one of his main duties the need to ensure that the public have confidence in this House. He will share my view that people will have that confidence only if, by and large, we debate issues that concern them. Will he therefore reconsider the possibility of holding a two-day debate on Hutton? The right hon. Gentleman and I were both Members of this House when the Scott report was published. The significant difference between then and now is that we now have Westminster Hall. Many of the debates that have been criticised on the front page of The Times could be held there. That would allow us to have more two-day debates, when that is considered to be relevant by Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman and others. Will he reconsider the matter?
Mr. Hain: I have answered that question already. It is clearly the Conservative message of the day. However, the truth is that Westminster Hall debates make this Government more accountable than any other, as Ministers must answer questions in those debates. Previously, that happened only in Select Committees or on the Floor of the House. The extra accountability offered by Westminster Hall will be evident in respect of the Hutton report, as it is on all other issues.
David Winnick: Will there be an opportunity next week for a Minister to make a statement or answer questions on the expected decision by the England and Wales Cricket Board regarding the tour of Zimbabwe? That is important, given Mugabe's totally lawless tyranny. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issues involved are the same as those that arose 30 years ago, when Labour Members—and I emphasise that it was Labour Members—protested against cricket being played in apartheid South Africa? My right hon. Friend demonstrated against that proposed tour in a more practical way when it was necessary for such demonstrations to be held.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, my hon. Friend joined me and others in fighting that evil. The regime in Zimbabwe under Mugabe is indeed barbarous. People heard my views on this matter when it first arose last year, but the ECB has written to the Foreign Office to ask for advice. The Government will reply shortly, and the Foreign Office remains ready to offer guidance on safety and
1480
security issues, and on the political and humanitarian issues in Zimbabwe. I take this opportunity to welcome the report presented to the English cricket authorities yesterday, as it puts such tours in a much wider context by setting out the moral issues that are involved, over and above the sporting issues. That is precisely what my hon. Friend and I sought to do in respect of apartheid. I am sure that the same applies in connection with this tour.
Mr. Eric Forth: Why does the Leader of the House keep wriggling and prevaricating on the subject of the Hutton report? He completely failed to answer the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who asked a simple question about when the report would be made available to Members of this House. That was a relevant question, and perhaps the Leader of the House is about to answer it.
Why, oh why, cannot we have a proper length of debate on this very important report? It was commissioned by the Prime Minister, and is about the Government. It is of interest to every hon. Member and to many people outside the House. Why does the Leader of the House give the impression that he is evasive and shifty on this issue, when he could quite easily give us some straightforward and open replies about when the report is to be made available, when the statement will be made and when the debate will be held? Please can we have an answer now, so that the right hon. Gentleman no longer looks shifty?
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman would call me shifty and evasive if I were to recite the 10 times table. For an image of shiftiness and evasiveness, he need only consider the performance of the Leader of the Opposition on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme in connection with the issue of student finances. I have made it crystal clear that Lord Hutton has said that at the end of his statement, and not before—
Mr. Forth: Give us a guess.
Mr. Hain: No, I will not give the right hon. Gentleman a guess, as it is a matter for Lord Hutton. He is one of the most senior and authoritative judges in the country, and it is for him to decide how to make the report public. The right hon. Gentleman should stop behaving in such an impudent fashion towards such a senior member of the judiciary. When Lord Hutton has finished his statement, the report will be made available to the House, in accordance with the judge's wishes.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Pursuant to the question asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) about the Procedure Committee report and the conduct of debates, does my right hon. Friend agree that Members of this House are not all equal when it comes to debating very big issues such as the top-up fees Bill and the Hutton report? As the Procedure Committee has noted, Labour Back Benchers—especially those elected from 1997 onwards—tend not to get called. The minimum possible allocation of time per speech is eight minutes, which means that those hon. Members are always squeezed out. I am sometimes one of them. If my right

1481
hon. Friend insists on holding a one-day debate on those matters, even though there is a huge amount of interest in them, will he negotiate with Mr. Speaker to see whether that eight-minute limit can be reduced? In that way, more hon. Members who want to make a point in those debates can be called.
Mr. Hain: No, I will not negotiate with Mr. Speaker. Such negotiations are never held, as he has his responsibilities and I have mine. However, the House has heard what my hon. Friend has said. Obviously, we want as many hon. Members as possible to be called within the normal time for debate, in the proper fashion. The Scott report was also very important, and we intend to follow the precedent set at that time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) mentioned the Procedure Committee report. I want to take this opportunity to apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for not responding to his question on that subject. It is a very important report, and it needs to be considered by all Members so that progress can be made.
Bob Spink: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the failure to provide equipment, such as body armour and biological, chemical and nuclear filters, to our military personnel in Iraq? The failure to provide such equipment when and where it was needed was in large part a result of the delay by the Government in placing the relevant orders. That delay was an attempt to quell the revolt against the war by Labour Back-Bench Members. In other words, soldiers were sacrificed for the purposes of political appeasement by this discredited Government.
Mr. Hain: That is the most outrageous allegation that it is possible to make. Our soldiers, who fought under the leadership of the Secretary of State, form the most effective fighting machine in the world, which the hon. Gentleman is denigrating—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) should let the Leader of the House answer the question.
Mr. Hain: The Ministry of Defence is considering whether enhanced combat body armour should become personal issue for all personnel, but it is too early to judge the outcome of that consideration. The issue was debated last week, but the hon. Gentleman was not even present to make that point and put proper questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who would have been happy and confident to answer them because of his brilliant leadership during that campaign.
Jim Sheridan: May I bring early-day motion 448, which stands in my name and which already commands cross-party support, to my right hon. Friend's attention?
[That this House opposes any proposals to introduce top-up fines for those convicted of minor misdemeanours such as motoring offences.]
1482
Will he use his good offices to discourage those in the Home Office who propose to introduce such measures, the receipts from which will be used to compensate and support victims of crime? Will he remind them that those proposals will not reduce minor crime and that compensation for victims of crime should be funded by central Government alone?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is referring to what is obviously a consultation document, and I am sure that the Home Secretary and others will take his views into account. However, he will understand that we have two objectives: to protect victims and give them the support, redress and compensation that they need, and to maintain sensible rules, whether in respect of fines for road safety transgressions or other matters. It is a question of getting the balance right. The consultation paper has been issued and we will take all views into account.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House will know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that in 2002 the United Kingdom was the favourite country by far for applicants for asylum in the whole of the western world. We received many more than 100,000 asylum applicants in that year and are still head of the league for applications. Will he get the appropriate Minister to come to the House and announce a scheme whereby boroughs that contain a port of entry within their boundaries—such as my own borough of Hillingdon—are fully compensated for the additional cost of unaccompanied refugee children? Such boroughs must bear that cost because of the Hillingdon judgment, and they may have to support children until they are 21, which could put some of them into the capping regime. That state of affairs is intolerable.
Mr. Hain: The issue is difficult and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise a constituency matter in that respect. The Government's policy on asylum, which I am sure that he supports, has been progressively to clamp down on illegal human trafficking, and we have done so with increasing effectiveness. We are advancing that policy and requests such as his should be considered in that context—although I notice that he is requesting extra public spending, which flatly contradicts his party's policy.
Andrew Selous: Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an early opportunity to discuss the proposals by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on whether children conceived by in vitro fertilisation should continue to have the right to a father? If he cannot provide an early debate, will he at least ensure that there is a swift ministerial statement on the issue? In particular, section 25 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 stresses the need to put the well-being of children first and recognises the importance of fathers.
Mr. Hain: I recognise the strong and articulate points made by the hon. Gentleman. The Minister concerned will take them into close account because this is currently a live issue.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Although The Times photograph cuts off before it reaches the Gangway, the Official Report shows that I

1483
was present for the debate on Tuesday. If the Leader of the House wants to blame the empty Benches on the perfectly legitimate point that Members had to be elsewhere, I am sure that he will acknowledge that that is increasingly the result of the absurd hours that we keep. It would be much better if the vast majority of Members whose seats are not located near London could spend next Tuesday evening debating the Government's proposals on tuition fees. If the Leader of the House will not arrange such a debate, his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) showed his enthusiasm to explore the Opposition's policy on tuition fees. I am sure that he agrees that that would require a two-day debate—perhaps we can reach a deal.
Mr. Hain: On the subject of doing deals, I will happily approach The Times to suggest that the next time it takes a photograph it zeros the camera directly on the hon. Gentleman to make sure that he is well in the frame. It could also turn the lens the other way and see how many members of the press are present for debates. The Press Gallery is not at all full; in fact, it looks decidedly empty.
Mr. Keith Simpson: It is lunchtime.
Mr. Hain: I would not be so churlish as to suggest such a motive.

Point of Order
1.15 pm
Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that reports have emerged today that Scottish service personnel were sent into battle in Iraq without the necessary equipment to survive had Saddam Hussein decided to use chemical or biological weapons. He will also know that those reports are from not only observers but the regimental quartermaster of the Black Watch. Other senior military figures have gone further and have described the failure to supply soldiers with adequate nuclear, biological and chemical gear as "criminal". Surely those revelations warrant a statement, as it would be extraordinary for servicemen and women to be sent into conflict with an alleged high risk of nuclear, chemical or biological contamination. What options are open to Members to force the Government to make a full statement on those worrying reports?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have the highest regard for the Black Watch, but the matter is not one for the Speaker. He knows that he can apply for an urgent question and can table written or oral questions at the appropriate time. I say to him and other Members that they have many options to pursue those matters, which are very important.

Orders of the Day

  Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
  [Relevant documents: The First Report from the Defence Committee of Session 2003—04, Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation, HC 96-I and II, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6109]
  Order for Second Reading read
  1.17 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Noon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before turning to the detail of this important Bill for the armed forces, I must set out the wider context. The Government take their responsibilities to past, present and future service personnel very seriously. For the first time, for example, all veterans issues from right across government were pulled together under a single Minister when the Prime Minister created the post of Minister for Veterans as part of the veterans initiative in March 2001. We also strive to ensure that our current servicemen and women receive due recognition and reward for their outstanding achievements both at home and abroad. For the future, we intend to ensure that our people will have opportunities to enhance their skills and qualifications through their careers, and that pension and compensation arrangements are robust and fair.
  The Bill will allow the Ministry of Defence to modernise pension and compensation arrangements for the armed forces. In developing the new schemes, the Ministry of Defence has consulted extensively with serving personnel and ex-service organisations. The new pension scheme will be introduced for new entrants from 6 April 2005, with existing personnel being given the opportunity to transfer by April 2007. The new compensation scheme will cover all service personnel for deaths and injuries due to service after its introduction on 6 April 2005.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will provision be made to take account of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who served in a part-time capacity but for whom there are no pension arrangements? Can arrangements be made retrospectively?
  Mr. Hoon: I do not want to get into each and every particular implication of the proposals for every different kind of service personnel. Arrangements will largely depend on the number of hours served and whether those hours are sufficient to make an occupational pension worth while. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a specific issue about a defined group of service personnel who require attention, I will certainly discuss the matter with him and respond to any letter that he might send to me.
  Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State referred to specific groups of personnel or retired personnel who may be affected by the Bill. He may be aware that there are only 27 surviving UK service personnel from the first world war. One of them is 107-
  1486
  year-old William Burnett, who hails originally from Aberdeen. I am certain that the Secretary of State will be unable to answer direct questions about the plight of Mr. Burnett—he and his family are currently in financial difficulty—but can he tell us whether the Bill will have an impact on veterans who served such a long time ago? If not, will he make a commitment that his staff will get into communication with Mr. Burnett's family to see what can be done in that case?
  Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman contacts me about that case, I certainly undertake to look into it. Later in my speech I shall refer to a scheme that might be of assistance to that gentleman, but the substantive answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, the pension scheme will not be retrospective in the way that would be required to benefit that individual.
  We have been able to respond positively to criticisms from the Defence Committee in its report on our original consultation proposals in May 2002. The Ministry of Defence published last week, in Command Paper 6109, a detailed response to the Committee's latest report, published just before Christmas.
  I accept that it has taken a long time to develop the new arrangements, but we have used the time to ensure that the outcome better meets the needs of service personnel, as well as being consistent with the Government's wider agenda for pensions. We have worked closely with service and ex-service representatives in developing the schemes.
  At a critical stage in the development of the new pension scheme, the Government published, in December 2002, two Green Papers—on longer working lives and pension tax simplification. The measures being developed by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue to simplify regulations and, more generally, to encourage individuals and employers to make adequate provision for retirement are obviously welcome. However, the Green Papers meant that the Ministry of Defence's original pension proposals had to be substantially reworked. As a result, the revised scheme is better focused on the needs of service personnel, offering a range of improved benefits, consistent with the way in which other key public servants are supported.
  The new pension scheme, which will be introduced for new entrants to the armed forces from April 2005, embraces the Government's wider pensions agenda, in four important respects. First, the changes respond to the Government's general decision not to allow the payment of pension benefits before the age of 55, by replacing the immediate pension currently paid at about the age of 40 with a system of compensation payments. The early departure payments scheme will be of lower value than the immediate pension, with the savings generated used for major improvements to the benefits paid to widows and to cover the cost of pensioners living longer. The scheme will still be a valuable and unique benefit. I was pleased that the Select Committee broadly supported that approach.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that although the critical age of 55 that he has mentioned is indeed the critical age for the police and the fire brigade, under his new scheme—

  1487
  in contrast to the early departure payment scheme—most retiring armed forces members will not receive the pension until they are 65?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with that point in more detail, but the hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience that there are a great number of service careers, and they are so different in terms of longevity that it is difficult to design a single scheme to satisfy all of them. For example, there are those who serve 22 years and leave at about the age of 40, and there are others who serve until they are 55, whose only career, in effect, is in the services. It is thus necessary to adjust the scheme. I shall explain that in more detail in due course, and give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he is unhappy with that explanation.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend did not make it clear whether a serviceman who became sick would have a route to his pension. Is that intended under the scheme?
  Mr. Hoon: Yes. I hope that in the course of my speech I shall satisfy my hon. Friend on that point.
  Mr. Desmond Swaynerose—
  Mr. Hoon: I thought that by setting out general principles as I developed my speech I should be asked to deal with the specifics before I could cover them in the context of my speech—but I shall risk giving way again.
  Mr. Swayne: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. The Secretary of State will be aware that greater use is being made of reservists. Their pay is abated in the same way as that of other servicemen, but they do not receive the pension. The Ministry of Defence makes generous arrangements to pay the pension contributions of reservists while they are mobilised, but what consideration has been given to making the benefits of the scheme available to those who have no pension arrangements to which the Ministry can make contributions, or who are unemployed?
  Mr. Hoon: That is a perfectly proper question and, given the hon. Gentleman's distinguished contribution to the armed forces, it is right that he should raise it. Indeed, it was a question that I raised in preparing for the debate. The difficulty, as I hope he will accept, is that it is unlikely that the number of hours that most reservists give in service during their careers as reservists would make a realistic contribution to what is, in any view, a generous occupational pension scheme. Even if the reservists paid the contributions themselves it would be unfair on them, as they would be making only very modest contributions towards—to be frank—a very modest pension. Given the complexity of extending such an arrangement to reservists, it was not thought appropriate to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  The second important aspect of the scheme is that we have increased the maximum period for pension accrual to 40 years, which will address the current concern that long-serving service personnel cannot earn pension benefits beyond 34 years for officers and 37 years for
  1488
  other ranks. The change also reflects the desire of many for longer working lives to allow them to make better provision for retirement. At present, that affects a relatively small number, but in the longer term it will allow us to reward longer working lives, consistent with the Government's overall approach to that issue.
  Thirdly, we shall retain unchanged the current career pension age of 55. For those who leave before that age, we propose to defer the payment of preserved pensions from age 60 to age 65 in both the new and the current scheme, while protecting benefits already earned. That reflects the increased costs caused by people living longer, which all pension schemes have to address.
  Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way to me a second time. My earlier point was precisely that the overwhelming majority of armed forces personnel do not serve until the age of 55. They will not come into the full pension scheme until they are 65, whereas comparable groups—the police or fire officers—can receive a pension at 55. That is a major reduction in the terms of service of our armed forces.
  Mr. Hoon: I do not think that is entirely fair when we compare the existing arrangements. To repeat in part my earlier reply: someone who joined the fire service or the police force and served a full career, sufficient to earn the full pension, would have had a single career and would retire at 55 expecting, not unreasonably, a full pension based on that full career. The hon. Gentleman knows from his experience that that is not the position for the great majority of people who join the armed forces. Indeed, the educational and training arrangements that we are currently developing are designed to recognise the fact that even after 22 years' service, someone leaving the armed forces at 40, or in their early 40s, will be looking for a second career. We want to improve their educational qualifications to ensure not only that their second career is fulfilling but that they recognise that it is part of their whole career pattern—from the start of their working life until they retire. Although I accept that at first glance there appears to be a difference in approach, there is no difference in principle.
  Pension scheme members in both the public and the private sector contribute to meeting the costs of the scheme. Companies such as Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Sainsbury and Tesco have all taken action in the last 12 months either to increase member contributions or to reduce the level of pension benefits on offer. More generally in the public services, the normal retirement age will in most cases be deferred to 65 to help deal with that issue. It therefore follows that, consistent with the Government's broader policy on longer working lives, it is right to introduce a slightly later pension age for those spending relatively short periods in the armed forces. The rationale for that is that a new entrant to the new pension scheme from April 2005 can, on average, expect to benefit more from a longer working life than their counterparts on the current scheme, and should thus bear a greater share of the cost.
  The Defence Committee recommended that the Ministry of Defence should consult armed forces personnel about the timing of the change in the age for the payment of preserved pensions. Just as service

  1489
  personnel benefit from increased longevity, so those benefits have significant consequences that cannot be overlooked. It is difficult to make the case for excluding service personnel from the general policy of encouraging longer working lifetimes and increasing public service pension ages. However, the special circumstances of long-serving personnel, who now complete at least 18 years' service, have been recognised by our decision to pay early departure compensation from the age of 40 and by our retaining the normal full career pension age of 55.
  To address the point made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) directly, essentially what is being preserved is the recognition that many who join the armed forces anticipate that their career will lead to a new career in their early 40s, so at that point they will have both a lump sum payment and an income stream, and the possibility of a further career leading, I hope, to a pension from that further career as well as the lump sum and pension from their service career. On balance, that seems to be a very favourable arrangement.
  The fourth principle is to provide benefits for unmarried partners who can demonstrate that they are in a substantial relationship. The scheme recognises the wider changes in society and the lifestyle preferences of those who are already serving and those whom we seek to recruit. As with other pension schemes, the range of criteria to determine whether a relationship is substantial includes evidence of dependence, such as a joint mortgage and other shared financial assets, and a shared responsibility for children, if appropriate.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely plain what Her Majesty's Government's attitude is to single-sex partnerships and to applying the same compensation and pension arrangements to bereaved partners in such instances? Many of us find that a very perilous path, both on ethical grounds and given the very temporary nature of many single-sex relationships.
  Mr. Hoon: I shall take the hon. Gentleman through my reasoning: once it has been recognised that the Government should compensate those who choose to live together but are not married—understandably, there was a considerable, vociferous campaign in the House to recognise that, not least before the start of the most recent conflict—and we have recognised heterosexual couples who choose to live together without marrying, it must necessarily follow, unless the hon. Gentleman can persuade me of some legal reason otherwise, that those of the same sex who choose to live together have to be recognised on the same basis. I cannot see a distinction between the two groups that would be sustainable either in law or, frankly, in fairness. If the hon. Gentleman has a way to make such a distinction, I should be delighted to it hear it.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I apologise to the Secretary of State for missing the start of his speech, but may I tell him that many hon. Members will be grateful to the Government for that decision, particularly for the fact that it was announced before the Iraq conflict? Will any of the dependants of the British servicemen
  1490
  tragically killed in Iraq benefit from the change, which the Government announced before the war? If so, some of those people will benefit who would not have done so previously.
  Mr. Hoon: I will not go into each case in detail, but that work can certainly be conducted. However, we introduced the change in the unmarried arrangements to deal with the threats from that conflict.
  I have set out the general principles in the Bill. I want now to deal with how they will be implemented. The Bill will give the Secretary of State enabling powers to introduce the new schemes. I recognise that there is general concern about Bills with wide enabling powers, but that approach is the only practical way that the proposal can be made to work. It gives Parliament more involvement than there is with the current scheme, and is in line with other major public service schemes, such as those for the police and fire services and the national health service.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: As has been identified by the Royal British Legion—supported by 113 Members through early-day motion 301—will the Secretary of State recognise that the proposed change in the standard of proof of entitlement to a disability award in favour of the MOD, from beyond reasonable doubt to the balance of probabilities, will lead to 60 per cent. fewer pensions being awarded? Will the Government deal with those concerns?
  Mr. Hoon: I will deal with that specific point when I reach it in my speech. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask me about enabling powers—he obviously felt able to resist that temptation—but I promise him that I will give way to him again when I get to the relevant part of my speech. I hope that he can be patient that long.
  We have published details of the two schemes in framework documents—copies are in the Libraries of both Houses. The full scheme rules will also be laid before the House in statutory instruments, giving the opportunity to comment and have an appropriate debate.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: In dealing with the vexed issue of parliamentary scrutiny, the Secretary of State suggested that the statutory instrument procedure is the way in which the schemes can be considered, but that will give us only one and a half hours of debate, will it not? Or can he tell us that we will have more time than that to deal with these very complex and important matters?
  Mr. Hoon: Of course these are complex and important matters—I am not in any way suggesting otherwise—but as I will explain in a moment, the basic issue is how, if necessary, we can amend those complex schemes in time to put into practice any such change. We will be talking not about the broad-brush approach or the general principles, but about things like pension splitting. I had to deal with that when I was a lawyer in practice. It was a development that the courts began to recognise, but it was not allowed in many statutory schemes.

  1491
  To ensure that, in fairness, such changes are made available to members of the armed forces, it is necessary to have a relatively rapid means to adjust the precise terms of the scheme to implement them properly; otherwise, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in the House, waiting for primary legislation could take a considerable time—which is the point that I was about to make in any event. If we had to introduce primary legislation each time a relatively minor change to the detailed provisions was required, such proposals would have to wait in the inevitably long queue for legislation. That simply does not seem fair.
  The current schemes have been amended two or three times a year to reflect wider changes in Government policy. I have used the example of pension sharing on divorce, and other legal changes occur from time to time. It would be neither sensible nor fair to require such changes always to be the subject of amendment through primary legislation. We are all aware of the pressure of the Parliamentary timetable. It would be unfair to scheme members if we had to wait for parliamentary time on the Floor of the House, with all the appropriate Committee procedure. I shall give way again if I have not satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that important point.
  Mr. Howarth: I wish to deal not so much with the subsequent changes as with the initial proposals. The new scheme will be presented to Parliament by way of a statutory instrument. Does the Secretary of State propose to have one and a half hours' debate on the whole new scheme?
  Mr. Hoon: No. Obviously, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have the opportunity to deal with the details, as well as the principle, in Committee, so he will have as much time as the usual channels allow. I know of his enthusiasm for Committee work, but I promise him that we will try to limit it within reason.
  I recognise the Defence Committee's concern that armed forces personnel have no representative body to speak for their pension interests. However, the options are inevitably limited. It is long-established practice that the interests of service personnel are represented though their chain of command and, in particular, through the personnel staff, who have had a direct contribution to the process of policy formulation for the new schemes. We believe that that arrangement has worked effectively, identifying and representing the concerns of service personnel with regard to the reviews. In addition, there was an extensive public consultation exercise, and we commissioned an independent view of the design of the new schemes. Copies of those documents are in the Libraries of both Houses. Against that background, I believe that the interests of service personnel have been taken fully into account as we have developed the new arrangements.
  Angus Robertson: On the background documentation and the assessment of the impact of the Government's proposal, may I raise an issue that may be specific only to the handful of hon. Members who represent constituencies with a strong footprint of military bases—I have two large RAF bases in my constituency—and a local economy that is in part
  1492
  subsidised by early retirees going into the work market because they are confident that the current armed forces pension allows them to do so? Is the Secretary of State content that the Government's new proposals will not have a detrimental effect on the jobs market, especially in low-wage areas such as Moray? If he has evidence to back that up, will he share it with hon. Members who represent constituencies such as mine?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that people who retire from the armed forces should be exploited in any way by being offered an income less than what the market would otherwise bear—[Interruption.] I thought that that was the implication of his question. I expect those who retire from the armed forces to be treated properly in terms of their wages and terms and conditions.
  I assure the House—this is relevant to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised—that more detailed information on the arrangements for a new early departure payments scheme will be available by the time that the Bill reaches Committee. The scheme is the one major aspect of the proposals about which we have not yet given full details, which is due mainly to the limited time available following the publication of Inland Revenue proposals to develop an alternative to the early immediate pension. The early departure payments scheme is a unique, mid-career leaver's compensation scheme that will be paid to personnel aged 40 and over when they leave after 18 years' service. The early departure payments will be structured in a similar way to the current immediate pension, with a lump sum payment and an income stream paid until the individual reaches 65, when a second lump sum and pension will be paid. In fact, only a minority of armed forces personnel benefit from the current immediate pension. It has historically been an extremely expensive benefit for a relatively small number of people—about one third of the annual cost of the scheme goes to the one in five people who receive that pension.
  The chiefs of the armed forces are content with the reduction in the value of the payments to fund improvements to benefits elsewhere and to help to cover longevity costs. The armed forces recognise that the levels of provision introduced in 1973 are no longer required to maintain retention through to age 40. It is also recognised that the level of assurance provided to those leaving is sufficient given the better employment prospects of those leaving the armed forces mid-career as a result of the improvement in transferable skills. The change is thus a sensible rebalancing of resources.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State clarify what the level of gratuity or terminal grant will be for officers who leave under the new scheme at the "38 years of age, 16 years of service" point, and for people of other ranks who leave after 22 years' service? Will the terminal grants be more than the existing grants to compensate for reduction in people's income stream thereafter? That needs to be spelled out.
  Mr. Hoon: I said that we have more detailed work to do on that aspect of our proposals, which should be available before the Bill reaches Committee. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was dealing entirely with the specific point that I was addressing. I was talking

  1493
  about an adjustment to arrangements that were originally introduced essentially as a retention measure to encourage and pull through—to use a service expression—those who joined the armed services, and specifically the Army, in their late teens so that they would stay until they had completed 22 years' service. As I said, the adjustment is supported by the chiefs and recognises the different employment and retention situation in the armed forces.
  The details of the new schemes are set out in two framework documents. The new pension scheme is a defined benefit pension scheme with benefits linked to final pensionable pay. It will give a high level of assurance to our personnel in their retirement or in the event of injury, ill health or death. It will also be fairer than the current scheme, with common terms for officers and other ranks. Those are two important differences from the present scheme.
  There will be significant improvements to dependants' benefits. The death-in-service lump sum benefit will be increased from up to one and a half times pensionable pay following a death due to service to four times pensionable pay. Widows' and widowers' pensions will be increased by 25 per cent. to reflect the particular demands of service life and their impact on a spouse's ability to earn a pension. Additionally, dependants' benefits will be extended to unmarried partners, including same-sex partners who have a substantial relationship. The precise levels of payment that a dependant will receive will depend on individual circumstances, such as the rank and length of service of the service person who has died. The changes reflect key concerns that were raised during our consultations. They address the need to make proper provision for those who are left behind when personnel die or are killed in service.
  The pension scheme will be introduced for new entrants to the armed forces on 6 April 2005 and will be available for existing personnel who choose to transfer to the new scheme no later than 6 April 2007. The decision to transfer will be entirely voluntary for each individual member, and the Ministry of Defence will give individuals all information necessary to allow them to make an informed choice so that they may decide what is best for them and their families.
  It is also proposed that a new compensation scheme will be introduced from 6 April 2005 for death or injury resulting from service after that date. The arrangements will replace provisions under the war pensions scheme and benefits under the current pension scheme. The existing arrangements will continue for disablement or death due to service with a cause that predates 6 April 2005.
  The existing arrangements have their origins in the two world wars of the past century and are they are now outdated and over-complex. The standard of proof used in the war pensions scheme—beyond reasonable doubt—was introduced in 1943, but for the first world war and the first four years of the second world war, the scheme used tests based on a balance of probabilities. We propose to use that standard of proof for the new scheme.
  1494
  The standard was changed to beyond reasonable doubt because of the extreme circumstances of the time, including a global conflict involving millions of combatants and thousands of claims that had to be decided quickly using incident and medical records that were often incomplete. The social, medical and political environment is very different today. The proposed balance of probabilities standard of proof is widely accepted for other occupational schemes, as well as for decisions in the civil courts. It is no longer possible to justify a different approach for the war pensions scheme. In combination with the absence of any time limit for claiming, it does not allow an evidence-based decision to reflect properly how conditions arise. The lack of focus of the current scheme means that if we perpetuated the current outdated arrangements, we would risk not making proper provision for those who deserve it most—those who are most seriously disabled—and do service personnel a disservice.
  Mr. Djanogly: I shall add to the previous point that I raised with the Secretary of State and I would be grateful for his answer. I understand that the current unlimited period for applications will be reduced to five years. The Royal British Legion has approached ex-servicemen to remind them of their right to claim, but why should people who have been injured in the service of their country be subjected to a time limit?
  Mr. Hoon: I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the hon. Gentleman's previous point. It is important that we explain the changes to service personnel. I am willing to give him another opportunity to state why he believes that the existing test should continue, given that it is at variance with practice before 1943, widespread practice throughout occupational pension schemes and, crucially, the practice of the courts.
  Mr. Djanogly: There is great suspicion that the reason behind the change is that it will cut out 60 per cent. of potential claims and therefore provide a cost-saving opportunity rather than a solution to the specific problem of ensuring that people who are injured during the course of duty get their just deserts.
  Mr. Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the change is not financially driven. Moreover, there is an entirely independent system for determining such claims. If service personnel are dissatisfied with the situation and can prove negligence in an appropriate case, they have the opportunity to pursue their case through the civil courts. They would have to prove that case on a balance of probabilities, so there is absolute consistency in the approach that the Government are recommending to the House. I hope that he will appreciate that consistency when he examines the proposals in more detail in due course.
  Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State seems to accept that the system represents a tightening of the rules for compensation. It is thus likely, as he said, that more ex-servicemen and women would pursue their claims through the civil courts. Given that the civil courts usually tend to award larger sums than the Ministry of Defence has, and that that encourages the compensation culture that many of

  1495
  us do not wish to see, is not the MOD's policy heading in completely the wrong direction? The Ministry should open up the ability of ex-servicemen and women to claim through the system and close down their opportunities of pursuing the Ministry through the civil courts.
  Mr. Hoon: I could give the hon. Gentleman a long lecture on the problem of no-fault schemes, but I will not. He needs to recognise that there are two approaches to the problem of compensation: either, essentially, a no-fault scheme that recognises that the claimant should receive compensation as of right, by virtue of their status as a member of the armed forces, or a scheme that requires people to choose to go to court and prove fault—negligence—to win compensation.
  Members of the armed forces have the best of both worlds. They may be able to satisfy the terms of the no-fault arrangements and derive the compensation available under that scheme, but if they so choose, they can go to court to win, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, higher compensation, should that be justified, on the basis of proving fault. That is an admirable arrangement, and I would not want to deprive members of the armed forces of that second opportunity. It seems to me that they should have the same right as any other citizen in our society to prove fault, if it exists, and win compensation.
  Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State is effectively outlining a double-track system, but I am saying that the Ministry of Defence owes a primary responsibility to those who are injured as a result of their service, so the MOD should be their first port of call. The Secretary of State should try to look after ex-servicemen and women primarily in that way, not by changing the rules in the way that he is suggesting, and should try to discourage them from going through the civil courts, which costs the MOD more and gives the public a bad perception of its uncaring attitude. He will know better than I that it takes a great deal of time and money for people to go through the civil courts.
  Mr. Hoon:: In my view, the arrangements are to the benefit of members of the armed forces because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, no-fault schemes inevitably pay lower compensation than fault-based schemes. It would be wrong to deny members of the armed forces that opportunity of earning higher compensation through proving fault. I hope that he will accept that I resisted any suggestion of doing that because I think that it would be to the disadvantage of service personnel. Perhaps the matter can be debated in more detail in Committee. He raised a question of fundamental principle; I believe that the present proposals give service personnel the best of both worlds, and I am comfortable with that.
  Mr. Clapham: I welcome the change that my right hon. Friend is suggesting, because it would put servicemen on a par with every other worker in British society. They will be able to claim compensation on a dual track: they can claim first for loss of faculty, to which my right hon. Friend referred, and secondly they
  1496
  can go to court to claim on the basis of negligence; for example, in an asbestos case. That is a favourable development.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is obviously a lot more persuasive than I am.
  The new scheme reflects modern medical understanding and current practice on disability. It is fair, transparent and simple to understand, and offers consistent and fair outcomes, with better focus on the more severely disabled. The scheme will be evidence-based, with a requirement on the Department to make available appropriate medical and other records that are relevant to a claim, with an independent appeal process. We are confident that no claim would fail where there was reasonable evidence that disablement was due to military service.
  In contrast to the current arrangements, there will be in-service lump sum awards for pain and suffering because an injury may be significant without leading to invaliding from the armed forces. Benefits will be provided for dependants where deaths result from service and, as with the new pension scheme, those will be extended to include unmarried partners where there is a substantial relationship. There will be a normal time limit for claiming of five years, with discretion to consider claims delayed by ill health, and an exceptions list of late-onset conditions.
  The modernisation of the appeal process is the second major element of the Bill. In line with the recommendations of the Leggatt review, the Department for Constitutional Affairs proposes to change the route of appeals from decisions of the pensions appeal tribunal to include a new level of appeal to a social security commissioner. Under the new compensation scheme, therefore, service personnel will have the opportunity to appeal first to the pensions appeal tribunal and then to a social security commissioner, with a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  There is one final aspect of the Bill that I should mention to complete the picture. It may be that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who raised a particular case earlier, will pursue this matter. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation was set up to provide relief to the widows and orphans of soldiers, sailors and marines who died in the Crimean war. It now assists the spouses, children and other dependants of deceased members of the armed forces. It needs to modernise its constitution and in particular to simplify and reduce the administrative burden.
  Primary legislation is needed as the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act 1903, under which the corporation is constituted, extends throughout the United Kingdom, while the scheme-making powers of the Charity Commission extend only to England and Wales. We have therefore agreed that the Bill can provide for the legislative changes required. Further details are in the explanatory notes, for all those hon. Members who will be fascinated to study them.
  In conclusion, the new schemes are designed to be fairer, to reflect modern practice and to meet the needs of the armed forces in the 21st century. They offer a high level of assurance for service personnel and their families. They were born out of a wide-ranging

  1497
  consultation exercise, in particular with existing personnel and with ex-service organisations, whose comments and concerns are widely reflected in the final schemes. The proposals have the confidence of the armed forces, with whom they have been closely developed. The consultation document was made available to all service personnel in hard copy and through the MOD website.
  At a time when pension schemes are under great pressure, we have maintained a defined benefits structure and the value of the retirement age benefits has been maintained or improved. In particular, responding to views both in the services and in the ex-service community, we have made major improvements to widows' and dependants' benefits. That is against the trend seen more widely in pension provision elsewhere. The unique role of the armed forces means that they deserve a high-quality pension scheme, and that is what we are providing, together with the knowledge that, if the worst happens, there will be generous financial support for their families. Service personnel can be assured that they are getting a very good package indeed. I am satisfied that such treatment is fully justified. I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.57 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I apologise to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have to the Secretary of State by letter, for the fact that, since the business managers moved this debate to today, an obligation prevents me from staying for the winding-up speeches; indeed, I have to leave very soon after I sit down. I thank the Secretary of State for being gracious in that respect.
  George Washington said:
  "You can judge a society by the way that it treats its veterans."
  The changes to the armed forces pension scheme will determine how we treat our veterans and their families for years to come. The arrangements that we establish now will set down the provision for those who have not yet even begun their military service, and they will have profound implications for those already serving, should they choose to transfer to the new scheme.
  The starting point of any armed forces pension scheme must of course be the unique nature of the armed forces themselves. I quote from an excellent letter in The Daily Telegraph yesterday from a gentleman in Scotland, which I thought was very well written:
  "All who join the armed forces do so in the knowledge that they may one day have to give their lives in the service of their country. There is an unwritten contract between the members of the armed forces and those of us on whose behalf they are prepared to make that sacrifice: we will only put them in life-threatening situations with extreme reluctance after all avenues have been exhausted and we will equip them with the tools to give them every chance to perform their duties and get out alive. We elect a Government in whom we entrust the maintenance of that contract."
  All that the members of the armed forces ask is that they and their families be treated fairly in return for the sacrifices that they make on our behalf.
  That unique situation has been recognised by successive Governments, including the present one, who rightly acknowledged it when they introduced the
  1498
  minimum wage. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the then Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry and the Minister responsible for the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, gave his reasons for making the armed forces exempt from its provisions:
  "I should emphasise that the exemption of the armed forces will not be a precedent for the treatment of any other group. The armed forces are unique in the demands that are placed on them and the diversity of duties that their members may be required to undertake at any time and for any period." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 February 1998; c. 779.]
  An introduction to military pay on the Ministry of Defence website states that
  "no civilian occupation can be directly compared to serving in the Army".
  That should continue to be reflected in the make-up of the new armed forces pension scheme. Recent events have demonstrated the critical importance of ensuring that our armed forces are supplied with the best equipment and accorded the best conditions of service. After all, it is the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces who are the key to securing success in often dangerous military operations.
  That is the litmus test that we shall apply when assessing the adequacy of the Government's proposals to change the arrangements for the payment of service pensions and compensation to those injured as a result of their military service. Regrettably, the Government have failed to make a good start. Although they instigated a review following the publication of the strategic defence review, it was not until 2001 that a consultation document appeared. It was roundly condemned in a tour de force by the Defence Committee, to which the House is greatly indebted for its thorough, painstaking and professional work in a highly complex area, and whose deliberations I make no apology for quoting liberally. It took the Government another two years, until last September, before further proposals were published, and they, too, received a thorough going-over by the Select Committee.
  Our first objection to the Bill, and one of the Select Committee's principal indictments, is that it is an enabling measure, with much of the essential detail missing. As the Committee concluded, it is unreasonable to expect Parliament to agree enabling primary legislation without those details being available. In their response, the Government rather feebly pleaded that their September proposals provided a suitable basis for discussion, but they admitted that their plans to replace the immediate pension with a new statutory early departure scheme had not been finalised. The early departure scheme is not only a major change in armed forces pension schemes but is the principal source of the savings that the Government hope to make to fund improvements elsewhere. As the timetable for introducing the Bill was exclusively the Government's responsibility, there is no excuse whatever for bringing before Parliament a measure whose principal controversial ingredient is still the subject of negotiation with other Government Departments.
  The armed forces pension scheme, uniquely among pension schemes, has no independent governance, and its members do not have trade union representation. Instead, it is constructed and protected by primary legislation, or Act of Parliament. However, the

  1499
  Government are to strip the armed forces of even that protection, and are not going to introduce independent trustees. When they eventually complete negotiations on the final shape of the early departure scheme, its details, as the British Medical Association has pointed out in its helpful briefing, will be given in secondary legislation, which will not be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is simply an unacceptable state of affairs—the Government should have held the Bill back until that key issue and others were resolved.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and has just made a telling point. Is not a great deficiency of secondary legislation the fact that it cannot be amended? Measures as complicated and as important to servicemen and their families as the early departure scheme require detailed scrutiny and the provision for amendment that primary legislation alone provides.
  Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, particularly because, as the Secretary of State rightly acknowledged, this is a delicate and profoundly important matter for members of the armed forces.
  Mr. Hoon: Can the hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, if he believes that there is a principle missing from the Bill or, indeed, the detailed arrangements, does he acknowledge that it could be added by means of an amendment if he and his supporters feel strongly about the issue? Secondly, is he saying that if a beneficial change in the detailed provisions of pension arrangements is to be introduced—that regularly happens, as I have told the House—members of the armed forces should wait for primary legislation?
  Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman is leading with his chin. Members of the armed forces are used to waiting for almost everything—[Interruption.] I am going to answer the question. The Bill is an important measure. Given the time that we have had to wait for it, the missing details should have been included in a detailed appendix.
  Mr. Hoon: The Opposition should table amendments.
  Mr. Soames: We will do so, but if the Government are going to make a noise like a chicken, it is preferable that they lay an egg. We would like complete and detailed provisions.
  We do not intend to divide the House tonight, but we reserve our position and will judge the Government on any progress made in Committee. The Government have declared that the changes should be cost-neutral, so increased benefits can be paid to someone only if someone else has theirs reduced. We recognise the constraints on public expenditure, but the Government cannot proclaim that their motivation for introducing change is to produce a scheme commensurate with best practice elsewhere while at the same time cutting some existing benefits. The Defence Committee said of the initial consultation paper, in its first report published in May 2002:
  "It…fails to reflect modern best practice, standards or legitimate expectations of service personnel and their dependants."
  1500
  During interminable debate on this issue, the Ministry of Defence has effectively moved the goalposts by changing the actuarial assumptions on which everything is based. As the Defence Committee reported, the expected cost of the existing scheme to the Ministry in 30 to 40 years' time has been recalculated from 22 per cent. to 24.5 per cent. of pensionable salary. The new scheme will reduce the estimated cost to 22 per cent. However, if the original actuarial assumptions were applied to the new scheme, it would cost 20.3 per cent. of pensionable salary, so the total value of the new scheme is 1.7 per cent. less than the value of the current scheme, which flatly contradicts the Government's claim that any savings in one area would be used to enhance benefits elsewhere.
  Sir John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Government could give figures for the saving that they would make by quantifying the precise saving made by deferring the pension from 60 to 65?
  Mr. Soames: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to hear a speech from him this afternoon. On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate him on his richly deserved reward.
  The Government assert that under the new scheme service personnel will be able to earn a full career pension, within Inland Revenue limits, of 66.7 per cent. However, the Forces Pension Society, to which the House is indebted, has calculated that the vast majority of people will be able to accumulate a maximum of 62.5 per cent. at age 55. Indeed, only a few three-star generals will qualify for the higher figure. As the Select Committee said, it is at best disingenuous to structure a scheme well over 90 per cent. of whose members are debarred from earning a full career pension without buying additional voluntary contributions. Moreover, cost neutrality is a misleading term. Individual pensioners are being made to fund the cost of their increased life expectancy while the Treasury reaps the full benefit of the large reductions in numbers that will flow from the contraction of the armed forces.
  The early departure scheme is intended to replace the immediate pension, and it is in that scheme that the biggest cost savings will be secured—about £100 million a year, according to some estimates. The new arrangement will produce less income for those departing at age 40, and they will have to wait until they are 65 before their preserved pensions become payable, whereas under the current scheme they are payable at 60. It is important to understand that like the immediate pension, the early departure scheme will be a manning tool, principally for the benefit of the MOD, which needs to shed men at 40, particularly in the infantry, where physical fitness is crucial. The arrangement recognises that for many of those forced to retire from military service, the prospects of establishing themselves in a new career are more limited, at a time when family responsibilities are at their peak.
  Mr. Brazier: The other huge disadvantage faced by those leaving the Army is that most of them do not own houses, and house prices are colossal. The one

  1501
  opportunity they have to make up some of that difference is by commuting a large part of the immediate pension.
  Mr. Soames: That is an extremely good point, which I am sure my hon. Friend will enlarge on when he speaks. I thank him for all he does for the armed forces and for the wary eye that he keeps on their welfare and benefits.
  To make the point more emphatically, the House should bear it in mind that some have put estimates of ex-servicemen among London's homeless as high as 20 per cent. Equally, for those with readily transferable skills, such as signallers, RAF pilots, aviation engineers and other technicians and highly trained service personnel, who are likely to be lured away prematurely by the private sector, the IP and its attendant lump sum payment provide an incentive to stay on.
  The Defence Committee estimated that even assuming an inflation rate as low as 3 per cent., the value of the EDS payments by the age of 65—the new point at which the ex-servicemen's preserved pension is payable—will have halved. The new arrangements will be inferior to those applied to the police and the fire services, whose members will receive a proper index-linked pension at 55. What will the Government do to address the issue?
  We must also be told what effect the removal of the EDS from the pension rules is likely to have. We were told by the Treasury in a parliamentary answer that the EDS will not be subject to national insurance contributions, but what guarantee is there that the Government will not change the rate or make other changes without consulting Parliament? An immediate pension is a pension enjoying all the special protections associated with pension funds. Our fear is that the EDS is neither fish nor fowl.
  The £100 million cut in the cost of the IP will clearly help pay for some of the improvements that we warmly welcome. Those include improvements in benefits for widows and dependants, particularly the increase in dependants' pensions from 25 per cent. to 33 per cent., and the death-in-service benefit, which will increase from the current 1.5 times salary to four times salary, bringing that benefit more into line with best practice elsewhere and reflecting the unique commitment that servicemen give to our country.
  We welcome the proposal to abolish the distinction between a widow whose husband's death was attributable to military service, and a widow whose husband's death was not attributable. In future, both groups will retain their pensions in the event that they marry or cohabit. That is an important step. However, the so-called unattributable widows whose husbands have already died, together with those whose husbands die before the new scheme comes in, will not qualify.
  To that group of disadvantaged people, add one other distinguished group of pensioners wholly ignored by the Government—the widows of those who died before 1973, arguably some of the most deserving, since it was the husbands of many of them who helped preserve the freedom of these islands during the second world war. As things stand, they receive a pension worth one third
  1502
  of their late husband's pension, whereas those whose husbands died after 1973 receive half. Under the new scheme, future widows will receive 62.5 per cent.
  John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman refers to 1973. After that, there were 18 years of Tory Government. Perhaps he can tell me what he did to solve the problem.
  Mr. Soames: That is not the point that I was making, but it is a valid point. Those people have not been treated as well as they should have been. In addition, those who married retired servicemen who left the forces before 1978 receive no widow's pension. They will see that they have been overlooked, particularly in favour of unmarried partners.
  The extension of benefits to unmarried partners is a contentious issue that understandably arouses strong passions on both sides of the argument. [Interruption.] I could tell that the Secretary of State was referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). I thought he might wish to speak.
  We accept that the armed forces must have regard to social conditions prevailing in the wider society that they serve and from which they recruit. Nevertheless, as appears to be agreed across the Floor of the House, the armed forces are indeed different. We would argue that that difference—their commitment to a raft of values that is sadly not always apparent in the rest of society—results in the kind of stunningly successful military operations that we have just witnessed.
  We are alarmed that the principal reason advanced by Ministers for the changes is not that without them recruiting would dry up, but that they must be introduced to comply with something rather dismally called the Government's equality agenda. I warn Ministers that the elevation over military efficiency of some kind of Orwellian social engineering and political correctness will inflict lasting damage on our armed forces. This is not the only area. There are other areas where great concern is being expressed by senior officers about the increasing "risk-averse" difficulties becoming apparent in the armed forces, and the reluctance of people when training to react in the way that they normally would.
  Even now, the Government have failed to provide a comprehensive set of criteria by which servicemen and women living together will be deemed to qualify for the benefits available to married couples. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) at the Defence Committee evidential session just two months ago, the Under-Secretary said:
  "We are talking about substantial relationships; we need to work out exactly what that means".
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In his research for today's debate, I am sure he will have seen the memorandum that I submitted to the Defence Committee after my oral evidence, including Annex A, which details what the Ministry of Defence regards as a substantial relationship.
  Mr. Soames: I am about to come to that. For all those who had the opportunity to read it, it was a walk through the foothills of immortality.

  1503
  On 27 November 2003, the MOD submitted a draft Defence Council instruction setting out some of the proposed criteria, which the Under-Secretary has just drawn to the attention of the House. Unlike the Secretary of State, I am no lawyer, and in that regard I am disadvantaged in life, but even I can see that the opportunities would make a member of the right hon. Gentleman's profession salivate.
  When the Under-Secretary winds up, I trust that he will tell us what assessment has been made by the Ministry of the likelihood of litigation arising from those who are not considered to meet the criteria that are finally agreed. That is a matter of fundamental importance. I shall anxiously read in Hansard what the hon. Gentleman says about the matter. Furthermore, with respect, he needs to consider the knock-on effect his proposals on benefits will have on accommodation. That is a serious matter, which I know is giving rise to a great deal of thought in the Ministry of Defence, particularly among senior servicemen and commanders.
  The Government will not extend to those on the existing scheme certain benefits from the new scheme that it might have been reasonable to make available, such as the much increased death-in-service benefit. However, they are prepared to import into the current scheme some of the less favourable aspects of the new one. For example, in order to comply with the Government's new wider pension policy, under the new scheme, the age from which the preserved pension will become payable will be raised from 60 to 65, but this change will also be applied to those in the current scheme.
  Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for giving way during his entertaining speech. Given what he said about unmarried partners, can he specify the Conservative party's policy on the matter? If they can be properly defined, does the Conservative party support the payment of benefits to unmarried partners of either sex—same sex or not same sex—in accordance with the general principle outlined in the Bill?
  Mr. Soames: First, we would wish to see the definitions made clearer. Secondly, I am not prepared to engage in wider social policy outside my brief, but, as I said when I began this passage, we believe that the very exceptional nature of service life and the demands and ethos of service life may require that these matters are not as they may be elsewhere. I am not making a hard and fast judgement on that. We should very much like to see the definitions drawn up by the Government. I hope that that is clear.
  Mr. Keetch: Is that a yes or a no?
  Mr. Soames: I hope that it is completely clear. As it is, I am walking a tightrope between my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, to whom I defer on all these matters, and a number of others in my party.
  1504
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point. To be serious, there needs to be clarity on this matter on all sides. Until the Government lay down how they intend to handle this matter on a much wider scale, including in relation to housing, I shall reserve judgement.
  Mr. Keetch rose—
  Mr. Soames: I shall not give way. I have been trapped once, and I shall not be trapped again.
  In order to comply with the Government's new wider pension policy, under the new scheme the age from which the preserved pension will become payable will be raised from 60 to 65. This change will also be applied to those in the current scheme. What that will mean is that today's servicemen will be paid their preserved pension at age 60 for that part of their service which precedes the date of the introduction of the new scheme, but will have to wait until they are 65 before drawing that part of their pension attributable to their service after the changeover date.
  Those serving today will not be able to mix and match. They will have the simple choice of remaining within the existing scheme or switching to the new one. There is little doubt that any serviceman deciding to switch will enjoy reduced pension benefits but enhanced death-in-service and dependants' benefits. Where is a serviceman or woman to find advice about reaching this decision, which is very important both for them and for their spouse? Is the Ministry going to provide a new battalion of khaki independent financial advisers to be on hand to help? If not, will it provide an allowance to enable people to seek advice from the high street? Or will all those people just turn up at our surgeries?
  The changes to the compensation arrangements that the Government propose have caused particular controversy among the veterans community. We accept that the compensation scheme is in need of reform, and we welcome the opportunity to re-examine the arrangements.
  Since the Government came to power in 1997 the amounts paid by the Ministry of Defence in compensation claims have risen by a staggering 50 per cent. —£34 million—to £104 million. The war pensions and compensation schemes for the armed forces have always been generous and favourable towards the claimant, but the increases in the last three years alone suggest that even the armed forces are no longer immune from the compensation culture.
  Any new arrangements for armed forces compensation need to strike a balance between accepting the special nature of military service—and the unique exposure to risk which goes with the territory—and avoiding further concessions towards the very insidious compensation culture that is beginning to do our country such harm.
  Because of the heightened risks arising from military service and the high levels of physical fitness required, the compensation arrangements through the war pensions scheme have always been similarly generous. The standard of reasonable doubt that has traditionally been applied, and the absence of a time limit on claiming, reflected the exceptional nature of military

  1505
  service and resulted in many claims being granted which would have been unlikely to succeed in comparable public service schemes. Figures provided by the Royal British Legion for the claims made in 2002–03 suggest that under the new arrangements, with the introduction of the balance of probabilities and the five-year time limit, 60 per cent. of those claims would fail on those criteria.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making a very important point. But is it not the case that certain categories of military injury by their very nature will not emerge within five years? I am thinking of radiological accidents, for example. The pernicious effects of radiation overdoses often become apparent only after 10, 15 or 20 years. That is a very serious matter.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has experience in these matters. I shall come to that point.
  The unique generosity of the scheme has always been explicit. Changes to the scheme in the past through secondary legislation have always been in line with this acceptance. However, the Government stated in their consultation document:
  "This generosity means that war pensions are sometimes lawfully awarded for conditions only tenuously linked to service. This does not seem reasonable or in line with the practice in most modern schemes."
  The onus should continue to be on the Government to prove that service was not responsible for causing or worsening a condition for which a compensation claim is made. The standard of the balance of probabilities—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was making—taken together with the five-year limit, does not take account of the pressures of military service. Medical conditions resulting from military service can often take years to surface. By setting an arbitrary time scale of five years, the Government could prevent certain members of the armed forces from receiving their proper due.
  In its conclusions on the new compensation arrangements, the Select Committee suggested applying to compensation claims a test that might more fairly reflect the needs of the claimant, while achieving greater efficiency in dealing with these claims. The Committee said, at page 47 of its first report:
  "A possible solution might be to apply a double test to compensation cases to ensure that the burden of proof does not unfairly discriminate against service personnel. Under such a system, a claim for compensation would only fail where both: (a) the claimant is unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that a condition is due to service, and (b) the MoD is able to prove on the same standard of proof that the condition is not due to service. We have not assessed how this proposal would be implemented in practice, but believe that the MoD should seriously consider it in the light of the special circumstances of Armed Forces personnel."
  It is extremely disappointing that in their response to the Committee the Government have dismissed that reasonable compromise. Worse, they have prayed in aid, in paragraph 15, the fact that their proposition is
  "in line with the practice of other occupational pension schemes and the civil courts."
  1506
  Manifestly, that fails our litmus test, which is that the armed forces are not just another public service; they need to be treated differently.
  The setting of arbitrary tariffs for disabilities fails to take account of how injuries can affect different personnel in different ways. A minor eye injury may not have such an adverse effect on an infantry soldier as seriously to impede his career, but an airman suffering the same injury will certainly have his flying career ended. What assurances can the Secretary of State give the House that any system of tariffs in the new scheme will be flexible enough to take account of the differential nature of such injuries?
  I apologise for keeping the House for so long. We believe that the Government have failed to provide a Bill whose proposals are clearly laid out. Some of the essential detail remains to be worked out, with much work needing to be done in Committee. As the Secretary of State said, it is entirely down to us to table amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot will lead for us in the Committee, where we will explore some of our ideas and concerns in great detail by way of amendments. If we are not to seek to block the Bill's progress here and in another place, we shall need answers to some important questions that we shall seek to raise.
  Our armed forces have always served our country with enormous distinction. They and their families rightly look to us to protect their interests. That duty we fully intend to discharge.
  2.28 pm
  Rachel Squire: I begin by presenting the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who is unable to be present for the whole debate. As has already been said, the date of the debate was changed at short notice, which the House will appreciate made it very difficult for my right hon. Friend, in view of his commitments for today. However, he hopes to be able to join us before the end of the debate, when those commitments allow.
  On that basis, I have been given the honour of being asked to speak for the Defence Committee as a whole. I should, however, declare that I have a personal interest, in that I am the entirely voluntary honorary vice-president of the Dunfermline branch of the Royal British Legion Scotland.
  Mr. Soames: It is jolly lucky to have you.
  Rachel Squire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for such a compliment.
  As the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members recognise, the Defence Committee has a long-standing interest in armed forces pay and conditions, and we welcome the keen interest that has been shown in our report. Towards the end of the last Parliament, we conducted an in-depth inquiry into personnel issues, and our report on the Government's proposals was published in May 2002. We stated that we considered the proposals to be
  "at best inadequately thought-through and at worst fundamentally flawed".

  1507
  In December 2002, the Committee took evidence on legacy issues from the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and the report on the proposals that are before the House was published in December last year.
  The Committee welcomes certain aspects of the Bill and the proposed schemes. We welcome the modernisation of pension and compensation arrangements in the armed forces; the fact that officers and other ranks are to be put on an equal footing so that all will be able to start accruing a pension as soon as they enlist, at whatever age, and all will be able to claim early departure benefits at the same age and after the same period of service; the improved provision for widows and other dependants, especially where a service person has been killed in action, and the introduction of benefits for unmarried partners; the focus on compensation payments for the most severely injured and disabled; the setting up of an independent appeals system for contribution claims; and the guarantee of the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny of future schemes—albeit a very weak form of scrutiny.
  However, the Committee still sees problems with the proposed pension and compensation schemes, even after the Government's response to our report. On pensions, the proposals essentially amount to "making ends meet". We do not consider that that is what our highly valued and professional armed forces deserve. The Government have made no attempt to break out of the straitjacket of cost neutrality. The proposals are based not on what the forces deserve, but how much money they get at present. Apparently, no one has tried to assess whether what our armed forces get now is what they need and, indeed, deserve.
  Even worse, the level of benefit that our armed forces will get year on year is being reduced to compensate for the fact that they are expected to live longer. Although the forces have a low retirement age of 55, very few people actually serve to that age—no more than 10 per cent., almost all of whom are career officers. The remaining personnel—that is, 90 per cent. or more—will, under the new pension scheme, get their preserved pension five years later than they do now, at 65 instead of 60.
  We have already heard about the early departure payments that are replacing immediate pensions for those who stay on to about the age of 40. Those payments seem to have two purposes—first, to improve retention of skilled personnel, and secondly, to compensate those personnel for their reduced career prospects on leaving the armed forces. The Committee is concerned that we still do not know how that benefit will be structured, although I welcome the assurance that the Secretary of State gave earlier. The reason given for the delay was that it was necessary to rethink the immediate pension following the publication of the Inland Revenue's proposals for pensions tax simplification. We find that hard to accept, given that those proposals were published more than a year ago, in December 2002. It is unacceptable that the Government failed to publish details of their proposed early departure scheme before the debate. We know that the value of the payments will be less than before, but we do not know whether they will be protected from inflation.
  1508
  The Committee has questioned the Government's commitment to giving service personnel the benefits that they deserve. The Superannuation Act 1972, which legislates for most public service pensions, has written into it a requirement to consult, but there is no such requirement in the Bill. That may be because there is no one to consult, because service personnel have no specific organisation to represent them as employees. The Government's reply to the Committee's report states:
  "It has been long-established practice that the interests of Service personnel are represented through their chain of command, and in particular through the Personnel Staffs".
  With all due respect to the personnel staffs, they have their own interests to represent, and the Committee feels that there has been little evidence that the chain of command has sufficient regard for the interests of personnel who are towards the bottom of the chain.
  Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady is making a powerful and courageous speech. Highly professional as the personnel staffs are, they can have no further interest in a major or sergeant in his 40s who has come to the end of his service, because their interest always has to be in the next generation. Parliament has the duty to take account of those who have given the best part of their lives to serve in the armed forces.
  Rachel Squire: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I agree, and I am confident that the Defence Committee would agree, with his point.
  Personnel who serve a full career to the age of 55—career officers such as those at the top of the chain of command—will have excellent pension entitlements. However, benefits for personnel who serve for only a short time—the vast majority—are, in the words of the Government's own independent consultants, only "fair", and will "look increasingly less generous" in future. People do not generally think about pensions when they decide to join the armed forces, but that does not mean that their needs on retirement should be ignored, especially by Parliament.
  Not surprisingly, there is a very low level of interest in, and understanding of, pensions among those in the forces. The Committee admits that there has been a poor response to flawed consultations. However, that does not mean that consultation should be taken to be a waste of time, but that our forces personnel should be better educated about their entitlements. That underlines the need for a body that is truly representative of all ranks of personnel as employees.
  We proposed that a requirement to consult should be written into the Bill by making schemes that are made under it subject to super-affirmative procedure. The measure should provide for proper consultation with armed forces personnel in the same way as the Superannuation Act 1972 provides for proper consultation with other public servants. There is currently no such provision and the Committee would like to know the reason for that. We would like the Government to establish in law their duty to consult all armed forces personnel.
  The Committee agrees that although the scheme is non-contributory and unfunded, there will be no independent trustees to ensure that it is properly

  1509
  administered. Sadly, cases of maladministration of the existing schemes have recently come to light. Would not it be appropriate to ensure independent oversight of those who administer the new scheme?
  Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. In pension policy, independent trustees are usually appointed because there is a fund to manage. In the case that we are considering, there is no fund to be actively managed.
  Rachel Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for his point, but I re-emphasise the Committee's concern about the absence of information and consultation in all ranks, and of proper scrutiny and accountability when the new pension scheme is introduced.
  Hugh Robertson: When the hon. Lady is considering the Under-Secretary's point, will she also bear it in mind that the armed forces are unique in having no representative body such as a trade union that looks after their interests? They are a special case and even if they do not have a fund and therefore do not need trustees, they need a form of independent governance because nobody else looks after their interests. Surely that is the critical point.
  Rachel Squire: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When the Committee has been on visits and made an effort to talk to all ranks of armed forces personnel, we have been genuinely concerned by the lack of information about, and understanding of, the proposals.
  I do not want to take too much time because other hon. Members wish to speak, but I should like to deal with the compensation scheme. It exists to help service people who have suffered injury or illness through their work in the armed forces. It is an unusual but important benefit. Again, the Committee emphasises how few other jobs require employees routinely to put themselves in mortal danger.
  One of the main changes to the scheme is the method for deciding whether an injury has been caused by service. It is worth going over the points that have already been made. The Ministry of Defence currently has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an injury was not caused by service. Otherwise, a claim for compensation succeeds. The proposal would change that so that, in future, service people would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that their injury was caused by service. The Ministry of Defence claims that that
  "reflects wider good practice in modern compensation schemes".
  However, the Committee believes that it is only natural to be sceptical about a change that appears to make life easier for the Government and more difficult for claimants.
  The Committee is prepared to keep an open mind about whether the balance of probabilities is an appropriate standard of proof, but it is much less happy about the proposed change to the burden of proof. As the Committee's report states, armed forces personnel
  1510
  "are likely to be involved in situations of great uncertainty, with uncertain effects on their health".
  The Government have acknowledged that they have responsibilities to service personnel who make compensation claims. That is welcome.
  Mr. Brazier: I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for giving away again. Before she leaves that narrow point, I emphasise that there is an additional problem. The Royal British Legion and others asked for a unified veterans agency and suggested that it should be based in the Department for Work and Pensions. However, the whole mechanism, including medical records, is now being handled by the employer. In no other profession is all the relevant medical information held by one of the two parties.
  Rachel Squire: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Recent press reports have suggested, for example, the possible use of secret vaccines. The medical records of armed forces personnel, which they need to support a claim, are held by their employer. Under the circumstances, is it reasonable to ask personnel to show that their condition has been caused by service? What difficulties will they encounter if, through lack of information—for example, about secret medical records—they are unable to prove that their condition was caused by service?
  The Committee also raised anxieties about the proposed income streams under the compensation scheme; it describes them as "mechanistic." Injuries will affect different people's earning potential in different ways. Although the proposed income streams are supposed to compensate personnel for loss of earnings, they are related to specific injuries rather than the calculation of an individual's loss of earnings. For example, someone who suffers the loss of one eye will receive 50 per cent. of their salary as an income stream under the compensation scheme, whatever the effect on earning potential. However, someone who suffers from two frozen shoulders, with significant continuing disability, will receive no income stream.
  The Government told the Committee that a more flexible approach, linked to an assessment of loss of earnings
  "would not be appropriate to a no-fault scheme where the aim is to deliver consistent, fair and reasonable outcomes, within a reasonable timescale and cost-effectively and which can be reasonably understood and administered."
  Yet that is precisely the approach that the Government already take to ill health benefits under the pension scheme. If it is appropriate under the pension scheme, why not under the compensation scheme?
  The Committee feels strongly that communications with personnel remain unsatisfactory. It described the original reviews as
  "dogged by delay and incompetence"
  and the consultation documents as "weak and uninformative". It remains concerned that the Government do not take communications with service personnel seriously enough. In their response to the Committee's most recent report, the Government acknowledge that there were "shortcomings" in the consultation process, from which lessons needed to be

  1511
  learned. However, in the next breath, they rejected one of the Committee's recommendations on the basis that they do
  "not accept that there has been inadequate consultation".
  In the Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice", which was published in December 2002, the Government undertook to
  "consult on how and to what timescale the higher pension age and any associated benefits could be extended to existing employees".
  The Government intend to raise the preserved pension age to 65 for existing armed forces personnel for future service. However, they have notably failed to consult them about
  "how and to what timescale"
  that will happen. The Committee makes that point strongly in its report. We believe that the Government appear to be trying to back out of the undertaking, which has implications for all public servants, that they made in December 2002.
  The time scale for the implementation of the new schemes is very short, and service personnel will have to make a complex choice between the existing pension scheme and the new one introduced by the Bill by April 2007 at the latest. We hope that the Government will produce individual benefit statements to enable service personnel to make that choice, but at the moment they do not seem to have the computer systems that can produce such statements, nor do they know when they will have such systems. The Government do not know how to target individual personnel reliably to make sure that they are aware of the choice that they have to make, and that they are informed enough to make it.
  I apologise for the length at which I have spoken, but the Defence Committee has given a great deal of time and priority to this matter, and will continue to do so. In conclusion, although we in the Committee feel that the Government's proposals are better than those which we first examined early in 2002, we are still not happy with the overall structure in which the schemes have been conceived. We are very unhappy indeed that details of the early departure scheme, which we felt should have been available for this debate, are still not available. We are worried about the implementation of the schemes and about the fact that, after numerous delays, we are now working to a tight parliamentary time scale.
  The Committee's comments on the schemes are intended to be constructive. It is important that the schemes that are introduced work, and are seen to do so. The armed forces devote intense commitment, and sheer energy of work, to protecting their country, and they should receive pension and compensation benefits that match the importance of what they do. The Government do not seem to have considered what the armed forces deserve and, bluntly, the Committee believes that the current proposals fall far short of that.
  2.52 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), and I thank the Defence Committee, through her, for its tremendous work. My party shares many of the concerns that she quite properly raised. I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee we will be able to do justice to all the
  1512
  concerns that the Defence Committee has so thoroughly investigated, and that in Standing Committee we will be able to argue equally forcefully for the changes needed to improve pension and compensation arrangements.
  We all acknowledge the tremendous contribution that our armed forces have made over many years, not least in the past year or so. They deserve pension and compensation arrangements that demonstrate the House's commitment to them, just as they demonstrate commitment to their country. Overall, we welcome the main substance of the proposals, including the increase in death-in-service benefit and the extension of dependence benefit to unmarried partners. However, I, too have concerns about quartering arrangements. I live in a constituency that is very close to the naval establishment at Devonport and have often seen emergency housing requirements caused by the splitting up of marriages of armed forces personnel. That places tremendous pressure on the local authorities. There must be a clear system, and the Bill may trigger the development of one by the Government.
  The proposals aim to bring armed forces pensions into line with other public sector pensions, which is long overdue, but they do not go far enough. Many examples of their shortcomings have been given this afternoon, not least of which is the inability to reach the two-thirds target. There are ways in which that could be achieved, but the Ministry of Defence feels that it is not important enough to include it in the Bill. That may affect only a small number of people, but it is an important aspect of these pensions if we want to make them comparable to other public sector pensions.
  Recruitment has been mentioned. I accept that quite a lot of young people, when they enter the armed forces, or employment generally, do not immediately look at their likely pension arrangements, but far more young people are doing that today than when I first went out to work 30 or 40 years ago. Young people going through HMS Raleigh in my constituency might not immediately look at what they will be paid under that part of their benefits, but far more are now aware of pension arrangements, not least because pensions are much more newsworthy, and some of those young people may have seen their parents suffer from poor pension arrangements. We ought not to ignore the fact that pension arrangements will have at least some effect on those who want to join the armed forces.
  I was quite surprised to learn that there has not been a full review of the pensions and compensation scheme for 30 years, which seems an extraordinarily long time, although I recognise that there have been changes during that period. In 1973, armed forces pensions were very much in the top slice of public sector pensions—among the very best. During that 30-year period, however, it is clear that they have slipped considerably towards the bottom of the scale. That must be because of an inability to keep pension provisions constantly under review.
  I want to couple to that matter the availability of financial advice, which has already been raised this afternoon. I suspect that 30-odd years ago, although perhaps no one considered them very much, pensions were much more simple—an obvious benefit in a remuneration package. Today, with the complexities of tax and pension arrangements generally, almost everyone, even if they have a reasonable understanding

  1513
  of financial matters, requires independent financial advice. We have seen the mis-selling of pensions only too recently.
  The MOD owes a duty of care and responsibility to its employees to provide some means by which they can have independent financial advice. There are various ways in which that can be done. I hope that we can explore some of those in Committee, and that the MOD will realise that that must be part of what it offers its employees. After all, some of them will be taking decisions on their pension arrangements that could significantly benefit their later lifestyles. Independent advice should be available to them during that year or so of important decision making, especially bearing in mind that they do not have the same sort of representation as many other groups.
  Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about financial advice. He will be familiar with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and the fact that neither the Ministry of Defence nor any member of our chain of command is licensed to give independent financial advice. It is important for the whole House to understand and accept that. I accept his point that we could think about that in further detail, but I want to make it clear that the choice of whether to transfer to the new scheme after April 2005 is an individual one, for individual members of our armed forces to take.
  Mr. Breed: I thank the Minister, who is absolutely right. We should make it clear that people have to be properly qualified and authorised to give financial advice, but it would not be beyond the wit of the MOD to authorise half a dozen or 10 well known and authorised independent financial advisers whom servicemen could approach for the financial advice that they need. Rather than saying to them that they are all on their own and must undertake their own reviews, we should acknowledge that they need a bit of help. Of course in the end it is their decision, but they need access to such advice because it is so important for their later lives.
  Reference has also been made to the fact that the Bill is enabling legislation. I must admit that when I first received the Bill and started to read through it, I became alarmed about what we were going to debate, because all the meat is in the adjoining papers. The whole issue of enabling legislation concerns me, and several other Members present. It appears in so many Bills, with the possibility of changes being made through the statutory instrument process. I understand why that is so—clearly, as the Minister has explained, there will be changes—but bearing in mind the fact that we have not had a review for 30 years, and given the process that has gone on, the enabling legislation is deficient. I recognise the difficulty of having to make small changes in primary legislation, but surely a way can be found. For instance, a mandatory review could take place periodically—every 10 years, say—so that there was a clear intention to introduce new primary legislation to refresh such measures properly.
  We might also consider setting up some kind of independent review body. We have independent bodies for reviewing pay, so why should we not have an
  1514
  independent body for a pension review? That might be another means of providing oversight. At present, the Defence Committee appears to be performing that task admirably, but that it is not necessarily its raison d'être.
  Sir John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable point. That is what happens elsewhere, including in this place. The review of Members' pay includes a review of their pensions. The Senior Salaries Review Body performs both those functions.
  Mr. Breed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I, too, add my congratulations to him on his knighthood?
  There are ways in which we can consider this matter, and perhaps an independent review body and a mandatory review might elevate the importance of these issues and prevent them from being consigned to the statutory instrument process. There are no trustees, as has been said. Trustees do not simply manage funds; in fact, most delegate that responsibility to somebody else. Trustees look after the interests of the beneficiaries of any pension scheme, to which their legal obligations precisely refer. As I said, management of a fund is often delegated to banks and investment managers, such as those that employed me before I came to this place.
  As for the questions of accountability in relation to the manning control scandal, which have been raised in the House from time to time, there are lessons to be learned. Pensions arrangements and the issue of cost neutrality have centred on that, and the notion of cost neutrality seems to run through the entirety of the proposals. It may be acceptable for an overall MOD budget to have some sort of cost neutrality. In the light of some of the incidents in Iraq recently, however, even that may be debatable. It might also be acceptable for the whole of remuneration policy-pay, benefits, pensions and the rest—to have some kind of cost neutrality. It seems extraordinary, however, to have a cost neutrality policy specifically within a pension fund or policy. Today, pensions are part of a total remuneration package. Anyone who enters employment considers all the benefits, bonuses and perks, and the pension, in the totality of their remuneration package. Perhaps the MOD would have been able to provide some of the additional benefits, and preserve some of the benefits that are currently available, had they considered the remuneration of the armed forces on a cost neutrality basis rather than concentrating on pensions alone. Effectively, that has meant that the costs of any new scheme to the Exchequer would have to be exactly the same as the costs that would have arisen under the old scheme. In anybody's language, it will be difficult to provide a modernised enhanced scheme while being saddled with that constraint.
  All pension schemes and all those who provide pensions will have to cope with increased longevity. That is not unique to the MOD. All pension funds are under that pressure, and the actuarial reports on many large public companies that have suddenly found a great hole in their pension schemes show that that is nothing new. Most of those companies have recognised that they must put in more money. They have done reasonably well in recent times, and most pension funds for larger companies must now receive greater contributions. The MOD, however, having recognised that longevity has

  1515
  caused greater cost pressures, has decided that it will not put in more money, but will try to keep the envelope the same and adjust the benefits within the scheme. That is not fair—that is the thrust of the issue that the Defence Committee has raised—and we will examine that closely in Committee.
  A great opportunity has been missed with this package, after 30 years and all the things that have happened in the past year or so. The increase in the age for preserved pensions from 60 to 65 has meant that the Government will save that additional five years of RPI-linked pension. That will be the result—they will not pay out during those five years. They may have to pay it out later if people live longer, but that savings exercise will take place in the early days. As for widows' and widowers' pensions for life, many will worry that the new scheme, although removing the distinction between attributable and non-attributable, will produce a small group of aggrieved people—non-attributable widows and widowers who will lose their benefit if they remarry or co-habit. It would have been easy to accommodate the relatively small number of people concerned, and the relatively small amount of money, had we not had that cost constraint.
  Other legacy issues that have been raised this afternoon could and should have been addressed, because the armed forces are a special case, and no real provision has been made for some of the past injustices that have come to light, which could have been dealt with. We have seen cases of Gulf war illness reported, including a couple in my constituency. We should note with deep suspicion the growing numbers of former soldiers who intend to sue the MOD for unfair dismissal over the abuse of manning control policies. Morale is bound to be affected. If there has been wide consultation, and if the armed forces generally have apparently been prepared to accept the proposals, I am somewhat surprised. There is some difference between that and what was heard from those whom the Defence Committee interviewed. I do not think that the proposals will be welcomed in a way that would show that many of our armed forces felt that they were receiving the pension and compensation payments that they deserve for their service.
  We must also remember that some people have been directly affected by the current pension and compensation arrangements. We particularly remember the widows of those who have fallen recently. When we praise our armed forces and take great pride in their exploits, professionalism and courage, and salute them in that way, we must also take responsibility for some of the failures that the Ministry of Defence has experienced in recent months. The failures as well as the successes are important, and we must put right some of the problems that have arisen through individual cases.
  I end with an analogy. As I said earlier, before I entered the House, I used to work in the financial industry. One of the jobs that I regularly had to do was to examine many public company annual reports—quite boring reading much of the time. The last few paragraphs of most annual reports often used to say something along the lines of, "We believe that our greatest asset is our staff." Great tribute was always paid to that, but when one examined further what the companies actually did to the staff—in respect of recruitment, retention and benefits—one wondered how much they really cared for them.
  1516
  We should adopt a similar approach in recognising that our armed forces are our greatest asset, but also ensure—in peace as well as war—that how we recruit and look after staff, how we provide for them and their families, and the benefits, compensation and pension schemes that we offer them, are all a demonstration of the value that we put on them as our greatest asset.
  I hope that this opportunity to legislate will—after some 30 years, and now that we are close to the end of the process—truly demonstrate that we believe that the armed forces are our greatest asset and that we are prepared to reward them throughout their service lives and beyond.
  3.12 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to speak in this important debate. There may not be many hon. Members who wish to participate or many people in the Press Gallery who are interested to hear us, but I nevertheless believe that our debate is exceptionally important because it signifies how we should treat members of our armed forces and respond to their particular needs.
  I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who rightly spoke about the importance of our armed forces. He was also right that we should not just patronise them by saying, "Aren't the armed forces wonderful?", but properly respect and respond to their needs.
  It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) speak about the Defence Committee. We are fortunate to have such a fine Select Committee. As I look around the Chamber, I see in their places members of that Committee both past and present. Between the time when I was first fortunate enough to serve on it and now, I have noted the incisive and practical way in which it deals with the important issues for the armed forces. Much detail in the Bill needs to be discussed—we cannot escape that—but I believe that the armed forces will be glad to know that they have such fantastic champions in the form of our Select Committee.
  I want to focus on another issue, which also demonstrates the importance of the enabling legislation. It is vital because it deals with the whole issue of equality. It is important to be able to say that we respond well to our armed forces, that we respect them and treat them as an important body, but we must also treat them with equal respect in relation to the rest of society. That is why the changes in the Bill are so crucial.
  The first issue of equality has not been tackled for far too many years: the pensions of officers and those of other ranks. To deal with that, we must understand how two people on roughly the same pay can, when they leave the armed forces, have vastly different pensions. That is insupportable. Whatever the rank of serving members of our armed forces, we must ensure that their pensions properly reflect the contributions that they make. The Bill does that and redresses the inequality very well.
  Another vital issue is the position of unmarried partners. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that the issue of same-sex partners aroused huge passions on both sides of the House. In fact, for the most part, on this side of the House it does not. Our

  1517
  passion is for making other hon. Members understand that our society has changed and moved on. It is vital for the whole House to recognise that. The last thing that we want is to appear not to be in touch with our communities. Frankly, it is fantastic that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence with responsibility for the armed forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) represents such an interesting constituency where there are partnerships of all sorts. It would be most incongruous if he opposed equality for same-sex partners. We must now accept as a society that people with a substantial partnership can contribute, pay their taxes and live decent lives. The House must accept and respect that, and I am pleased that the Bill does.
  The Select Committee rightly raised points of detail, but the Bill has many positive aspects, such as providing much better compensation for the severely disabled. If the Government are in power for anything, it has to be for fairness. We could debate how long it has taken to reach this point and how many people have been able to contribute actively to ensuring that the proposals are supportable, but the Bill does tackle the issue of fairness. It ensures that those who are most in need will get the best benefits. Surely that is what everyone wants from a pension scheme.
  Mr. Brazier: I greatly enjoyed serving on the Defence Committee with the hon. Lady for many years. She said that those who were most in need would get the best benefits, but the vast majority of those most in need are people who, after devoting the best part of their lives to the armed forces over many years of service, leave in their 40s. They will now have to wait until they are 65 before they receive a full pension. That is a 10-year step backwards.
  Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as he made a point that I would like to tackle. I have the feeling that he will not support what I am about to say. I believe that age is not a disability. Age is not a reason for someone to say that it is time to leave the armed forces. I have fought for equality and fairness for most of my adult life, and part of that involves ensuring that people who are getting older can play their part in society. I know that many members of the armed forces, who played their part extremely well, expected to leave at an early stage. However, life has changed and it continues to change. We should not continue to support people just because they are able to leave.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Lady is making an interesting point, but does she understand that it does not make economic sense to many employers to take on someone who has spent more than 30 years in the armed forces in an activity that might not be very marketable in today's highly competitive commercially oriented society? The person concerned may find it incredibly difficult to find an appropriate job after many years' devoted service in the armed forces; he may not find it possible to find a job at all. At the very least, that person should receive a proper pension from the age of 55. That is the least that our society owes him.
  Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but we are talking about people who leave
  1518
  the armed forces at the age of 40. We expect them to go into a second career, and they are well able to do so. Not only have they contributed extremely well to the armed forces, but the armed forces have also given them the ability to be able to work in a second career. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) may tell of people whom he knows—and certainly there are people whom I know—who have gone into second careers in the police force immediately after leaving the armed forces. I expect that to happen. It is a natural progression for someone who has given a large part of their adult life to the armed forces.
  The proposal is fair. If I were to lose my seat at the next general election, I would not expect to be able to take my pension at 50 or 55. Society is moving to the point where a person aged 40 or 50 today is not the same as someone of that age 20 years ago. Society is different and we need to reflect that point in the way in which the House deals with the armed forces.
  There are many benefits in the Bill for members of the armed forces. The death-in-service proposals that are worth four times pensionable pay are incredibly important. The proposals cover the points that have been raised in the House. They are designed to ensure that when something dreadful happens, people are left in a fit state and have time to get their lives together and go back out into the community. If a member of the armed forces dies, money is vital to the loved ones who remain so that they have time to reintegrate into society and get back on their feet.
  The scheme contains many other advantages that are well worth supporting. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex say that that the Opposition were not minded to divide the House at this point. There are plenty of ways of dealing with the details that have been rightly referred to by members of the Select Committee. There is choice, and it is important that we understand that.
  Mr. Brazier: The whole point of the Select Committee report, which was so well worked out, is that the details of the key issues have not been published. When the detail is published, it will be pushed through by statutory instrument.
  Laura Moffatt: The hon. Gentleman obviously sees a risk in the way that the Bill will progress, but I do not see the issue in those terms. It was vital to get out the general plan on how the pension scheme was to be run and to put it through. The Select Committee may not agree with that, but it is a reasonable way to take the Bill forward.
  It is important to widen recruitment into the armed forces. The pension scheme will make the armed forces more attractive to people who may not be formally married but who have been in a substantial partnership for many years—whether as part of a heterosexual or a gay couple. It can be nothing other than of benefit to the armed forces if they more fully reflect our society and we can widen participation in them. The message of the new pension scheme reflecting society is crucial. The House should support it.

  1519
  There has been much debate about the early departure scheme, and I understand the difficulties involved. However, we can deal with those difficulties. I was interested to hear the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson—
  Mr. Wilkinson: Spokesman.
  Laura Moffatt: No, spokesperson. If I have an opportunity to correct the hon. Gentleman's language later, I might do so.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to homelessness and the armed forces, and none of us would argue that people leaving the armed forces do not face difficulties. I suspect that none of the homeless were once officers in the armed forces; I would be extremely surprised if they were. Therefore, ensuring that pension provision is fair for both officers and those in other ranks must help with the problems faced by those who find it difficult to become settled and who might now be dealt a blow by a pension scheme that does not properly reflect their needs.
  Hugh Robertson: I bit my tongue the first time the hon. Lady started off down that track but I cannot contain myself any longer. She has not explained how one can remove inequality in a system based on rank. I entirely support the Bill's laudable, perfectly correct and reasonable attempt to remove the distinctions between officers and other ranks—but one has to accept that all three armed forces are based on rank. Officers have very different responsibilities from soldiers, so equality will never come to pass. They are different creatures.
  Laura Moffatt: The Bill clearly demonstrates that the proposed pension scheme draws no distinction but will ensure that people are properly rewarded. The Bill gives non-officers an important indication that they are valued. I accept that there are all sorts of ranks. My background is in the national health service, which is riddled with hierarchy. The Bill responds to those who fear that members of the armed forces would be dealt a worse blow if the existing pension scheme were to continue.
  As to the true cost of the Bill, if the House fails to do anything about pensions, that will be to the detriment of the armed forces, who would be left thinking that the House did not understand their new needs and place in our communities and in the different world in which they have to respond. Of course our armed forces are special. We shall always support them. Not a week goes by without the House complimenting our armed forces, and rightly so. But we must back our support with this important legislation.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish that you had been in the Chair to hear the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). His speech was refreshing, rumbustious and big-hearted, and demonstrated a commitment to the armed forces that was not replicated by the Secretary of State, whose performance was somewhat absent-minded. It almost seemed as though he was preoccupied with matters
  1520
  elsewhere. That is a pity because our armed forces deserve better than this Bill, which is genuinely half-baked. We are asked to take many of its provisions on trust because they have not yet been spelt out; I refer in particular to the early departure compensation scheme, about which I shall speak later.
  Mr. Caplin: Had the hon. Gentleman read the two extensive framework documents that accompany the pension and compensation schemes before making that accusation?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No, I have not read them but I am still happy to make the accusation, because the Secretary of State was not able to clarify from the Dispatch Box the pertinent questions put by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) has made a distinguished contribution to defence matters, as a graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and having given long service on the North Atlantic Assembly and on the Defence Committee. The hon. Lady's speech came from someone who knows what she is talking about and cares. It was in a sense based on a Defence Committee brief, but she put her own gloss on it, whereas the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) read from the Labour Whips' brief. Her speech was full of woolly thinking and over-optimistic expectations and showed little clarity or understanding of the demands that the armed forces place on those who serve in them.
  The Bill is said to be cost-neutral but I do not see how that can be, unless the measure is predicated on a steadily declining number of members of the armed forces over time, an inappropriate early departure compensation scheme and making pensions drawable at age 65—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) so eloquently referred.
  One aspect of the early departure compensation scheme has not been fully taken on board. A full career for other ranks is 22 years, which means that people serve up to the age of 40 or thereabouts. By then, they are mature and usually senior non-commissioned officers, able to give junior personnel the full benefit of their accumulated experience. It is entirely right that they should serve for 22 years, because the understanding, experience and authority that they acquire in that time are crucial for the maintenance of discipline. Senior NCOs set the example for other personnel: they are the backbone of our armed forces, and contribute greatly to discipline, motivation and fighting effectiveness. If those NCOs are to leave after 18 years' service, those qualities will not be available to the same extent.
  Moreover, the Government have given no assurance that the income stream to be derived after 18 years' service, once the gratuity upon leaving has been received, will compensate people for rises in the cost of living. That is a serious matter, and I know that the Government are seeking to make savings in this area.
  I imagine that the Government may also have savings in mind with their proposal to limit to five years the period during which compensation claims can be made. I intervened in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex to point out the sad fact that radiological illnesses often take a number of years to

  1521
  develop. Cancers and other illnesses can become evident after 10, 15 or 20 years, and that is why it is entirely wrong that claims should be limited to a five-year period after an injury has been sustained. Similarly, the high-tone deafness suffered by people who have worked in close proximity to aircraft or artillery and so on can take a long time to develop, as can the various pathological conditions arising from severe shock or trauma. Mental illnesses can develop as a result of war experiences and unpleasant combat conditions, and certain other illnesses arise from tropical infections suffered in the course of service. In both cases, the most dire manifestations can become evident after a long period of time. It is therefore most inequitable for the Government to insist on the proposed five-year compensation period.
  On the subject of equity, I hope that the Government will think again about their proposals on unmarried partner benefits. The Minister and I have exchanged letters on this matter, as I am genuinely concerned about allowing unmarried partners—and especially those in single-sex relationships—to enjoy the same eligibility for benefits as genuine spouses. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex was right to say that lawyers will be salivating at the prospect of the claims that will be lodged in disputes about benefits eligibility, especially in respect of single-sex partners.
  However, the Minister has injected some clarity into this debate. On 16 December 2003, he replied to me on the subject of unmarried partner benefits, stating:
  "Eligibility will initially be assessed on a case-by-case basis against a range of criteria that would include such factors as: children dependent on both partners, financial dependence or interdependence, shared commitments such as a mortgage, prime beneficiary of respective wills, shared accommodation and no legal spouse (on either side). Decision of eligibility will be based on a broad assessment of the substance of the relationship. Not all of these criteria would need to be met for entitlement to exist except no legal spouse on either side."
  My interpretation of the Minister's letter is that the Government will seek to be as generous as they can.
  Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No, I will not.
  That implicit generosity will cause a problem because it will encourage individuals, particularly those in single-sex partnerships, to lodge applications. We all know that single-sex partnerships tend to be more transient than marriages and, of course, are often more transient than ordinary partnerships where there are children—for example, when a trooper from the Special Air Service regiment was tragically killed in Sierra Leone, the Ministry of Defence rightly offered compensation to his bereaved partner who had to bring up their child. I am worried about this matter and think that the Government will give the impression that they like the kind of society that does not put marriage and the value of marriage at the heart of the values that it tries to inculcate in the armed forces.
  Labour Members say that the armed forces must reflect society as a whole; I disagree. The armed forces must demonstrate a quality of life, commitment and values that exceed those in society as a whole. They are
  1522
  required to make sacrifices of an order that most of us do not comprehend. Not only must they be prepared to give their lives in circumstances of which they may not individually approve, but they must sustain the separations of service and endure pains and traumas that ordinary civilians, mercifully, do not normally have to put up with. For those reasons, service personnel must be loyal to the group as a whole and have a degree of selfless commitment which is normally best demonstrated in society as a whole by a loving marriage. That is why I believe that the provisions are dangerous for our society in the long term.
  Members of our armed forces who are traditional in their orientation may become alienated from the society that they are called upon to defend, and that may diminish their morale. I have seen letters from individuals in the armed forces, whom I much admire by virtue of their dedication, knowledge, expertise and the service that they have given to their country, who are particularly vexed by the idea that married quarters should be given to single-sex partners, and I agree with them.
  I have said my piece, but I have one final observation. Clause 10 allows the Government easily to make adjustments by statutory instrument after one and a half hours of debate under the negative procedure. The Government know that the power in clause 10 is wide-ranging. Subsection (2) states that statutory instruments may be used
  "for giving full effect to any provision of this Act."
  Subsection (3) states:
  "The provision which may be made under subsection (2) includes provision amending or repealing any enactment".
  It is about time that this Labour Government put right the injustice that was perpetrated by the Labour Government in the 1970s—the pension trough. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who gives such distinguished service both on the Select Committee and on the Front Bench and who shows real commitment to the armed forces, has pointed out in parliamentary questions that, because the Chancellor of the day insisted that service pay should be kept down while inflation was rip-roaring away, many categories of people were paid artificially low pensions in the '70s. That injustice has never been rectified.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No. I am coming to the end of my speech.
  In my judgment—
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I will not give way.
  It is about time that Her Majesty's Government rectified that injustice, and I hope that they will use a statutory instrument to that effect.
  3.45 pm
  John Robertson: I speak as an inexperienced Member of the House who is, furthermore, not a member of the Defence Committee. Although I am a lay person, I can speak with a little

  1523
  knowledge of the armed forces as in June last year I had the opportunity and the honour of visiting Basra with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We saw at first hand the excellent work of our soldiers who were assisting the local population to rebuild their country and civil society after decades of misrule under Saddam. Everyone who took part in that visit returned united in our admiration for the British troops we met.
  It is with those troops in mind that I, and, I am sure, other hon. Members, approach the Bill. We have a political responsibility to scrutinise Bills carefully, but when considering legislation that will have an impact on the men and women of our armed forces, who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, we have an even greater moral responsibility to do our best for their welfare. In that respect, there is much in the Bill of which we can be proud.
  The provisions fit broadly into the socially progressive nature of the Government's legislative programme and I shall focus on that theme. I have some concerns that should be addressed in Committee, and I shall seek reassurances about them from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  The Bill is rooted in the values of fairness and equality that underpin so much of the Government's approach. It improves benefits for dependants; for example, widows' pensions will be increased by 25 per cent., compared with the current scheme, and will be awarded for life. The death-in-service benefit will be four times pensionable pay and there will be provision for registered unmarried partners, including same-sex partners. I wholly agree with that. I am pleased about those provisions, as I have in the past made representations on behalf of constituents whose late partners had served in the forces but, because they had not married, were denied the support to which I firmly believe they were entitled. Widows and widowers in similar circumstances in the future will receive the thanks of a grateful nation.
  The severely disabled will also receive better compensation, with lump sum payments available for pain and suffering resulting from injury. The guaranteed income stream will be awarded for more serious injuries where there is a loss of earning capacity. I have only two concerns on that point. First, who will make the decision to award the guaranteed income stream? Secondly, how can we ensure that the process is even-handed? I do not want it to give rise to the sort of complaints that I often receive from people with disabilities. They visit my advice surgeries to ask me to intervene on their behalf so that they can be treated properly by a more sympathetic doctor than the one who originally dealt with their case. In some cases, the doctor does not even examine the patients, but merely talks to them across the desk.
  Also to be welcomed is the introduction of common treatment for officers and other ranks. They will now serve the same number of years for a full career pension at the age of 55, with an even accrual rate.
  These measures are therefore internally consistent with the contribution to the Government's commitment to modern, fair and progressive policies. They are also consistent externally with the principles behind other Bills in the Queen's Speech. The provision for unmarried partners reflects that in the proposed civil partnership Bill. Both Bills show Labour's commitment
  1524
  to promoting equality and diversity and to challenging unjustified discrimination wherever it exists—something that we heard in the previous speech. Likewise, the commitment to providing security in retirement is reflected in the proposed pensions Bill, which will provide greater protection for those in company pension schemes. The Bill should not be examined in isolation, but seen in the context of a wider agenda of social justice and fairness demonstrated throughout the Government's legislative programme, forming an holistic approach.
  Some of the criticisms of the Bill made by Opposition Members are unjustified. Yes, the proposals are designed to be cost-neutral, but that is not evidence of penny pinching by the Government. After all, in 2002 the spending review put in place the largest increase in defence spending for more than 20 years. Defence resources are growing by 1.2 per cent. a year in real terms in the three years until 2005–06. That is a great contrast to the record under the Tories. Following their defence review, UK regular forces fell by 60,000 between 1992 and 1995, including 32,000 redundancies.
  Hugh Robertson: We have heard that one at almost every debate since I first entered the House two and a half years ago. I was adjutant to a main battle tank regiment during that exact period. I lived through it. It was the end of the cold war and armies throughout western Europe were decreasing dramatically. Labour Members were pushing the Government hard to make bigger decreases than the Conservative Government made. Everyone was talking about a new world order and a peace dividend. That is the reason for the decrease—the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well—and it would be a very good idea if hon. Members on both sides of the House recognised that and stopped trying to make silly party political points.
  John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the fact is that what I am saying is true. Some 60,000 people were made redundant, in effect, and defence cost studies led to a further loss of 22,500 military personnel from 1995 to 1997. The Tories neglected the armed forces, and Labour is supporting them.
  Some issues, however, need to be considered in greater detail, and it is especially important that the House does so because the armed forces are not unionised, so they lack one of the major forums for consultation and representation that could usually be used. Several concerns have already been outlined by the Defence Committee, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) for her input—she certainly hit the button. Hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that certain things have to be considered, and my hon. Friend put them in context. I would be grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if he were to comment on those points.
  I am concerned about the decision to raise the preserved pension age—the age until which those who leave before the normal retirement age have to wait before they receive their preserved pension. That is of greater significance for members of the armed forces than for people in other public services, simply because the majority of service personnel retire considerably

  1525
  earlier. In keeping with the principles that I outlined earlier, which the Bill generally upholds, I hope that that point will be considered in greater detail in Committee.
  Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend makes several important and interesting points, especially about the progress of members of our armed forces who leave service early and go on to future jobs and careers. He might be interested to know that recent evidence shows that about nine out of 10 find good employment within six months of leaving.
  John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Having met some of these soldiers, it does not surprise me that they get employment—I am only surprised that the figure is just nine out of 10.
  I would like to hear the Minister's comments on the structure of the compensation scheme. The Royal British Legion, of which I am also a member, has expressed concern about several elements of the revised compensation package, especially the five-year limit for claims and the change to the burden of proof. It says that imposing a five-year limit on compensation claims would have a substantial negative effect on the ex-service community. Many other hon. Members have said that, so it would be right for the Government to revisit the time scale. Five years is not a long time, especially when we consider the conflicts in which we have put our soldiers, airmen and Navy personnel on the front line.
  The legion's pensions department organised an awareness campaign between 1994 and 1996 that resulted in 150,000 new pension awards. The majority of the claims for injuries and medical conditions were outside the scope of any five-year limit, so hon. Members will understand why the legion wants us to reconsider the time scale. I want to put down statements about our armed forces personnel becoming conscious of suing the Government. The legion helps them to get money that they richly deserve, so we cannot say that they are a compensation-oriented group of people. It is important that we take account of real concerns felt by ex-servicemen and women, and I hope that the Minister will shed further light on the rationale behind the Government's approach.
  The substitution of a balance of probabilities test for a test of reasonable doubt to determine whether an injury or illness is service related will make it much less likely that a claimant will receive a war pension.
  Mr. Breed: Does the hon. Gentleman share my worry that given the movement of the burden of proof from the Ministry of Defence to the claimant, and the extraordinary rise of the so-called expert witness—and the cost of such witnesses—people will find it extremely difficult to get to even first base in a disputed claim unless they have substantial funds, access to legal aid or other support?
  John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We must consider cost, and I suspect that bodies such as the Royal British Legion may come into their own in such circumstances. I agree with the sentiment
  1526
  behind his question. Can we reasonably expect ex-servicemen and women to provide extensive proof that an injury that occurred several years previously was due to their service? I dislocated my shoulder while playing cricket years ago. If I were a solider who had suffered that injury, I would have to prove that I did it as a soldier, which is unreasonable.
  It is unfortunate that several interested parties were given the impression that the change was a result of financial imperatives. I do not believe that, but the new scheme should not automatically follow modern practice, such as the way in which the civil courts reach evidence-based decisions using a balance of probability as standard proof. Our armed forces give exceptional service in exceptional circumstances and they deserve exceptional support.
  I shall address several hon. Members' comments because some were good and others have given rise to questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about transfers to the new pension scheme. The scheme starts in 2005 and people would be able to transfer in by 2007. What will happen to people who have X number of years in the existing system and want to transfer into the new one? Will they be able to buy years in the new scheme, or will they end up with two different pensions? Having read the explanatory notes, I am not sure of the position.
  I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not here because I really enjoyed his speech. I do not have a question about it and I do not want to quote him; I just want to say that it was highly entertaining. When he overheard something that I said and gave way to me, I thought that I did well thinking on my feet and asking a question.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who will, I know, speak later in the debate, mentioned something that came up when I was talking to soldiers in Basra and other areas—house prices. There are those who have been in service for many years and who, because of short-sightedness or whatever one wants to call it, did not invest in housing at an early age. Young people are inclined to forget about such things. As age has crept up on them they have realised that they have to retire soon. We have to make provision to help those people. I am not saying that they should be given extra money, but house prices are a problem for them. It was pointed out to me several times that they are at a financial disadvantage in the housing market. It is a bit like asking a first time buyer nowadays how they can afford to buy a house.
  Mr. Brazier: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. In the Army in particular, which is by far the largest of our three services, it is almost impossible to own a house if one is being moved every year or two, except towards the end of one's service. The one factor that partially compensates for that huge disadvantage, which is met in America by a large interest-free loan on leaving the forces, is that British servicemen can trade in part of their immediate pension for an additional lump

  1527
  sum, which goes some way towards the huge cost of a house. In the early departure scheme, that sum will be a great deal smaller.
  John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point and for his earlier intervention, which reminded me of this point.
  Mr. Caplin: I hope that I can help the House on this point. I do not always want to advertise my speeches, but I made a speech this morning about homelessness and the armed services to the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation and the ex-services action group. I announced that on 1 April we are to introduce a new system for a continuous stream of interviews through the chain of command about housing requirements, particularly in the Army. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is right: there is an issue about us moving Army personnel too often and not allowing them to settle down, particularly when their partners have a job that helps to support them and their families.
  John Robertson: I thank both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentlemen for their input. That is excellent, but we still have to address the fact that there are soldiers who are about to leave the Army, and who undoubtedly need help. Anybody who has put their life on the line for 20 or 25 years deserves support from us.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said correctly that nothing had been done for 30 years. I return to the point that I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, when I quickly thought on my feet, which is that the Government should have done something by now—and I am referring to all Governments. It is a sad reflection on the Conservatives that they did nothing during 18 years in government. I have heard Opposition Members' criticism of Ministers, but at least they are trying to do something. Although I support much of what Opposition Members said, in this they must take the responsibility, and their party must explain why it did nothing during that 18 years. It is a party that says that it supports our armed forces more than anybody else. I am sorry, but it does not come out that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) made an excellent point about those aged 40 or over who do not have a disability. I spoke to people in the armed forces who are approaching or slightly above that age, and I have to say that they did not look to me as though they would not get a job when they left. They are extremely resourceful—indeed, more so than some of the people from the poorer areas of Glasgow who come to my surgeries. I respect them very much, and if we suggest that they have a disability because they are over 40 we do them a disservice. However, I accept that we must help people when they leave the armed forces, especially older people, not only by preparing them for employment but in actively helping them to try to get a job. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made that point well.
  What can I say about the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)? His attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was outrageous, particularly in a debate in which Members on both sides of the House have made friendly contributions, even those who advised the Government
  1528
  to do more and wanted them to introduce a better package for a soldiers. The contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood added little to the debate, and his attack on unmarried partners, whether of the same or the opposite sex, was a disgrace. I thought that hon. Members were above such behaviour, and it is my sincere but sorry belief that he made a grave error. I shall be interested to see how the Opposition spokesman responds to his contribution.
  Many of the soldiers to whom I spoke in Basra suggested that there was one way in which they could be compensated. As the hon. Member for Canterbury said, they were taxed unfairly in comparison with American soldiers. If we are going to compensate our soldiers for putting their lives on the line, one small thing that we could do that would not cost the country a lot of money is to exempt them from tax while they are fighting for their country. It is not fair that they should have to pay tax in Iraq, particularly as soldiers in the larger army to the north were receiving tax exemptions. Such provisions may not sit happily in the Bill, but they are a form of compensation. I have raised this matter before, and I urge the MOD to consider tax exemptions—perhaps not for personnel based in Germany, but certainly for those in Northern Ireland or on active service in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sierra Leone. It is only fair that soldiers who put their lives on the line should receive an immediate financial benefit.
  I have expressed some concerns about the Bill, but I do not want to dwell on the difficulties, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister will take them into account. The Bill is worthy of vocal support. It will introduce a progressive package that modernises the way in which pensions and compensation for the services are handled. It should be seen in the context of a rising defence budget that will secure the role and reputation of our armed forces, and it will work alongside a range of Bills that promote equality, fairness and decent rewards for those who serve the public so well.
  4.8 pm
  Sir John Butterfill: The Bill is a welcome measure, and includes a lot of good things. My main reservation concerns the fact that we are being asked to sign a blank cheque, and give the Government powers to do something that is not yet adequately defined, even though they have issued documents that give quite a lot of information about what they have in mind. The Secretary of State's explanation that making the change in that way makes it easier to update arrangements in future is not acceptable. It would have been possible to include schedules in the Bill, and specify that they could be amended in future by statutory instrument. That would have been a better way to proceed, as we would all know what we were being asked to sign up to. My only hope is that although we do not have that, as we are having the debate today, the Government may be minded to listen a little to what many of us on both sides of the House have said, and may make some improvements in the final shape of the Bill before it becomes law.
  I welcome the improvements in the death-in-service benefit, although that does no more than bring the forces' compensation up to the level that is now general

  1529
  among the population as a whole. Given the hazards that service people face, perhaps we all should have done that—we should have done it when we were in government, and the present Government should have done it—a long time ago. The same applies to the benefits for widows and other dependants. Those are all welcome, but have been rather long in coming.
  Much in the Bill is worth while, but I question the suggestion that anybody with a full career in the armed forces until the age of 55 will be able to earn a full two-thirds pension. The Forces Pension Society calculates that anybody doing a full career would earn only 62.5 per cent., rather than the full two thirds. That is supported by the brief provided for the Bill in the Library, and my own calculations show that it is likely to be the case. It all depends on the age at which service is commenced and the age at which it finishes. For most people it finishes at 55, although three-star generals carry on a little longer.
  The difficulty is that because that calculation assumes a very early career start, it overlooks the fact that there are other important aspects for the armed forces to consider. One is that in today's world it is important for the armed forces to be able to recruit extremely well qualified people. That means that they will not recruit graduates until their early 20s at least. If they are to recruit people who have taken masters' degrees or doctorates, which are becoming more important for the armed forces, those people will be in their mid or late 20s.
  The biggest difficulty for the armed forces today, I am advised, is recruiting medical staff—qualified doctors, who have an even longer period at university before they can join the armed forces, so it is virtually certain that unless they go on to become three-star generals or the equivalent, they will not reach a full career pension under the structures proposed in the Bill. The problem with doctors is so severe, I understand, that the Army, together with Exeter and Plymouth universities, is sponsoring a scheme whereby people who have degrees in other but perhaps slightly related disciplines can, with Army support, go on to qualify as doctors and come in even later, because they have already gone through one lot of academic training. For people whom we need to recruit into the armed forces, there is a real problem in getting a full pension under the terms of the Bill.
  I know that the Government's proposal to extend the age at which the pension can be taken is part of their overall proposals for the whole of the public sector, to cater for the fact that people are living much longer and therefore the cost of providing pensions is even greater. It is clear from the Government's White Paper that it is likely that they will extend that principle to many other parts of the public sector. It is wholly inappropriate that the armed forces should be the first to suffer that and be the guinea pig in the process that the Government are proposing. Members of the armed forces, of all people, are least qualified to cope with that. There may be many people who can serve in the public sector until the age of 65 and receive a complete pension, but members of the armed forces cannot, by definition. Most will retire before they are 55 and will have to take another occupation.
  1530
  As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, starting another career, certainly in their mid-40s, may not be all that difficult for many service personnel, because in the armed forces they acquire skills that are admired by employers outside. However, for those who stay all the way through to 55 it may be much more difficult. However much we dislike it, the fact is that employers still discriminate against older workers. It is well known that people of 55 and over find it extremely difficult to enter new careers.
  The Government are telling members of the armed forces, "If you go at 55, you will have to wait 10 years before you can receive your proper pension." Previously it was five years.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but do not most people in the armed forces leave in their 40s, because of the physical nature of much of their work and the fact that the armed forces do not want them to stay on longer than they should?
  Sir John Butterfill: It is true that the majority do. But I am talking about those who stay to 55 or close to that age. The army needs those people as well; they are a significant proportion of its work force. I am concerned that for those who stay on longer, this could be a painful process.
  The Government should give consideration to that drawback, because the armed forces are in a unique position. I sympathise with the Government's idea that people will have to defer retirement. In general, that is a good thing. Members of Parliament, who at present can retire at 60 with a full pension, without diminution, should perhaps consider whether they, rather than the armed forces, should set a precedent. I know that we cannot always serve until we are 65, because the electorate or the boundary commission may intervene to prevent us. Nevertheless, I should have thought that we would be a more appropriate precedent than the armed forces. That is the only point that I am trying to make. Some people will have real difficulties as a result of what is being proposed today.
  I wish to put a suggestion about housing to the Minister. I agree with hon. Members who have said that there is a problem of housing for members of the armed forces. It might be asked why they do not buy a property early in their career. They could live in it and then let it when they have to move out. One of the big deterrents to buying to let is that the Inland Revenue would not regard such a property as their principal place of residence, and so they would pay capital gains tax if they ever sold it. Could the Minister suggest to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor that in those circumstances, forces personnel trying to secure their place on the property ladder—or rather, with house prices as they now are, the property escalator—should, uniquely, be exempted from capital gains tax?
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Today we debate an important and just Bill, which will provide a fair pension for those who have served in the armed forces. The armed forces compensation scheme will also benefit many soldiers. The Government initiated

  1531
  reviews of both pension and compensation arrangements for the armed forces in 1998. Consultation documents were issued in March 2001 and decisions were announced in September 2003.
  The Bill sets out a progressive policy that offers choice, equity and best practice, while addressing the special nature of the jobs of the armed forces. Personnel will be able to choose whether they want to transfer to the new scheme or to remain in the existing scheme. The new pensions scheme will provide a pension based on final salary rather than rank; give equal treatment to officers and other ranks; replace the immediate pension, which can be paid as early as at age 38, with an early departure payment; retain the normal retirement age of 55, but bring deferred pensions into payment at 65 instead of 60; increase widows' and widowers' pensions from 50 to 62.5 per cent. of the spouse's pension; increase death-in-service benefits from one and a half to four times pensionable pay; and extend survivors' benefits to unmarried couples, including same-sex couples. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is not in his seat, made comments about payments to same-sex couples that are indicative of the views of many Conservative Members. The fact that such attitudes still prevail perhaps explains why they are not in government.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to retirement at the age of 40. I remember losing my seat in the European Parliament at that age and having to go back into industry. In today's world, 40 is the new 30. I note what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) said about the difficulties that may be faced by somebody aged 55, but many people who choose to leave the armed forces can start a new job and career.
  The new compensation scheme will provide a lump sum payment for pain and suffering and a guaranteed income stream alongside higher-level tariff awards for those who suffer a significant loss of earning capacity. Unlike the current arrangements, the new scheme will provide in-service lump sum awards for pain and suffering, including injuries arising from warlike activities. Unmarried and same-sex partners will be covered, and there will be a time limit of five years on most claims. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that five years was not enough, but his concerns were addressed by the Secretary of State, who said that he was prepared to consider exceptions. At present, there is no time limit on war pension claims, and those made within seven years are decided on the less stringent test of "reasonable doubt".
  A new pension scheme for members of the reserve forces will be made separately under powers contained in the Reserve Forces Act 1996, including more protection for reserve force members who are injured, suffer ill health or die as a result of their service. At present, the rules of the armed forces pension scheme, or AFPS, are set out in prerogative instruments that derive their authority from the Queen and are not subject to approval, annulment or amendment by Parliament. For the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, the prerogative instrument is an Order in Council under the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865. For the Army, it is the Army Pensions Warrant 1977 made under the Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Act 1884. That needs to be simplified, and the Bill will enable a single scheme to apply to all three services.
  1532
  The AFPS also provides attributable benefits for servicemen and women who suffer ill health, injury or death owing to service, and there is a separate scheme for attributable benefits for reservists. The Bill provides for those different compensation arrangements to be combined in a single scheme—the armed forces compensation scheme. After this Government came to power in 1997, they initiated reviews of the compensation arrangements and the pension scheme, and two consultation documents were published. What we have today is largely the result of that consultation.
  Between March and October 2001, the Ministry of Defence consulted both serving members of the armed forces and service organisations such as the British Legion and the Forces Pension Society on their proposals. On 16 December, the Select Committee on Defence published a report that recognised that the final proposals had taken account of many of the criticisms made during the consultation process.
  The Bill reflects the Government's wider pension policies, which are designed to cut the costs of pension provision by encouraging people to work longer and raising the age at which people can claim their pension. Consequently, the final armed forces pension scheme will raise the age at which preserved pensions can be claimed from 60 to 65 and replace the current system with one of early departure payments. which will not be classified as pensions.
  When we took office in 1997, the basic state pension was £62.45. Today it is £75.50 a week—an increase of 5.5 per cent. in real terms. That was not enough, so the Government introduced the minimum income guarantee in 1999 to protect pensioners who had no savings. This financial year, the Government are spending an extra £6 billion in real terms on pensions. That includes —2.5 billion for the poorest one third of pensioners. The Government are now ensuring that our armed forces receive equal and fair treatment. Companies that do not provide good pensions lose their employees' loyalty and that can only be bad for business. The Bill will ensure that forces personnel have a decent and fair pension and compensation provision, to match their service to our country.
  People should have the right to retire when they want. Retirement should no longer be a cut-off point so that someone is a valuable worker one day and unemployable the next. It should be gradual and voluntary, not a process of compulsion.
  The Government's document "Civil Partnership: a framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples", which was published in 2003, makes it clear that public service schemes will be amended to provide survivors' benefits for registered same-sex partners and, if they can afford it, benefits will be extended to unmarried partners of the opposite sex.
  After wide consultation, the Government are introducing a Bill that will allow members of the armed forces to have a decent and secure income in retirement. The measure is equitable, transparent and offers fair and consistent outcomes. It will focus resources on those most in need, especially through compensation for the most severely disabled. The measure will reduce cost and rationalise armed forces pension provision. It reflects best practice and is part of a progressive agenda to provide more equitable and just pension provision. It

  1533
  deals with the need to provide for veteran pensioners who live longer. It increases widowers' pensions by 25 per cent. and extends dependants' benefits to unmarried partners.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) said, in the 18 years of Conservative Government the armed services were deeply underfunded. The Labour Government have introduced the largest increase in the defence budget for 20 years, with an extra £3.5 billion by 2006. The fundamental changes that the Bill introduces will create a better and fairer pensions and compensation system for those in the armed forces. I believe that it will allow our servicemen and women to retire when they wish, with dignity, security and peace of mind.
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The man or woman on the Clapham omnibus might reasonably expect that, with all that has happened in the past few years, especially the past few months, no one could fail to appreciate the value of our armed forces. However, some of the actions of the past few weeks suggest that that assumption is rather wide of the mark. The proposals that we are debating leave it open to question.
  Sadly, it appears that the Government will ignore their duty of care and exploit their position as the employer and only guardian of the armed forces' interests. The Government's position as sole guardian has been made clear often in the debate, not least by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) in her excellent speech. The armed forces have no trade union for reasons that we all understand. There are no independent trustees; they are the only public servants who have no independent representation.
  To compensate for the lack of independent arrangements, members of the armed forces have, for generations, had their pensions and benefits protected by statute—by Act of Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said. It is now proposed to remove that safeguard. Under clause 1, the Secretary of State will be able to make whatever fundamental changes he wants, without any reference to Parliament beyond a statutory instrument, discussed only by a little Committee that meets for a short time Upstairs, out of view. Yet there is no proposal to introduce any independent scrutiny element to the pension scheme.
  The Bill, as several Members have observed, is a pig in a poke. The devil is in the detail of the proposals, but that detail will be revealed only when the Government get round to thinking about it. The Select Committee was right to say:
  "It would be wholly unacceptable if Parliament were asked to approve enabling legislation without a clear understanding of its implications for Armed Forces personnel and their dependants."
  Of course, the Government disclosed their hand when they stated that they would make the changes cost-neutral, rather than considering best practice and what the armed services deserve.
  1534
  The Minister stated in evidence to the Defence Committee:
  "All of any money that is saved…from one part of the scheme will be used in benefits on other parts".
  Even if that were true, it would be a pretty large comedown from considering best practice, but during the consultation, the Government decided to lay the deck against service personnel. They expect that the current scheme will cost them more in 30 to 40 years' time because individuals are living longer, a problem for all pension funds. However, while the longevity of the individual serviceman is increasing, the fact that numbers in the service have decreased by so much during the past two decades is a major contributor to a move in the opposite direction. The Ministry of Defence currently makes payments to pensioners drawn from a much larger work force than that to which it is currently paying salaries, so its overall pensions bill will decrease at much the same time as the effects of increased longevity take hold. Individual service personnel will thus be expected to bear the cost of their own increased longevity through the diminished total value of their expected individual pension packages, while the Treasury creams off the entire saving through the reduction in numbers.
  That is not the end of the matter. In the public services as a whole, longevity can be compensated for by increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65, which is what is proposed. That is to be extended to the armed forces but there are two objections to that proposal, as has already been pointed out. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) said, it is very unfair that the armed forces should be the first guinea pigs for that scheme, because their lack of an independent voice makes them uniquely vulnerable. Secondly, very few members of the armed forces ever have the opportunity to serve beyond the age of 55.
  The very nature of a career in the forces requires a complex system of pensions and benefits to aid recruitment and retention. That reflects the fact that a service career never extends to a full working life, and a serviceman or woman is often left with limited earnings potential after service. Under current arrangements, the small minority who stay in the service until the age of 55 or beyond receive their pension on retirement. The huge and crucial financial cut to be introduced—details of which we still do not have—is the early departure scheme for those who leave before the age of 55, which is the vast majority of service personnel. Those people will not get their pensions before they are 65, receiving instead the early departure payment. The Government admit that that will be paid at a much lower rate, and it will not be annually uprated. That will leave those people much less well off when they retire than at present.
  That proposal will affect even those who choose to stay in the existing scheme. The weasel words in the submission to the Select Committee were that, from their future service—in other words, from next year onwards—those people will receive diminished benefits, in the kind of two-tier arrangement that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex described so eloquently at the Dispatch Box. When the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence visited our servicemen and women in Basra, I wonder whether they told them

  1535
  that they are in the process of substantially reducing their pension expectations, whether they choose to go for the new scheme or stay with the old one.
  Interestingly, the Select Committee, which rightly picked out this issue as the most important single problem, said:
  "Consultation with Armed Forces personnel on raising the preserved pension age to 65 is particularly important, because this change will affect the Armed Forces very differently from the rest of the public sector."
  The Government's reply to the Select Committee report—I saw many replies when I served on the Select Committee—is one of the most blatant brush-offs that I have ever read. The reply at paragraph 27, page 10, states:
  "The change to the age for the payment of preserved pension reflects a wider change to Government policy for the public services on which there has already been public consultation. It would not therefore be appropriate to consult Service personnel on the general principle of this change, which is agreed Government policy"
  They have not only brushed off the Select Committee but done it in thoroughly misleading words. Other people will still be able to get it from 55—only the armed forces, and the vast majority of their members, will have to wait until 65, with, in the meantime, this much smaller early departure payment, which is not annually index-linked.
  Under the existing scheme, if service personnel leave before the age of 55, the immediate pension takes effect at slightly different ages—38 for officers and 40 for other ranks. I have no problem with bringing those into line, and I agree with the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who said that it was time that they were brought into line. My concern is not that a couple of years' difference exists between senior officers and non-commissioned officers but that eligibility for a proper pension payment, with all the protections that pensions have from Treasury raids and everything else, will not be introduced until 65 for both. Immediate pension payments constitute about a third of the total value of all payments under the existing pension scheme. Those choosing to switch to the new scheme will lose the equivalent of three years' salary and pension benefits over their expected lives. That point is made in the Select Committee report.
  I want to return to a further point that was kindly picked up by a Labour Member from my intervention: the huge disadvantage that the armed forces, but particularly the Army, who are the manpower-intensive service—three fifths of our regular service personnel are in the Army—face in the housing market. While I welcome the Minister's enthusiasm in his announcement about a new initiative on housing, I am afraid that he is barking up the wrong tree. All the evidence from the last housing survey that I saw, a couple of years before we left office—I am happy to share it with him, as I still have a copy on my shelf—is that once members of the Army purchase houses, they are far more likely, particularly those with marketable skills, to leave the Army than if they continue staying in rented accommodation.
  The difficulties of trying to rent a property and living hundreds of miles from it are massive. People pay tax on any rent that they get in, but do not get tax relief on the rent that they pay out. They have problems with people
  1536
  disappearing, damaging the property and so on. The other additional problem is the inequity. Some service bases are in areas where there is readily available property, so people posted there are liable to want to stay; if they get posted away from it, they leave the forces. Others live in areas where there is no readily available housing, or live abroad.
  In many cases, the only way in which members of the armed forces can hope to square the desperate disadvantage from which they suffer in the housing market when they leave the armed forces is by commuting a large part of that immediate pension to provide a large additional payment over and above their gratuity, to go some way towards making a reasonable house affordable. The huge cut in the immediate pension and its replacement by the early departure payment will effectively bar that route.
  My father was a career Army officer who served for 30 years. His father fought through both world wars: he was wounded in the first and decorated in both. One of my sons is a member of his school cadet force and is considering dedicating his life to the service of his country by joining the Army. I would be very proud for him to do so, but if the scheme goes through in its present form, I will have to take him aside and explain what it will mean for the rest of his life, particularly when—as I imagine he will—he has a family. It will put him and his family at a great disadvantage.
  I could spend time talking about a few of the improvements to the new scheme, which are welcome but relatively inexpensive. Instead, I simply want to say that the proposals will adversely affect recruitment and retention. More significantly, I believe that they are a cynical betrayal of huge numbers of people who serve in our armed forces and have no voice of their own.
  I am sure that most of the hon. Members who have spoken in the House today share my concern about the fact that the Secretary of State's main advice has come through the service personnel staffs. They have no concern with people when they leave: their job is to consider the next generation coming through. People who have given the best years of their working lives to the service of their country in uniform deserve better.
  Finally, I return to compensation. It has been thoroughly debated, not least in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, who is standing in for the Chairman of the Defence Committee. I wish to add just a little to what she said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, many medical conditions caused by service life do not emerge for many years. Furthermore. young servicemen are often inclined to ignore a nagging ache or pain; it may have emerged within five years, but they may not do anything about it until afterwards.
  Both having a five-year cut-off limit in most cases and raising the burden of proof are not fair. In the civilian world, the doctor has nothing to do with the employer, which is not comparable. The British Legion wanted the Veterans Agency in the then Department of Social Security, at arm's length from the Ministry of Defence, but it is now all being shoved into that Ministry. It is grossly unfair that the whole system will fall under the Ministry of Defence.
  Mr. Caplin: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the responses of the veterans. My

  1537
  role as the Minister for Veterans is a cross-Government role based in the Ministry of Defence. During the 1992 to 1997 Parliament, the hon. Gentleman's party vigorously opposed the creation of such a Minister.
  Mr. Brazier: I was a Back Bencher in that Parliament, and the Minister will know that I rebelled on several defence-related issues. During that period, I wanted what the British Legion wanted—a single unified Veterans Agency under the then Department of Social Security, now the Department for Work and Pensions. The second-best arrangement was the old arrangement; the worst of all is having the whole lot under the thumb of the Ministry of Defence. The one conclusion that came out of all the Select Committee debates on Gulf war syndrome and a string of other issues was that, because of an obvious conflict of interest, we cannot have the people responsible for looking after veterans under the control of the current Ministry of Defence. The parallel with America, where the veterans' administration is completely independent of the Pentagon, could hardly be more striking.
  Finally, we owe the people who go through their careers without experiencing the horrors that are associated with serious injury or the loss of their husband or, in some cases, the loss of their wife, a decent pension package. The Government will reduce that package. For those people whose lives have been wrecked by severe injuries, the least that we can do is maintain the traditional standard of proof that has served our armed forces well for 60 years. We should allow them to come back at whatever time to receive proper and fair assessment. Through this penny-pinching measure, the Government are attacking people who cannot speak up for themselves.
  4.45 pm
  Mike Gapes: I apologise because I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I have been involved in matters concerning the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I also have to leave to take an urgent telephone call at 5 pm. Unfortunately, I shall be absent for a short period, so I apologise to the House.
  I was a member of the Select Committee on Defence from 1999 to 2001, and I am now again a member of the Committee, and I want to say something about what I have seen as a member of it. Although I welcome many of the Bill's provisions, I want to explain my reservations. I agree with the case that was eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), a fellow Select Committee member.
  I saw in Sierra Leone the conditions in which British service personnel lived. I saw the appalling conditions that our people in Kuwait had to experience, and I have seen in operations in Kosovo and elsewhere the professionalism and excellence of our servicemen and women. When we introduce such a change, it is important that we ensure that it does not have adverse effects on the morale and expectations of the men and women in our services. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that everything will he done over the
  1538
  coming weeks and months to explain what is happening and to deal in Committee with issues that Members on both sides have raised in the debate.
  The Bill is not perfect, and it is necessary to consider the points raised by members of the armed services, by the Forces Pension Society and in the Select Committee's report. Problems are clearly associated with any change to any pension system. If changes are made, there will be losers as well as winners. If one adopts a process that is based on cost neutrality, improvements for some people will inevitably be made at the expense of others. The Select Committee had to point out that fact of life.
  As the Select Committee pointed out, the proposals involve some welcome improvements. It says:
  "For personnel who die or who are injured in the service of their country, for personnel who choose not to marry, but have a registered unmarried partnership, and for personnel whose actual salaries are greater than the representative salaries for their rank, there are undoubted advantages to the new schemes over those currently in operation."
  There are also advantages for dependants, as is pointed out in paragraph 138 of the Select Committee report. It is important that those points are made because, from some of the comments made today, one would think that the Ministry of Defence's whole intention was to penalise, and take away from, people serving in our forces.
  Like my colleagues, I dissociate myself from the outrageous remarks of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is not in his place. In the 21st century—perhaps even in the 20th and 19th centuries—such remarks are not and were not in tune with the thinking of a large proportion of the population. It is time for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to recognise that homosexuals have served in the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force throughout history. Some lost their lives doing so, while others led our armed forces into combat and on to great victories. That is true of the Napoleonic wars, the second world war and more recent conflicts. Their contribution should be recognised equally with that of all those who have been prepared to put their lives at risk for our country.
  Mr. Breed: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that when changes are made to a complex system—particularly after 30 years—there will be winners and losers. If the schemes are to be modernised, enhanced and improved, would he expect more winners than losers or more losers than winners?
  Mike Gapes: I hope that there will be many more winners than losers and that the Treasury will permit the Ministry of Defence to be flexible when interpreting costs. When the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee, he said that there might be some transitional payments, which could not be taken into account in the overall cost-neutral formula. If the authorities rigidly keep to cost neutrality, it will not be possible to introduce a scheme that is broadly acceptable to the armed services. That argument is more for the Treasury than the Ministry of Defence.
  The Select Committee pointed out that there is a Treasury-driven assumption that being a member of the armed forces is the same as any other public service

  1539
  occupation, but clearly that is not so because of the nature of personnel deployment; the requirement to serve abroad and away from one's family, perhaps for many months at a time; the risks involved; and the period of service. All those factors should be taken into account but I am not convinced that that has been done.
  The Select Committee also pointed out that members of the armed forces often perform tasks that are more dangerous than, but otherwise similar—and occasionally identical—to those performed by the police and fire services. One thinks, for example, of Army personnel who drove Green Goddesses. However, only a small minority of those in the armed forces will receive their pension at 55. The majority will do so at 65. I hope that further consideration will be given to that and other aspects of the Bill in Committee.
  On balance, the proposed legislation should be supported. The Bill contains some good things but as it continues its passage through the House, we ought to examine in detail some of the issues highlighted by the Defence Committee. I hope that Ministers will receive the support of their Treasury colleagues for any changes that they may wish to make.
  Defence Committees under all Governments have produced critical reports over the years but have always endeavoured to do so on a consensual basis, in speaking up for the men and women who serve our country and the international community through implementing the expeditionary strategy to build a safer and more secure world. It is crucial that those men and women believe in their hearts that our actions are in their long-term interests. We need to explain the benefits that will come from any changes that we bring about.
  4.54 pm
  Hugh Robertson: I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who made an extremely well-informed and balanced speech. The House is grateful to him for that. I also enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). I have been a Whip for nearly two years now and have listened to a great many speeches by hon. Members of all parties. I can honestly say that her speech was one of the best I have heard; the House is very much in her debt.
  For the purpose of complete transparency, I should draw the House's attention to the raft of entries under my name in the Register of Members' Interests. I remain part of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, which means that I shall be eligible for a pension at the age of 60. I have married since leaving the armed forces—a fact that will become relevant later. In addition, I have a small business consultancy with Schroder Investment Management, and I worked in the field of institutional pensions before entering Parliament.
  Two important principles must always be borne in mind when matters relating to the armed forces are considered in this House. The first, and by some distance the more important, is the fact that the armed forces are different. They are also special, but I shall settle for different. Why are they different? There are a number of reasons. The armed forces have unlimited liability. The use of violent force, by them and against them, is a regular feature of armed forces life. Members of the
  1540
  forces operate under a separate code of discipline, with a resulting loss of freedom. They have liability for reserve service, and that still applies to me: I left the Army in 1995, but will remain liable for reserve service until 2012. The families of armed forces personnel face upheaval and disruption, which also limit the careers of family members. Careers in the armed forces are generally short, and armed forces personnel are selectively excluded from much legislation. In that connection, mention has already been made this afternoon of the national minimum wage.
  Why do members of the armed forces need to be different? There is one very simple reason—they are expected to fight, and sometimes to die, for their country. That makes armed forces personnel wholly unique among public sector workers.
  The principle of the difference of the armed forces is important in this debate for three reasons. First, Parliament must protect and cherish that need to be different, because of the particular tasks that the armed forces must undertake. Secondly, the pension and, if anything goes wrong, the compensation provisions for the armed forces must reflect the extra commitment and responsibility that Parliament and the country expect from their members. Thirdly—and I offer the House this one warning—we, as parliamentarians, must never inflict on our armed forces social legislation or politically correct measures that could inhibit or dilute their ability to fight and to carry out the very special role that we require of them.
  A second main principle that must be borne in mind has been mentioned already by other hon. Members—that the armed forces have no body to represent their interests as employees. There is no trade union or similar organisation for military personnel. As a result, they look to us, as parliamentarians, to protect their interests. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is anything to go by, the members of the Select Committee on Defence do that admirably. In short, the armed forces are a special case, and Parliament must therefore take special care when scrutinising any legislation that affects them.
  It is a matter of profound regret for me, and for other hon. Members, that the Bill is only enabling legislation. That means that the House, which has a particular duty of care in respect of our armed forces, cannot scrutinise the Bill in a way that will permit a clear understanding of each and every implication that it will have for members of the armed forces, and for their dependants.
  The Bill has four main elements. It provides powers to make new occupational pensions, and to establish a new compensation scheme. In addition, it amends the appeals procedure, and institutes changes to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I shall examine those four main elements part by part.
  The first is the power to make a new occupational pension scheme. Because the Bill is enabling legislation, it is difficult to give an authoritative opinion, but I can safely say that large parts of it are welcome. I particularly welcome the commitment in paragraph 17 of the explanatory notes to remain with a final salary or defined benefits scheme. I do not say that because I am against defined contribution schemes—indeed, the
  movement of the markets may, in time, make them more

  1541
  profitable than defined benefits schemes, but the key word is "may". Because of the nature of their service, the armed forces need the certainty of final salary schemes.
  I welcome the removal of the distinction between widows whose partners' deaths are attributed to service and those whose partners' deaths are not. An unfortunate by-product of the removal of that distinction is that, in addition to non-attributable widowers who are already a legacy issue, a new group will be created with an extra grievance—those whose other half dies between now and the start of a new scheme. I hope that the Government will address that point, but the general change is welcome.
  I also welcome the equal treatment given to officers and other ranks. That principle is not universally applicable across everything to do with the armed forces, because officers and other ranks carry out different tasks with different levels of responsibility and exposure, but its application here is clearly welcome.
  I particularly welcome the increase in death-in-service benefits from one and a half to four times pay, which has been welcomed this afternoon by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I was going to say that I could live with the replacement of the immediate pension with a less generous early departure payment, but having heard hon. Members' arguments this afternoon, I will examine the point more carefully. I am sure that more imaginative solutions, particularly involving money purchase schemes, could be the answer. Whatever happens, we must recognise that the armed forces need to encourage people to serve for longer than a short career—typically for between 10 and 25 years—but not to serve until they are 55.
  It would be wrong to say that I welcome all the provisions in the Bill, and some points particularly concern me. First, there is the lack of independent governance. I said at the start of my contribution that the armed forces have no body to represent their interests as employees. Their pension provision needs some sort of body or group of people to represent them and act in their interests. In years to come, the Ministry of Defence may face a straightforward conflict between the need to control expenditure and the need to provide appropriate pension arrangements for members of the armed forces. Some measure of independent governance would remove much of the suspicion surrounding the issue.
  Secondly, there is an element of unfairness in deferring the payment of pensions from 60 to 65 if the retirement age for members of the armed forces remains at 55. That is a big cost saving, which comes directly from the pensions of servicemen and women, particularly because the increase in longevity at the other end of the scale—if I can put it in that slightly crude way—is not yet five years.
  The third concern is that even those who serve a full career will be denied the opportunity to earn a full career pension, which is two thirds of final salary under current Treasury guidelines. For example, someone who started their career at the age of 20 and served until they were 55 would probably accrue 35/70ths of their salary. On most independent calculations—my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) confirmed
  1542
  this—adding in the lump sum makes about 62.5 per cent. of the final salary, and of course that is the best-case scenario, which is enjoyed by very few. The MOD should examine increasing the retirement age or the accrual rate towards the end of service, or, more imaginatively, consider part-funded additional voluntary contributions. All those proposals would remove that problem.
  Finally, hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that the impression remains that the review has been conducted on the basis of cost, and not on the basis of what is best for our armed forces. That is greatly to be regretted. The sad fact is that there will be one sure-fire winner: the Treasury. The proposal is cost-neutral, payments are deferred from 60 to 65 and the overall fall in the number of service personnel means that there will be fewer pensions.
  The second aspect of the Bill is compensation. As Members who heard the earlier part of the debate will know, I believe that the compensation culture that has taken hold in much of British life—including, sad to say, in the armed forces—is intensely damaging. The MOD should seek where it can to close down on the propensity of ex-servicemen and women to sue through the civil courts for large sums of money. That process brings the MOD into considerable disrepute, as it takes an enormous length of time. The case is always fought against the Ministry, which does not help at all. However, the MOD should compensate by increasing provision for those injured as a result of service life.
  Mr. Caplin: I am sorry to interrupt the flow, as the hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution. Would he like to see us following the American line?
  Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has me in one, as I am not wholly sure what the American line is. If he will tell me, I shall answer his question.
  Mr. Caplin: The US armed forces are not allowed to sue the Department of Defence in a civil court.
  Hugh Robertson: I think I am entering a dangerous area—I do not know enough about the American system; it is above my pay grade.
  A simple principle should apply: the country owes a duty of care to those injured in its service. I would much prefer it if the provision made by the MOD was expanded to take account of that and if it closed down the opportunity for servicemen and women to pursue their cases through the civil courts, for larger sums and with all the consequences that we have discussed—especially for the MOD. That is why I greatly regret the changes that the Government intend to make to the proof of entitlement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, Royal British Legion research indicates that 60 per cent. fewer pensions will be awarded under the new rules. I am prepared to bet that that will be accompanied by a vast increase in the number of cases going to civil litigation. That cannot be good, either for the litigants or for the Ministry of Defence.
  To pinch a military analogy, the Government have engaged the wrong target. The proposal will be very damaging to the public perception of the MOD and will

  1543
  create enormous controversy and unhappiness in the future. I am only delighted that the existing arrangements will continue to apply for injuries and illnesses incurred before the start of the scheme, including—vitally—Gulf War syndrome.
  The Bill also covers changes to the appeal process and to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, which seem perfectly sensible. I had some dealings with the Charity Commission a few years ago, before I entered Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that the planned changes to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation conform to any new arrangements that will be set up under the charities Bill that is due to be introduced later in the Session?
  There are several legacy issues that the Government have ignored in their review, such as post-retirement marriages—I declared an interest earlier. A couple of months ago, a constituent who had just retired from the Army, at 55, told me that, owing to the increase in unaccompanied tours, he had been forced to put off getting married for the last three or four years of his service. He married as soon as he left the service but, as a result, his long-time partner—now his wife—was not eligible for his pension if he died. As he is aged 55, it is perfectly reasonable that they could be married for 20 years, so there is something unjust about that provision.
  Questions have also been put about pension troughs, non-attributable widows' pensions for life, and the pre-1973 one-third-rate widows—one has to be careful how one says that phrase. I realise that the Minister may not have time to deal with all these points in his summing up, but will he write to me with the MOD's best estimate of the cost of correcting those four legacy issues?
  In conclusion, every hon. Member would accept that the armed forces need to change—indeed, in recent times, they have changed—and of course their pension arrangements should reflect that. However, we as parliamentarians must recognise that the armed forces are different—critically, they need to be different—and that the armed forces have nobody, save us, to represent their interests as employees. We in this county expect our armed forces to fight and, very occasionally and regrettably, to die for our country. That commitment, in my opinion, should be rewarded by security in their retirement. The challenge for all hon. Members is to safeguard that as the Bill passes into Committee.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. John Randall: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). I have been listening to the debate, and such a wealth of experience has been apparent on both sides of the House that I feel slightly humble, as I can honestly say that I have very little experience of military things. I think that the highest rank that anyone in my family reached was bombardier. With such a wealth of officer material around, perhaps I should be speaking for the other ranks.
  One of the reasons why I was quite pleased to leave business behind was that the complexities of pensions were getting too much for me and I thought that I could leave that to the experts. It was a great pleasure therefore to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who is probably acknowledged as the House's leading expert on such matters.
  1544
  I am very fortunate to have RAF Uxbridge in my constituency. That station contains a great many personnel not only from the RAF but from other armed forces. The Army's legal services are based there, and many people go through there in transit. In fact, I have had quite a lot of experience over the years of dealing with the armed forces in my capacity as retailer. Over many years, I was involved in serving many families there. I remember, as a small boy, opening the post in the family business, when lots of our armed forces were all over the world, and we had a depository. So I have got to know a lot of the personnel, not so much as members of the RAF and the other armed forces, but as ordinary members of the community. Although I very much accept that service personnel are special, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said, they are an integral part of the community.
  In Uxbridge, the station is almost in the centre of town—it is possibly one of the few such stations—so the personnel are not isolated from the community. That is very important because, although when we are talking about issues such as those in the Bill we have to realise that the armed forces have to be treated in a special way—and, yes, certain conditions apply—they are also, in many respects, just like everyone else: they have families and partners and they face the various situations that we all encounter in our ordinary lives. They are very important not only to the local economy but to the local community.
  Some of the personnel will play in the local sports clubs. I mention that because I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) said about injuries. I wonder what will happen if people injure themselves while playing for non-service sports clubs.
  I was concerned to hear that the Bill is unfurling as an enabling measure, because I am concerned that we will not have ample opportunity to discuss it. More importantly, I should like to be able to discuss the Bill with my constituents and bring their thoughts to the Chamber—an opportunity that I will obviously be denied.
  I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who made his points well. I am always concerned when I hear that some people will benefit from a measure that is cost-neutral because, as he said, it almost inevitably means that someone else will lose out. Several hon. Members talked about the compensation culture, which is becoming a bit of a blight on society in general. It is unfortunate that it is entering the armed forces, so I hope that it can be contained and kept under control.
  Having heard what I have heard today, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to keep me abreast of what goes on during the Bill's later stages so that I can ensure that the valuable members of my constituency who serve in the armed forces will be able to find out what is going on and what the Government propose.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: We have had a good, wide-ranging and, as usual, informative debate on defence matters. I cast my mind back to the picture in The Times one or two days ago that showed the Chamber more or less deserted during a debate on

  1545
  truancy. We can verily say unto its staff, "Where are you when we are here debating a matter that, by common consent, is of great concern to the people of this country and those whom they regard as being among the most deserving—Her Majesty's armed forces?"
  I once again apologise to the House for the absence for the winding-up speeches, of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). He wrote to the Secretary of State, whom we are pleased to see back in the Chamber, to explain that he cannot be here because he has an unbreakable engagement. I am grateful for the courtesy of the House in understanding why he is not here.
  It is significant that all hon. Members who contributed to the debate referred to the unique role of the armed forces and the high regard in which they are held. Like many hon. Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). It was a pleasure and privilege to serve on the Defence Committee with her for about two years, and I say to her, as an insider in that regard, that she acquitted herself extremely well. The members of the Committee who could not be here today will feel that she did justice to them and to the Committee when talking about the piece of work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex saluted in his earlier tribute. Her speech was brave because she was quite critical of her Government, but I do not think that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will hold that against her because they, like the rest of the House, regard her as a fair-minded person who is knowledgeable about such matters and prepared to speak up on behalf of those who need to be spoken up for.
  The hon. Lady made several interesting points, one or two of which I shall select. She said that the Bill contains no requirement for Ministers to consult and that such a provision should be included. I have taken that on board and I shall do my best to add such an amendment to the list to be moved in Committee. It is good to put on record the important point that she made when she said that she did not think that young people who joined the services immediately thought about the retirement package that they would get. She is right—God help us if young people queue up at the recruiting offices and the first thing that they say is, "Well, I'd like to join the Colours, but first tell me what my pension arrangements will be." That is precisely the sort of person whom we do not want in Her Majesty's armed forces. We want people who are robust and determined, and who have a certain sense of adventure and courage. I am not entirely convinced that asking about the retirement package at the outset would demonstrate the attitude that we are looking for in those who join up.
  The hon. Lady also drew attention to the compensation arrangements which, by common consent throughout the House today, have been criticised. It is important to remember that the Government moved to the five-year time limit only as a result of the pressure that has already been brought to bear on them. The initial proposals, as Members will recall, provided for a three-year time limit. We welcome the extension, but the point has been made on both sides of the House that illnesses that are attributable to military service may manifest themselves only after the
  1546
  five-year time limit is up. I do not think that any Member would want to answer to ex-servicemen or women in their constituencies complaining that they had been unable to get compensation for an illness that, according to medical opinion, was attributable to their service simply because they were debarred by the time limit. I hope that Ministers have taken that on board and will think again.
  The hon. Lady also made the point that medical records are held by the employer, and that should not be lightly dismissed. Of course none of us believes that any of the civil servants who administer these matters would wilfully withhold information, but it could happen. Records could be lost. Clearly, at the very least, there is a conflict of interest in the matter, and Ministers will have to consider that.
  The hon. Lady referred to the lack of consultation with personnel and the lack of a system to provide statements of how their existing benefits will pan out, let alone information about how they will be affected by the new scheme. The Under-Secretary suggested that existing service personnel who will have the option, between 2005 and 2007, of deciding whether they want to remain in the existing scheme or move to the new one, will be on their own. It is clear that he was saying, "Don't expect any help from us." I understand why he said that; he does not want his employees—NCOs and officers—giving advice to their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen for which they could be held to account but which they were not qualified to give. The question has to be asked, however: where are those people to go for information? As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, is the Under-Secretary proposing a new khaki battalion of independent financial advisers to organise that, or will servicemen and women simply have to go to the high street? We need an answer.
  Mr. Caplin rose
  Mr. Howarth: Are we going to get one? I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman has taken my remarks slightly out of context, which is no surprise. I was talking about licensing under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, with which he is perfectly familiar. The Government had to introduce it because of the mis-selling of pensions by a Government in the 1980s of whom he was a supporter.
  Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that the Minister chooses to make a slightly grubby point when there is a real issue here. It is the Government who are seeking to change the armed forces pension arrangements. There is agreement on the need to do so, and many of the provisions are welcome, but the Government have also heard a litany of complaints about their proposals. One of the issues is who will advise the scheme's current beneficiaries as to whether they would be better off staying with it or moving to the new scheme. We need an answer, and the Minister has not given us one.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, raised the issue of the advice given to servicemen to enable

  1547
  them to make an informed decision. I agree that they have been left in limbo, and something must be done about that. He also drew attention to the quartering arrangements in Devonport near his constituency, and pointed out that some of the provisions extending benefits to unmarried partners and so on will have a knock-on effect on those arrangements. Like everyone else, he said that our armed forces are our greatest asset, with which we all agree.
  The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), a former member of the Defence Committee, shared that view, and rightly said that it is the duty of the House to respond to the Committee's report. Having served on the Committee for most of the relevant period, it is fair to say that the issue is complex, even if one understands pensions. If one does not, it is even more complex. It is not quite as difficult as local authority finance, but it is nearly as hard. Considering it in Committee was an interesting experience. The Government spent more time than it took the allies to defeat the Germans in the second world war to come up with an answer in their review of armed forces' pensions, and the Committee spent a couple of years on the issue. The House should salute the extremely good job that it did, and we owe it to the Defence Committee to ensure that the points that it made are pursued carefully in Committee and subsequent discussions, perhaps in another place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made a number of interesting points. He said that our hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex made a great speech, and I agree. He also said that senior non-commissioned officers are the backbone of our armed forces, so it is important that we try to retain them for as long as possible. I agree entirely—anybody who has visited service establishments will be keenly aware of the role played by senior NCOs, who not only have experience but set an example to others, particularly new recruits. They are on hand to help junior officers when they first have the responsibility of ordering men around. Without the NCOs, many junior officers—some of my hon. Friends have held such posts in the past—would find life much more difficult.
  My hon. Friend bravely grasped the nettle when he raised the Government's proposals on benefits for unmarried partners. As the Secretary of State confirmed, those proposals will extend to people in single-sex relationships. It was disappointing that my hon. Friend was the object of a personal attack. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, these are contentious and difficult issues to wrestle with, so it is unfortunate if people who take a particular view are attacked in an unpleasant fashion. There is a risk that political correctness is inhibiting members of our armed forces and preventing them from voicing anxieties. The Secretary of State will not be aware of that because members of the armed forces are wary of sharing their concerns with Ministers. A two-star officer told me the other night that if he expressed some of the views that I have expressed he could experience great difficulties in his job. It is incumbent on the House, of all institutions, to allow freedom of expression, as political correctness is attacking freedom of expression in our country. My hon. Friend made a brave contribution and sought to address real concerns.
  1548
  If I may address the issue—I suspect I might get ambushed on it in any case, as I am on record as having expressed a view in the Defence Committee, so there is no point in pretending otherwise—my views are known by a number of those who participated in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex set out some of his concerns, which I share, not least the practical implications of assessing who qualifies. I want to give the Minister time to answer and tell us what assessment has been made of the likely litigation that could arise from judgments that people are not in an enduring, substantial relationship.
  My own view is that there is a clear set of moral values that underpins service life and service commitment. We agree across the Floor of the House that the armed forces need to be different. They must take orders in a way that no other section of society would accept. We do not ask them to replace strict obedience to an order with a process of consultation that might apply to the rest of society. People who cannot take orders cannot be in the armed forces. That concept is not acceptable in any other part of society. In the interests of military efficiency, it is necessary for the armed forces to reject practices followed elsewhere by the society they serve.
  Furthermore, the Government have made clear their belief that marriage is the best framework for bringing up children, yet by extending the privileges of marriage to those who spurn the option of marrying, they contribute to the undermining of the institution they regard as so important to the rearing of children. The Government must address that issue, as well as dealing with their equality agenda, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex called it. We are more concerned with the armed forces than with the Minister's equality agenda.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood raised the issue of the pension trough, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). That issue is of concern to everybody, but I hold up my hand and say that the Conservative Government did not do anything about it. At this stage it is probably unlikely to be resolved, but we need to bear it in mind. Should we collectively win the national lottery, those who suffer from the pension trough ought to be considered on that happy day.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is not a member of the Defence Committee, but he demonstrated in spades the merits of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, if I may say so. The fact that he did not learn all the lessons is to be regretted, but I am glad that he has participated in the scheme, and he is an example of its importance. I hope that others who are contemplating going on the scheme and do not have experience of the armed forces will learn from him, and that he will encourage them to do what he did.
  I thought the hon. Gentleman was needlessly partisan, but in the spirit of good will and fellowship, I shall leave that aside. Some of his views place the Government's priorities the wrong way around. He was more concerned with what he called the social-progressive range of policies than with the armed forces, but in the end he redeemed himself admirably by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex for an excellent speech.

  1549
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whose recent knighthood I salute, as I am sure the whole House does, brings knowledge to our proceedings that is much appreciated. He is chairman of the parliamentary pensions fund and it is good to have someone like that in the debate, although he is not in his place now. He made the point that graduate recruits will qualify only from the date of enlistment. The Government must address that. If graduates join up at the age of 22, they will be adversely affected.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) told us that he lost his Euro seat and had to return to industry. That reminds me of a wonderful car sticker that I saw when my wife and I were on holiday in the west country. This sticker, on the back of a Volvo, read "Make your MP work. Vote for somebody else." His electorate obviously did that to the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is so knowledgeable and such a dedicated supporter of the armed forces that he never fails to speak up for them. We appreciate that. He asked how the Government would consult the armed forces on the postponement of the preserved pension from age 60 to 65. That is a very serious issue, to which I will return shortly.
  Is it proposed to provide any step indexation from 40 to 65? That is a long period to go without having the pension, or the payment in the case of early departure, without any increase in the amount of money. If the early departure scheme is there to help people leave at 40, and they will now have to wait until they are 65 for a pension, has the Minister any plans to provide step indexation of any description?
  My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) also made valuable contributions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent—I receive many communications from members of the armed forces saying that they want to stay on. The Secretary of State talked about justifying some of his arrangements on the ground that people should be able to work longer in the armed forces. The truth is that not enough is being done in that direction. Greater opportunities should be given for people to serve longer when they want to do so and are able to do so. My hon. Friend said that he spoke for the other ranks. As a Whip, he is on a par with the formidable company sergeant-major. We valued his contribution, too.
  The Government have treated both the armed forces and Parliament with grave discourtesy in bringing before us an enabling Bill with much of the detail underlying the proposals incomplete. It is a hollow Bill. Worse, any changes could be effected without further reference to Parliament, except possibly by way of a one-and-a-half-hour debate on a statutory instrument, provided the Opposition prayed against it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West said, the Government could have put the detail into a schedule. I cannot understand why that was not done. It would have been a better service to Parliament and to those in the armed forces. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, the situation is
  1550
  unacceptable. We shall therefore look to move in Committee amendments seeking to place in the Bill certain key issues. Some were mentioned by the Select Committee in its report, in which it suggested:
  "These principles might include, for example, the final salary basis of the pension scheme; its non-contributory nature; and the accrual rate of 1/70 of pensionable pay for each full year of service; the standard and burden of proof for claims under the compensation scheme; and the basis of entitlement to compensation."
  They are a very good starting point.
  Members of the armed forces may not have on their payslips a line showing how much has been deducted as a contribution to their pension, but in calculating service pay the Armed Forces Pay Review Body provides an allowance or abatement which it deducts from the pay level that it would otherwise award. That rate is currently 7 per cent. It is therefore unreasonable to claim that this scheme is non- contributory.
  We would like to see an element of independent governance introduced so that the Government are no longer judge and jury in this matter. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent both said, the fire service has trade union representatives to argue its corner and the police have the Police Federation and other associations to speak up for their members. The armed forces have no one, save for the Forces Pension Society and the Royal British Legion, which do a splendid job but do not stand in the same relationship to today's servicemen and women as do the organisations I have mentioned in relation to the others. The Minister says that trustees are necessary only for funded schemes, but I believe that a way could be found around that.
  To conclude, we ask our servicemen and women to give a unique commitment to our country. That is why the Secretary of State was unwise to justify some of the reduced benefits on the ground that Tesco is asking its staff to contribute more. Every speaker has saluted the service and dedication of our servicemen and women. There will not be a vote tonight—the consensus is that there are some welcome improvements. However, overall, the scheme that the Government propose needs to be improved if it is to meet the collective view that such a unique commitment demands that we consider the case on its merits. Our armed forces are the best. They deserve the best.
  5.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): We have had a good debate on the Bill, which, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, deals with a complex issue. I thank all hon. Members who took part, including my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for Glasgow. Anniesland (John Robertson), for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), and the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Bournemouth. West (Sir John Butterfill). I may return to the hon. Member for Uxbridge in a moment. I also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) and

  1551
  the work of the Select Committee on Defence. I was pleased that, notwithstanding certain comments, we were able to publish our response before today's Second Reading.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made a powerful speech about equality, and recruitment and retention, in our armed forces. She has vast experience in such matters, and her contribution was welcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland drew on the experiences that he recently gained in Basra—not as a reservist, but on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, the success of which I join him in welcoming—and the knowledge of veterans' issues that he has gained from his membership of the Royal British Legion, which, I assure him, was consulted throughout the process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, who has considerable interest in defence matters, made a thoughtful and detailed speech that showed that he has read and considered the framework documents attached to the Bill. When I asked the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) if he had done so, he was honest enough to say no. Hon. Members have a duty to read them, however, because they contain much of the detail.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South made an important, if brief, speech. I always welcome his observations, because he. too, has a long-standing interest in defence and foreign affairs.
  I am almost speechless when thinking about what to say about the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), although I enjoyed his comments, if I can call them that. He said that we want clarity on all sides. That was outrageous, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the House clarity in his opening remarks, especially on the legislative issues. Parliament is, rightly, deeply interested in the Bill, as we note in our response to the Select Committee.
  All hon. Members need to reflect on the issue of primary and secondary legislation. The current schemes have to be amended two or three times a year to reflect wider changes in Government pensions policy. My right hon. Friend mentioned pension sharing on divorce, and other legal changes that regularly arise. It would be neither sensible nor fair to require such changes always to be the subject of primary legislation, which is, I think, what the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex was suggesting.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury asked about parliamentary scrutiny. The current pension schemes do not allow for parliamentary scrutiny, because their details are set out in prerogative instruments over which Parliament has no such right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston explained in his thoughtful remarks. The proposals are based on the same primary enabling legislation as the schemes for the civil service, the national health service, the police and the fire service, with the details contained in secondary legislation—statutory instruments. That is a perfectly reasonable way in which to proceed, and I hope that we can progress from there.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent on managing to ask a question about the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I had no idea that anyone would ask about that, but the answer to his question is yes.
  1552
  Every speaker mentioned the compensation scheme, which we shall discuss in greater detail in Committee. The current arrangements fail to provide adequate cover for those who are most severely disabled and they fail to address pain and suffering. They discourage and penalise rehabilitation and provide awards that do not discriminate properly between those who will never be capable of working again and those who can expect to return to a relatively normal life.
  The current arrangements are rooted in an understanding of medicine and the scope for rehabilitation of 60 years ago. Several speakers expressed wider concerns about moving away from the provisions of the current scheme, but it would be wrong to continue with them, given the scheme's shortcomings. Our armed forces deserve better and that is why we are proposing the new compensation scheme. The arrangements that it offers are fair and simple to understand. They also tackle different sorts of disablement, and are well up with the best type of scheme that employers offer in the United Kingdom.
  Several speakers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, mentioned time limits. The time limit of five years is not to settle the matter but to lodge the claim. We said before today's Second Reading that we accept that some conditions will take longer to emerge. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State repeated that today. Allowances are made for that because there are exceptions to the time limit. However, it is in everyone's interest that we try to settle those matters as speedily as possible.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The Under-Secretary is making an important statement. I asked a specific question about excessive doses of radiation leading to illness in later life. Can the hon. Gentleman honestly say that an individual who has had an excessive dose of radiation will know in five years that he will be ill later? The illness emerges after 10 or 15 years, and the scheme will not specifically cover it.
  Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. I want to answer many questions, and I shall try to answer that one.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) asked about the Royal British Legion's claim that 60 per cent. of those who currently receive compensation payments will not get them under the new scheme. Indeed, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and some of my hon. Friends also raised the matter. As I said earlier, we have worked closely with the Royal British Legion in developing our proposals for a compensation scheme. We take account of its views, which are serious; we must ensure that we do that.
  We have extended the time limit from three years in the original proposal to five years, to deal with the concerns of the veterans' community. I hope that that is satisfactory. We have examined the figures from the Royal British Legion and we do not expect 60 per cent. of claims to fail. No claim will fail when there is reasonable evidence that the condition was caused by service.
  A point was made about record keeping in the context of compensation. The Select Committee rightly referred to paragraph 17 on page 7 of the Command Paper. I

  1553
  hope that hon. Members who have the chance to reflect on that will understand that I have made an absolute commitment. First, we shall legislate to ensure that any failure in record keeping will be the Government's responsibility. The statement in paragraph 17 makes that absolutely clear, and I hope that it reflects hon. Members' views.
  Hugh Robertson: Before we leave the subject of compensation, will the Minister answer a question related to one that he asked me? When I said in my speech that I favoured less civil legislation and a more all-embracing scheme run by the Ministry of Defence, the Minister asked me whether I should like the American model to be adopted. Presumably the MOD considered that option. Why was it rejected?
  Mr. Caplin: I discussed that model with the Americans when I was in Washington, but we do not think that it would be right for our armed forces. We believe that they should have the rights that any other citizen has, so the civil courts should be an option if they are needed.
  In recent years there has been concern in the House, and more widely, about the adequacy of pensions provision for the dependants of those who die in service. The new pension and compensation schemes include major improvements to address that concern, notably the significant increases to widows' pensions and to the rate of death-in-service benefit. Those changes have been welcomed on both sides of the House. However, our reforms go further. They recognise that society is changing and redress long-standing unfair and unjust distinctions. The pain of loss, and the economic hardship that follows it, for the partners of servicemen and women who are killed is the same whether their loved ones are gay or straight, married or unmarried. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made a most powerful speech on that subject, and I would certainly recommend it to some Conservative Members, in particular the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
  In pensions for retiring service personnel, the same distinction has existed for years. Under the Bill such artificial distinctions will be a thing of the past, and a good job too; I know that Labour Members, at least, warmly welcome that. It is worth noting that in the unlikely event of the hon. Member for Aldershot or the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex—we all know his record on such matters—ever finding themselves running the Ministry of Defence, many families, and others, in such situations would be turned away from their door.
  For instance, on criminal compensation, the hon. Member for Aldershot told a Standing Committee:
  "I have a difficulty with the idea of paying out compensation to same-sex partners because I believe that it undermines marriage." —[Official Report, Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 March 2001; c. 10.]
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly decided that people's sexuality would not be a bar to their entry to the armed forces, the hon. Member for Aldershot described that as
  "caving in to the European Court of Human Rights"— [Official Report, 11 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 264.]
  1554
  Would he care to tell the House, and those serving in our armed forces today, whether he still draws a distinction between the rights of homosexuals' partners and those of their heterosexual comrades? Is he for or against the extension of unmarried partners' benefits in this Bill? That is the question that we want to ask him. He has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench, at the Dispatch Box. Will he answer that question? Is he in favour of the extension of those benefits to unmarried partners—yes or no?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, to whom I report, has made his position and that of our party absolutely clear.
  Mr. Caplin: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex is not known for clarity, and he certainly was not clear earlier today.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is known for claret.
  Mr. Caplin: I shall certainly not undermine that comment.
  My party has no such qualms on these matters. We have addressed the shortcomings of current compensation and pension arrangements for all service personnel, regardless of those issues.
  The hon. Members for Aldershot and for Mid-Sussex also raised a point about legal challenge. The criteria that we will use, contained in the annexe to the memorandum of the Select Committee, are exactly the same as those in other similar public sector pension schemes, such as the civil service scheme, so we do not anticipate that they will be subject to legal challenge.
  I can confirm to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, on behalf of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the number of awards that we have made to unmarried partners since the policy was introduced last March, that we have already made awards to six partners, using the criteria that I set out to the Select Committee.
  Sir John Butterfill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Caplin: I am afraid that I shall have to get on, as I have very little time. Several points have been made about consultation, and I have a leaflet here that was sent to all members of our armed forces during the Bill's initial stages. There will be immediate further communication through their payslips, which I am sure will attract their attention.
  Briefly, I want to address the issue of cost neutrality, which was raised by all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The new pension scheme is broadly cost-neutral compared with the current scheme, taking into account the effects of improved longevity. The savings produced by the replacement of the immediate pension with the early departure plan and the slippage of the deferred pension to age 65 have been used to improve dependants' benefits and to extend them to unmarried partners. We cannot do just one part of that equation, however.
  An independent review of the scheme shows that it is good and, in key areas, at the top compared with comparator schemes elsewhere in the economy. The

  1555
  Watson Wyatt report says in its executive summary that in most respects, the new armed forces pension scheme is relatively generous when compared with the benefits currently offered by both private and public sector pension arrangements. The value of the scheme in total was therefore considered to be well in line with that of comparator schemes elsewhere in the economy, and Watson Wyatt found that the scheme, which met the manning needs of our forces, could be delivered successfully on a broadly cost-neutral basis.
  A number of Members have raised the issue of the early departure plan. It is designed to respond to the Government's move not to allow the payment of pension benefits before the age of 55, which means that the immediate pension currently in play could not be a feature of the new scheme. By devising a system of compensation payments that sits outside the pension scheme, we are providing a valuable and unique benefit, which should ensure that the required manning profile of the armed forces is maintained, while also providing a cushion to a second career for those leaving in mid-career. The armed forces rely on a fit, young work force, but there is also a need to pull a proportion of that work force through to the age of 40 and beyond to meet requirements. That pull is currently provided by the payment of a lump sum and an income stream for those reaching the immediate pension point. The chiefs of staff and the chain of command are confident that the early departure payment scheme should meet that need in the future. A key reason for that is that we are satisfied that with better transferable skills and a healthier population than when the current scheme was introduced in 1973, we do not need to provide the same level of payments for those leaving in mid-career as we do at present.
  I want to thank hon. Members who have contributed to this afternoon's debate, particularly the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who is an expert on pension affairs. On some of the detailed points, I propose to write to hon. Members to give them their answer, prior to the commencement of the Committee stage of the Bill the week after next.
  The packages on pensions and compensation that we have debated today represent modern, relevant and first-class benefits for service personnel and their families. They dispense with much that is outdated, old-fashioned or plain wrong, and they acknowledge the social and financial realities of 21st-century Britain. In purely financial terms, the significant improvement in dependants' benefits has rightly been welcomed on both sides of the House. We recognise the need to retain a high-quality scheme as an attractive recruitment and retention tool, and because we know that it is no less than our armed forces deserve.
  Our values of social justice, fairness and equality are at the centre of this Bill—fairness to all who join our armed forces, fairness to those currently serving who want to choose to transfer to the new pension scheme, fairness to those who become ill or disabled, and fairness to partners, including same-sex partners, in the benefits that we provide. The Bill proposes new schemes that truly reflect the society in which we live and this Government's excellent equality agenda and policies, which have been consistently opposed by the Conservative party—even this afternoon, sadly. The Bill places our core values of social justice at the heart of
  1556
  what we do for our armed forces, now and in the future. They deserve that and no less. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND COMPENSATION) 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 Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill—

  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND COMPENSATION) 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 26th February 2004.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    3. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
    4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
    5. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and third reading.

    Programming of proceedings
    6. All 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. Heppell]
    Question agreed to.

  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND COMPENSATION) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in pursuance of that Act.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    EDUCATION FINANCE
    Ordered,
    That the Financing of Maintained Schools (England) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 3247) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    Ordered,
    That the LEA Budget, Schools Budget and Individual Schools Budget (England) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 3170) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. —[Mr. Heppell.]

  MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Ordered,
  That Mr Andrew Mitchell be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr Patrick McLoughlin be added. —[Mr. Heppell.]

RAF Boulmer
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
6 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: We move from one subject of crucial importance to servicemen and women and their families to another that is crucial to service families in Northumberland and to the whole community there. I refer to the future of RAF Boulmer.
RAF Boulmer has been part of the life of Northumberland, much cherished and supported by the local community for 50 years. It began even earlier as a wartime dummy airfield providing a decoy for RAF Acklington in my constituency—long since closed, but still warmly remembered. Boulmer, on the other hand, grew to be a very significant station and now has a fourfold mission: maintaining a core air defence capacity; supporting a deployable air command and control system; providing a school of fighter control training; and continuing the search and rescue activities of 202 Squadron.
Those tasks, which everyone acknowledges are carried out to the highest standards, involve more than 600 RAF personnel and nearly 200 civilians, generating about £20 million a year in income to the local economy. The station has massive support from the local community and many of its personnel devote their time to community, sporting, youth and voluntary organisations in the area. The possibility of the base closing was thus greeted with dismay when it emerged as one of the potential outcomes of the future basing study that is being carried out as part of the strategic defence review. That has been unsettling for service families and the local community, a fact that the Secretary of State acknowledged when he replied to me in the defence debate on 11 September last year.
The final proposals emerging from the review, dealing with four RAF stations with support roles, will soon land on the Minister's desk. I appreciate that at this stage he cannot anticipate decisions or give assurances about a report that he has not yet considered, but now is the moment to make sure that he understands why any outcome involving closure of RAF Boulmer would be a dreadful and very expensive mistake that would also have disastrous consequences for the local economy in Northumberland.
Two of the options presented in the review would close RAF Boulmer by 2012. Each would require very heavy capital expenditure to re-provide Boulmer's facilities elsewhere for no measurable gain in operating efficiency or revenue expenditure. That has to be bad news for any Secretary of State for Defence who is trying to ensure that money is used efficiently to equip and support our forces, and is not wasted. The investment that would have to be re-provided includes nearly £5 million-worth of recent investment, currently being completed in the fighter control school and the control and reporting centre.
Clearly, the first priority has to be the RAF's operational requirements. Only if they can continue to be met effectively at a given site can the benefits to the local economy of staying there become a factor to be

1559
considered; but there is absolutely no doubt that RAF Boulmer can fulfil its mission effectively at its present location.
I shall examine the various aspects in turn—first, the helicopters of 202 search and rescue Squadron. They are the well known public face of the RAF in the region—and rightly so, because of the exceptionally courageous and dedicated rescue work that they do, as well as their particularly close links with the community. They can regularly be seen at community events throughout the area, but are just as frequently to be seen flying on crucial rescue missions over sea and land. I recently had the privilege of presenting the Queen's commendation for bravery to a crew member for his amazing work in a rescue in appalling sea conditions at Amble. Those men are heroes to the local and seafaring communities.
It seems clear that, whatever else happens, the search and rescue operation will need to remain at Boulmer for the foreseeable future. Its location is dictated by the operating range of the Sea King helicopters, which need to be where they are to cover the area for which they are responsible. Until the Sea Kings are replaced—and I am not sure that a replacement is even on the drawing board—there will have to be a station at Boulmer with basic services, though it would be a very small station, if that were all it had. It therefore makes sense to continue to locate other activities there if that can be done efficiently.
That brings me to the traditional function of the station—air defence in the form of the command-and-control system. That does not have the high profile that it did in the cold war, but it is still essential to the protection of our citizens. That, and the suitability of the Boulmer site for it, have just been recognised by the investment of £1.5 million in upgrading the bunker from which it operates. Despite this investment, the basing study canvasses the idea that we should move away from fixed bunkers to above-ground facilities. "Get away from the bunker environment" is the phrase that it uses. It is difficult to see any significant advantage in that, and there is a further disadvantage. Given the known threat of terrorist attack, the bunker is far easier to defend and far more capable of withstanding attack than any above-ground or mobile facility.
The further argument for moving the control and reporting centre to a flying station is to increase informal contact between controllers and air crew. That can be achieved in other ways and it is, at best, only a marginal benefit to be set against very large costs. Moreover, the Minister will be aware that No. 1 Air Control Centre—a deployable facility that is housed at RAF Boulmer—performed magnificently in Iraq without the need for any prior co-location with a flying base. By its mobile nature, it could obviously be housed on another station and might have the advantage of being closer to its departure airfield or port, but location was clearly not a problem in effective deployment in Iraq. In the time scale required for the kind of operation for which it would be needed, there would be ample time to move the facility to its embarkation point.
The largest recent investment at RAF Boulmer is the extension of the fighter control school where £3.3 million is being spent. It is obviously sensible to co-locate that with the control and reporting centre. To move the whole thing lock, stock and barrel to RAF Scampton, which has been closed for 10 years, would
1560
mean spending not only another £3 million but millions more. It is not only capital costs that are involved. I see no prospect of savings on current expenditure from such a move, especially when one takes into account the fact that RAF Boulmer has been relatively successful among larger bases in achieving low maintenance costs as a proportion of total site budget.
In my discussions with the review team, it was pointed out that £6 million of capital expenditure for new single airmen's accommodation would be needed if Boulmer remained in use. However, when I pressed the team, it admitted that a similar amount would have to be spent for the same purpose at any other station to which Boulmer's activities were moved. It is in no way a factor in the argument either way, and I hope that the Minister will note that.
The removal of RAF Boulmer's activities would be a massively expensive and hugely wasteful commitment of scarce resources for a minimal—not even measurable—operational benefit, and perhaps no benefit at all. It would be entirely contrary to Ministers' declared objective of achieving value for money; it would be in conflict with the Secretary of State's declared views about the importance of the defence footprint needing to be present in different parts of the United Kingdom; and it would be in conflict with Government regeneration policies for the north-east. It is impossible to think of regeneration measures that would be adequate to fill the gap left if RAF Boulmer closed. Indeed, if there were such policies, I presume that the Government would already be pursuing them to deal with the existing weaknesses of the economy in Northumberland.
Northumberland county council commissioned a study from the centre for urban and regional development studies at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne. I hope the Minister will give me an assurance that he will study its conclusions carefully when he considers the review proposals. If he has not got a copy, I have a spare one with me that I can easily let him have. The study points out that RAF Boulmer is easily the largest single employer in the Alnwick and Amble travel-tow-work area. If RAF Boulmer were to close, it would cause severe and sustained damage to what the study calls a relatively isolated, small and fragile local economy. The results that it identifies from closure include the loss of 800 jobs, including 184 civilian posts; the loss of £18 million of local income in salaries; the loss of a £1 million a year maintenance budget of which the overwhelming majority is thought to be locally spent; and the loss of £500,000 capital expenditure each year, of which a significant proportion is spent on the wages of locally based construction workers. It would also shrink the local economy with the loss of an estimated 195 further jobs. The scale of the potential job loss would be equivalent to 10 per cent. of all jobs in the local travel-to-work area.
The study describes the site as being in a relatively isolated, low-productivity and low-wage area of Northumberland—itself a peripheral county with an exceptionally weak economy and low levels of wealth generation. Those facts are well known to the Government Departments involved in regeneration work in the area and, I hope, to the Ministry of Defence as well.

1561
The travel-to-work area also has comparatively high levels of employment in agriculture and tourism, as well as being dependent on RAF employment. Many of the vacancies in the local economy are part-time, short term or seasonal. As a result, the ability of the wider local economy to absorb job losses is exceptionally weak. Disposing of the site for a civilian purpose would be most unlikely to create anything like the number of jobs that would be lost.
Closure could have other significant negative effects on the community of Longhoughton and the wider district. They include a likely reduction in the population—particularly of full-time resident families, with family homes likely to be occupied by smaller households; the closure of local shops, personal services and other affected businesses; the closure of social, community and welfare services associated with the base—including potentially the health centre, sports hall, squash courts, community centre and crèche; and a threat to the future viability of the village school at Longhoughton, which draws 75 per cent. of its pupils from base families.
I had the pleasure recently of opening a nursery facility alongside the school at Longhoughton, which is much used by RAF and local families. Its viability depends on the shared involvement of the RAF in the local community. There would be a reduction in demand for local services in the surrounding area, including the town of Alnwick.
We all recognise that the Minister's first consideration must be the operational effectiveness of the RAF but there is no question but that that can be fully maintained by keeping RAF Boulmer and that little or no operational benefit could be gained from moving and re-providing its facilities elsewhere. The Minister must also consider value for money. The best value for money would be to gain from the investment already made at Boulmer, rather than throwing it away to repeat it elsewhere. It would certainly not be joined-up government to land other Departments, regional bodies and local authorities with a crisis to which they have no available solution by taking hundreds of jobs and £20 million of income out of the local economy.
The case is clear. I hope that Ministers and senior officials are now fully aware of it. I do not expect the Minister to make judgments tonight about a study that he is supposed to be approaching with an open mind but it would be helpful if he could indicate how long the process is expected to take and when we are likely to get a result in order to remove the anxieties felt in both the RAF and the local community. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate that he will keep the factors that I have described in mind and that he fully appreciates the value of RAF Boulmer, its effectiveness and the value-for-money aspects of the case that I have put.
6.13 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing this debate on an issue of great importance to him and his constituents. I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the personnel of RAF Boulmer. I
1562
notice that the right hon. Gentleman pronounced it "Boomer". I understand that in other parts of the region it is pronounced "Bulmer" but I will use the right hon. Gentleman's pronunciation.
Mr. Beith: My experience is that throughout the RAF it is known as RAF "Bulmer" but throughout the local community it is known as RAF "Boomer". That is the only difference I am conscious of between the RAF and the local community.
Mr. Ingram: I am not going to pursue the matter but, in the spirit of accommodating the right hon. Gentleman as far as I can this evening, I shall use the pronunciation that he recommends. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the personnel at the station, and at the other air surveillance and control system units. The ASACS community plays a vital role in the air defence of the UK and in the control of our aircraft on operations, but this role is not perhaps recognised as often as it might be.
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, RAF Boulmer, with a strength of some 600 service personnel and nearly 200 civilians, hosts a number of units. First, it is the home of the school of fighter control, where all RAF fighter controllers learn their craft. The school runs more than 40 different courses and, on average, trains some 850 students each year.
Secondly, the station is the garrison home of No. 1 Air Control Centre, which stands ready to deploy, at short notice, anywhere in the world. No. 1 ACC is currently in the process of withdrawing from Iraq. It has spent eight strenuous but highly successful months policing the airspace over Iraq and providing an air traffic control service for the area. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of its men and women.
RAF Boulmer is also base to A flight of 202 Squadron, which has been based at the station since 1978. The flight performs a vital search-and-rescue role that I know is greatly valued in the local area. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned the importance of that function. Last year, the unit was involved in the rescue of 194 people. Already this year, a further seven people have been rescued.
In May 2000, my predecessor as Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), announced that Boulmer, along with RAF Neatishead, would become one of two control and reporting centres. Their role is to maintain a 24-hour-a-day, 365-days-a-year watch on UK airspace.
As a consequence of this decision, RAF Buchan will draw down to a remote radar head, starting in November this year. This change was brought about by greatly improved technology that means that we no longer need three centres to protect UK airspace. As part of that process, RAF Boulmer is currently being updated to this new standard. The station is expected to become operational using the new equipment by around the middle of this year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the MOD could be accused of wasting money by installing new equipment in RAF Boulmer, even though it might be closed. It is important to point out that the new

1563
equipment is essential to maintaining the station's current operational capability until the enhanced NATO air command and control system is available. The timetable for that has been delayed, and we need to install new equipment in the meantime to ensure operational effectiveness. The aim of the update is to maintain operational capability for the next five or six years. If Boulmer is to be closed, it will not happen until after the end of that period.
However, time—and technology—moves on. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my Department keeps its requirements under constant review, in order to ensure that we operate in the most efficient and effective way possible, both operationally and financially. The House will recall, for example, the strategic review of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St. Mawgan, the results of which I announced in July last year.
As part of that continuing process, I announced on 14 August 2003 that my Department would conduct a review of the future location of the air combat service support units based at a number of locations throughout the UK. The review also encompasses the ASACS units located at RAF Boulmer and RAF Neatishead, and a number of other minor units. The particular units at RAF Boulmer included in the review are the control and reporting centre, the school of fighter control and No. 1 ACC.
The role of the air combat service support units is to support deployed and joint operations, for example through the provision of logistics and communications facilities. For those units, the need for a review was driven by the move to expeditionary operations, which has highlighted the need for them to work and train both together and with other parts of the RAF.
In the case of the ASACS units, work carried out by the military experts at RAF strike command suggested that there would be benefit in bringing personnel on to the RAF's main operating bases. There were two principal reasons behind that recommendation. The first was that, given the increasingly expeditionary nature of modern warfare, in any conflict the fighter controllers manning the control and reporting centres were likely to find themselves operating above ground, in conditions quite different from those to be found in a bunker. That was, for example, the case during Operation Telic in Iraq. It therefore makes sense that they should operate, as far as possible, in a similar environment in the UK. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there were any dangers associated with that. The best advice, on the basis of a military assessment, is that no insurmountable security problems would be linked to locating ACRC outside a bunker.
The second principal reason is that, for very good reasons, the control and reporting stations were originally constructed near the coast, away from airfields. As a result, aircrew rarely meet the air traffic controllers and the fighter controllers based there whose responsibility it is to guide aircrew. That is clearly not ideal in terms of achieving a close understanding and team spirit between the aircrew and controllers, something that is vital in operational conditions.
1564
The advent of robust communication links now allows the RAF to place its fighter controllers wherever they can be most effective. In the light of that, the review team was tasked with looking at the possibility of moving personnel on to other RAF sites. That work is consistent with the implementation of the Department's estate strategy, launched in 2000, which seeks to rationalise the defence estate as a corporate whole in accordance with the requirements of the armed forces.
Mr. Beith: Modern communications also enable contact between flying personnel and controllers, and familiarity with each other could be achieved in a variety of ways. The high cost of moving one base to another has to be set against the benefit, which could be achieved in other ways.
Mr. Ingram: I shall come to the issue of the investment appraisal approach. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that the co-location concept, with people working together as a team, is preferable to remote relationships, because of the interdependence of the work.
The review of the defence estate has been conducted in an open manner. All hon. Members with stations in their constituencies that may be affected have been offered briefings on the study. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up this offer and was briefed last month by my officials on options being considered by the review team.
The options that impact on RAF Boulmer include two options whereby the ASACS units would remain at RAF Boulmer, one that would move them to RAF Scampton and another that would move the control and reporting centre and the school of fighter control to RAF Waddington and No. 1 ACC to RAF Wittering. The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that one of the options has changed slightly since he was briefed in December. The study team had previously considered Coningsby as a possible base for much of what is currently at Boulmer. That was subsequently changed in favour of Scampton, as he mentioned. Under all the options it has been assumed that the search and rescue flight would remain at Boulmer along with the radar head, and I must stress that it is likely that RAF Boulmer will remain until the end of the decade at least.
As the House would expect, the military impact of each of the options under consideration will be a key factor in any decision, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised. It is, however, very far from being the only one. The paper that will be presented to me will include a socio-economic assessment of the regional impact of the recommended option and the results of an environmental impact assessment. It will also include the outcome of a detailed investment appraisal. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the cost of relocating the school of fighter control and single living accommodation, but both of those issues will be taken into account in the investment appraisal that will accompany the study. An intensive analysis will be made of those points. Last, and by no means least, it will include the views of the local authorities whose areas are likely to be affected. I am conscious of the report by the local authority in the area that the right hon. Gentleman represents, and it will genuinely be taken into consideration.

1565
In conducting the study, my officials have consulted widely. Trade unions have been consulted informally and my decision, once made, will be subject to formal consultation with them. A briefing was also held for all affected local authorities at RAF Strike Command last September and that was followed up by individual briefings for those councils that wanted them. All local authorities were invited to submit comments on the options. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that the impact of each option on the affected local areas is known so that I can take it into consideration in reaching my decision. The report will be brought to my attention and I shall consider it as part of my overall assessment of the balance of the argument.
As part of the consultation process, a public meeting was held at Alnwick in November 2003. The meeting was attended by local councillors and by members of the public and was, I understand, widely reported in the local press. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the anxiety that was generated by the announcement, and I know that some of the reporting suggested that the closure of Boulmer was a foregone conclusion. I am grateful for this opportunity to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents that that is not the case. I have yet to see the study recommendations, but when I do so I will consider carefully all the points made to me, including those he made during the debate.
1566
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the MOD is constantly criticised for not doing things efficiently and effectively—it is the current mantra. However, as a Department, we undertake reviews to ensure that we are using our resources, people and money in the best way. It simply is not possible to do things better without change and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when the decisions are taken, they will not be taken lightly. The flavour of his contribution to the debate shows that he understands that, and I am grateful for his recognition of the fact that the review was carried out carefully and responsibly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale for the review. His best guess is that it is imminent, but I cannot give him the time scale at present. Given the nature and scope of the study, the cost implications and the need for them to be considered in the investment appraisal, it will take some time. When dealing with such reviews, I take the view that I should consider only the mature conclusions. It is better for me to have the best answers on which to base my decisions. Even when conclusions are reached, I may not necessarily decide in favour of them. I may bring other judgments to bear. That is how I try to carry out my ministerial functions.
I am grateful for the contribution that the right hon. Gentleman has made to the debate, and assure him that everything he said will be fully taken into account.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Illegal Drugs Trade (Northern Ireland)
[Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 1217-I, and the Government's response thereto, First Special Report, Session 2003–04, HC 180.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.ߞ[Angela Smith.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Mr. O'Hara.
Mr. Mates:I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara. That, too, has changed since I was last here. I was about to say that Labour Whips are getting better looking.
It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the illegal drugs trade and the drug culture in Northern Ireland. I put on the record our thanks to the many witnesses who spoke frankly to us about their concerns. I pay tribute to those who are working hard on the front line—in enforcement and in health and social services—to tackle the problems caused by the drugs trade. We were very impressed by the commitment and energy that they bring to their work, which is often difficult and sometimes dangerous. I also express our thanks to the Minister and to hon. Members who were not on the Committee for attending the debate. We are glad to see them, and I am sure that their support for a debate on this important subject will be much appreciated in Northern Ireland.
The previous Northern Ireland Affairs Committee first considered the issue of drugs in 1995–96. At the time, demand for drugs in Northern Ireland was relatively small. None the less, the Committee warned that that drug-free status could not be taken for granted. Seven years on, although the main drug of choice is still cannabis, there is a flourishing market for ecstasy, and increasing evidence of demand for heroin, cocaine and even crack cocaine in some areas.
In the intervening period, the development of the peace process has enabled organised crime to flourish. One often talks of the peace dividend, but the growth of organised crime represents a peace penalty. The reduction in security and surveillance measures has allowed organised crime to move into the drugs world and to operate more freely than before.
Criminals, including paramilitaries, have exploited and even nourished the growing demand for drugs. One witness warned us that Northern Ireland had three years to get its drugs strategy right if we were to prevent an explosion of hard drug use. Such warnings, when set alongside the other evidence in our report, need to be taken seriously.
518WH
Our report was published last November, and the Government response was published last week. It is appropriate to note that the reclassification of cannabis comes into effect in a week's time, on 29 January. The debate is therefore timely.
Although the Government's response contained some helpful comments, our overall impression was that it was disappointing. Fundamentally, it lacks the sense of urgency that will be necessary if we are to prevent Northern Ireland's drug-using population from reaching critical mass. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give us further reassurances.
Rev. Martin Smyth: One welcomes the Government's general response, but is there not a degree of absent-mindedness in the way in which they speak about not allowing heroin to get a foothold? We discovered that it had more than a toehold not only in Ballymena, but in North Down and elsewhere. The Government are surely not in touch with reality, and the issue of cannabis, which is causing confusion in the minds of the police and others, will lead to more problems.
Mr. Mates: The House will note the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, who lives and works in that part of the world. That is, indeed, the situation, which is one reason why we tried to give a sense of urgency to our warnings that something needed to be done.
Our inquiry covered enforcement, education, prevention and drug treatment. Our primary concern as regards enforcement remains the cannabis trade. As the Government response acknowledges, there is a legitimate concern that serious criminals will use the profits from the cannabis trade to cross-subsidise other activities, including fostering a greater demand for harder drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. The whole of the United Kingdom is getting into a muddle because of the reclassification of cannabis. We found evidence in Northern Ireland that people think that it is already legal to use cannabis, which, of course, it is not. It is not the Minister's fault that the reclassification is happening, but it will have consequences for her at the Northern Ireland Office. It must be made clear to the whole community in Northern Ireland that although cannabis use has been reclassified for reasons best known to the Home Secretary, it remains a criminal activity and should be treated as such.
We welcome the continued commitment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland drugs squad to tackling the supply of cannabis, but remain to be convinced that it will get the help that it needs from enforcement agencies in Great Britain and overseas. Once cannabis becomes a class C drug, it will be less of a priority for Customs and its overseas counterparts than other matters that claim their time, so it will become harder for the PSNI to make a case for seeking assistance from those agencies to disrupt the supply at the most effective point, which is as likely to be in the Netherlands or Spain as in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister assure us that the continuing importance of cannabis to organised crime in Northern Ireland will be impressed on the other agencies, and that there will be no diminution in the efforts to tackle the trade, wherever it appears?
On education, we acknowledge in our report the difficulty of conveying a message about the danger of drug use to young people. We recognise the reality of the

519WH
situation presented to us by the Health Promotion Agency: for many young people, the portrayal of drug use as inexorably leading to addiction, antisocial behaviour and criminality is unconvincing; it does not tally with their experience. There is a fine line between appearing to exaggerate the harm that drug use can undoubtedly cause and impressing on potential users the risks that they take—especially with their health—when they experiment with illegal drugs. One of the answers to the problem appears to be to start communicating the message early. We are grateful for the Government saying that a primary-level programme is being piloted in some schools. We hope that the outcome of the programme will be reviewed and acted on as quickly as possible.
For the remainder of my time, I shall focus on the health issues associated with the drugs problem. Although we knew that the situation in Northern Ireland was different from that in mainland Britain, we were surprised to discover how little prepared Northern Ireland was in some respects. That was particularly the case in relation to class A drugs and the facilities needed to treat users. Official approval for a programme of substitute prescribing as a means of treating heroin addiction was not granted until last February, and there are only eight needle exchange schemes in operation at community pharmacies. We were told that some drug users were deterred from using them because it was difficult to do so discreetly. None of us will forget being told that drug users in Ballymena had to hide behind the pharmacy's sunglasses rack in order to exchange their needles in privacy.
The Government's response on those and other points leaves something to be desired. We were told that the extension of the needle exchange scheme is merely under review and that pharmacists are satisfied with the siting of closed-circuit television cameras in and around their shops, but did the Government also seek the views of needle users who are legitimately and responsibly using the pharmacies' services? It appears not.
Some of the most telling evidence that we received came from a panel of health and community workers who have regular contact with hard drug users. Their primary concern was the risk that intravenous drug use would lead to a greater prevalence of blood-borne viruses, such as HIV and hepatitis C, in Northern Ireland. They were very disturbed that a hepatitis C strategy, which was scheduled for issue in summer 2002, has yet to appear. When we asked about its progress, we were told that plans for a strategy had been put on hold because staff were needed to deal with severe acute respiratory syndrome. Of course, SARS did not emerge as a threat until 2003. In their response to the report, the Government say that a strategy will now be developed in 2004. It seems that that strategy will be at least two years later than promised.
That case typifies our concern about the lack of urgency in dealing with drug use in Northern Ireland. Although SARS is obviously a concern, for the present it remains a relatively small risk. On the other hand, drug use that is likely to lead to the spread of hepatitis C is already present and flourishing in Northern Ireland's community. One might add that the failure of the
520WH
Government to provide other facilities such as needle exchange encourages drug users to behave in ways that will encourage such diseases to spread.
When we went to Dublin and the Netherlands to discuss their drugs policy, people told us that we were lucky that the situation in Northern Ireland was not worse. However, they also said that it could get a lot worse rather quickly, and that if we were not careful we would find ourselves in a mess. We were warned that if we do not put the facilities in place to deal with the problems of hard drug use before it becomes an issue, it will take us years, possibly decades, to get on top of the problem. That was the case in mainland Britain all those years ago when hard drug use started to emerge.
In all seriousness, I tell the Minister that this is an urgent matter. An impressive framework for the drugs strategy has been put in place over the past seven years but, with the best will in the world, it will not help us if the number of heroin users suddenly rises and we do not have the beds and the support services to treat and rehabilitate them or the facilities to stop users sharing needles and infecting each other with hepatitis or HIV.
Lembit Öpik: I see from the report that the Committee thinks that voluntary organisations must be involved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the dangers is that because so many community and voluntary organisations have been involved directly in trying to resolve the troubles, as we know them, they have not been as involved in other social ailments? The Government need to invest in that.
Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, the troubles, as we know—or knew—them have been over for quite some time now. We need to address the issue with more urgency.
It will not help us if, as we were told, a secret community in Northern Ireland, which we cannot reach and therefore cannot treat, is manufacturing and using crack cocaine. The problem is not going to go away.
Will the Minister consider three other questions? First, the Government undertook in their response to ensure that the comments and conclusions in our report would be used to help guide the forthcoming review of the drug and alcohol strategy. However, the lack of any overall sense of urgency does not bode well for the review and I am concerned that its timing has already slipped considerably. Can the Minister assure us that the warnings highlighted in the report will be heeded?
Secondly, we expressed our concerns about the Home Office's recent decision to restructure the recovered assets fund so that Northern Ireland's communities lose any chance of getting support from it. The Northern Ireland Office undertook to discuss that with the Home Office. Has it done so? If so, has there been a response? If there has, what sort of response has it been?
Thirdly, we note from the Government's response that some drugs projects within the criminal justice system face a shortfall of funding from March 2004 onwards. During our inquiry we had the opportunity to meet the staff of some of those projects, particularly the staff of the drug arrest referral scheme and the scheme at Hydebank young offenders' centre. We were impressed by what we saw and by the evidence that the staff

521WH
presented for the success of such interventions in drug users' lives. We would be very concerned if those important initiatives came to a premature end. Can the Minister tell us which projects are under threat, and assure us that steps are being taken to address the funding problems?
I know that other hon. Members wish to raise their own concerns, so I shall not take any more time. However, we would be grateful for further reassurance from the Minister. I commend the report to the House.
2.44 pm
Mr. Bill TynanI hope that there are no problems today as a result of my being a Scot involved in a report on Northern Ireland. That happened in the Chamber yesterday, where some people wish to disfranchise me. I hope that I am welcome. I felt a bit alone on this side of the Chamber until other colleagues turned up. I thought that there was an array massed against me, but I am quite happy now.
Mr. Iain Luke: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members claim what they call Ulster Scots ancestry and so will feel akin to him?
Mr. Tynan:I thank my hon. Friend. I am aware of that, and we receive wonderful support from most of the Opposition Members here.
The report was announced on 22 August 2002, which seems a long time ago. The scope of the inquiry was extended because the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended, and that meant that we could consider the issues further than we could have done otherwise. The evidence sessions were conducted in the spring and early summer of 2003, although I could not attend as often as I would have liked, because I was involved in consideration of the Fireworks Act 2003. I am sure that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), accepted my apologies on that basis. An interim report on cannabis reclassification was published in May, and a Government response was released in July. I think that the reclassification of cannabis is a mistake and will be detrimental to the drug culture in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Committee made its final report to the House on 4 November, and the Government published their response on 9 January. The Chairman modestly made a statement that was as valid then as it is now. He said:
"This Committee warned of the growth of Northern Ireland's drug culture eight years ago. While a great deal has been achieved since in the collaborative development of an overarching anti-drugs strategy, as yet the actual provision of resources and facilities for those working on the front line in enforcement, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation has been too slow."
The Minister should take cognisance of the Chairman's statement, which was made on behalf of the Committee. We must stress again the importance of getting the strategy right, in practice as well as in theory. The biggest lesson that the inquiry taught us was probably the importance of having facilities in place before drug use reaches critical mass. The Chairman has referred to that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: It has been said that if we had known the effects of nicotine when cigarette smoking
522WH
first started, we would have banned it straight away. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the British Medical Association's findings and its warnings about the addiction problem and otter health issues that will arise from cannabis misuse?
Mr. Tynan: I have no problem whatever with that. The BMA has made it crystal clear that there can be serious problems, and I will come to those.
The facilities should be in place before the situation reaches critical mass. That applies not only to Northern Ireland, but to every part of the UK. Through our report, we can lead the way and point the Government in the right direction to deal with the enormous problems that drugs create. The Committee wanted to ensure that the Government knew what was required to get the strategy right.
The Government responded with a simple statement:
"The Government will continue to take forward the Northern Ireland drug strategy with energy and vigour. The problems related to drug misuse are a high priority. Everything is being done to ensure that these problems are tackled efficiently and effectively."
I hope that that is absolutely true, but it is a bland statement, and unless we put meat on its bones, there could be serious problems. Despite our beliefs about what is required, we might not be able to deliver in the long term. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee intended not just to assess the current drugs situation, but to do so in the context of its previous review in 1996. The Committee will probably revisit the matter but we must ensure that the Government are answerable and accountable on the basis of the evidence that we have taken.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the report could virtually have been written about the west of Scotland 10 to 15 years ago? Does not that make it all the more remarkable that the Chairman of the Select Committee has spoken about the apparent lack of urgency in the Northern Ireland Office about tackling the problem? Surely we should be able to learn from the experience of other parts of the United Kingdom, and not keep reinventing the wheel.
Mr. Tynan: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The report could reflect the state of the west of Scotland and other parts of the country 15 years ago. The problem is a growing one that we haw not managed to deal with. There have been suggestions about drug courts, but I think we must seriously try to get to the root of why people get involved in the first place, and then try to rectify the problem. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point.
The Committee report gave 47 conclusions and recommendations on a range of issues from supply to the consequences of use. The Government made individual responses to each of those. What is striking is that, out of line with most previous practice, and I do not know whether it was just a civil service blip, the Government response contained no introductory overview, and, perhaps more surprisingly, no welcome for the Select Committee report.
I am sure that that was just an oversight, but it would have been useful if the Government had recognised the

523WH
seriousness of the report and the need to welcome a report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The overall tone of the Government response is conciliatory, but it could be regarded as complacent. The nature of the Government strategy would appear to be fixed, with little opportunity for change Dr development. It does not strike me as a responsive approach.
There are certain grounds for congratulating the Government. The first recommendation concerned the need for separate counting of cocaine and crack cocaine seizures, and I understand that that is already in place. The entry of crack cocaine into the UK is a growing problem. It is one of the most dangerous aspects of drugs. Unless the Government deal with that, limit its entry into the country and prevent its use, we shall have a host of serious problems, with effects on young people in particular. Separate counting is important. If crack cocaine use is found to be growing, we shall need to find a way to deal with it.
I congratulate the police and customs officers on their commitment and on what they have done in Northern Ireland. They operate in difficult circumstances. I realise that entirely. They must be funded adequately to deal with the problem. I know that any Committee will look for additional Government funding, but the issue is so serious that we must make dealing with drug misuse in this country, and in Northern Ireland in particular, a priority.
Recommendation 9 noted the success of time-delay safes in community pharmacies. The Government advised on their continuing success and relevance for the UK. Their use is a very positive approach, which should be extended to the mainland, and it would certainly help with the problem of daily attempts to break into pharmacies in the UK.
Recommendation 11 included a call for the Police Service of Northern Ireland to be given new powers to deal with drug driving. I understand from the Northern Ireland Office that to deal with that very problem the PSNI yesterday launched a new field impairment test, backed by a £100,000 campaign to publicise it. A quarter of drivers killed in Northern Ireland in the past three years tested positive for drugs. The campaign shows that the Government are listening and are acting on a crucial part of the drug control problem. I welcome that.
Recommendation 14 refers to concerns about the lack of a co-ordinator for the northern drug and alcohol co-ordination team. The Government conceded that the situation was unacceptable and the vacancy was filled on 27 October, for which they are to be congratulated.
Recommendation 33 does not agree with the Select Committee's proposal, but the Government noted the options that were explored before the concept of drug courts had been rejected. Pilot schemes for drug courts had been set up on the mainland. I am not convinced that drug courts will be effective unless they take appropriate action to deal with the people brought before them and unless there is considerable back-up to wean those people off drugs. We must not simply pass a sentence and then forget about them, but must deal with the problem in a very structured way.
Lady Hermon: I am sorry to have interrupted the hon. Gentleman mid-flow. As he will know, our very good Home Secretary has increased the maximum penalty for those trafficking in class C drugs from five years' imprisonment to 14 years. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on how effective a deterrent he believes that will be?
Mr. Tynan: I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to go through my points. If I do not answer her question now, I hope that she will remind me of it later.
In recommendation 4, the Select Committee expressed concern about discrepancies in the figures given to demonstrate the availability of drugs. The evidence used to support that concern included two examples of different figures; the PSNI gives the street price of ecstasy tablets as being between £5 and £10 each, whereas the probation service says that it is £1. That is a large discrepancy. The recommendation also highlighted the disagreement about the availability and use of cocaine. The Government response is that there is simply a need for better and more timely collection and sharing of information. That is a bland statement, which concerns me. It sounds as if the Government are saying, "There might be an increasing problem with cocaine use, but we are dealing with it." I am concerned that the Data Protection Act 1998 may prevent organisations and groups from being able to exchange information, thereby preventing them from dealing adequately with the problem. I may be taking too long and talking too much, but this is a very serious matter, and I would be grateful for a response from the Minister.
The seizure of cocaine in Lurgan in October, which I understand is still the subject of a court case, highlights these problems as never before. The Government hailed that as a major seizure of more than £1 million worth of cocaine, and media reports indicated that 18.5 lbs, or about 8.4 kg, were seized. Putting aside the issue of the possible use of bulking agents, which are used to mix down cocaine, the fact that 8.4 kg of cocaine is worth £1 million indicates an estimated street price of about £120 a gram. The Select Committee estimated that the price was between £60 and £80 a gram. There seems to be a wide discrepancy between that and the £1 million of cocaine seized. I do not know whether the seizure was made in order to hit the headlines, but we are dealing with a serious problem, and we must ensure that the information is correct. If 8.4 kg of cocaine was seized, we should get the price right. I am not saying that the information was deliberately misleading, but the figures do not add up. Another concern is that Lurgan, which has been an area of paramilitary activity, is away from Belfast, Londonderry and Ballymena, where the use of hard drugs has been more prominent. The fact that the problem is moving to the outskirts suggests that it is growing throughout Northern Ireland.
Recommendation 20 focused on the use of profits from cannabis to fund other drug-related activities, particularly the introduction of hard drugs, and the likely consequences of reclassification. The Government believe that the consequences can be dealt with and are containable, as stated in their response to the interim report. The Select Committee's report was noted when the issue was discussed on the Floor of the House in a debate lasting an hour and a half. Many Members wanted to participate in that debate because both sides

525WH
of the House felt that we are going the wrong way on the reclassification of cannabis. There are concerns about the mixed messages that have been sent. When people were interviewed for the report, they said that they thought that cannabis was legal now. It is a tragedy if young people believe that it is a drug that can be used, and used regularly. If it is available enough and cheap enough, we will create an opportunity for the very people who benefit most from drugs to make considerable amounts of money.
As has been mentioned, the BMA has concerns. Comments this week by Professor Murray made it clear that there is evidence that the long-term effects of cannabis, especially on people who use it in their teens, can include mental disorders. That is a frightening prospect; young people's brains are not fully developed and taking cannabis can cause them mental problems. That is another reason why the Government should carefully examine reclassification and the effects that cannabis has on the population, and to ensure that we will not have a major problem.
I will move on to discuss the Assets Recovery Agency. Tackling Mr. Big by taking the money and confiscating the big cars and the house is the way that I want to go. All too often, the people dealt with on the street are expendable—the ones who are told, "Here, we will give you the job to do." They are the small fry; we catch them and they are replaced by others. Tackling the Mr. Bigs is absolutely necessary.
The problem in Northern Ireland, as was the case in Scotland, is that the proceeds from seizures by the Assets Recovery Agency go to the Treasury. In Scotland, it has been decided that 50 per cent. of that money will go to the Scottish Parliament, and it will be able to use that to assist communities that are blighted by drugs. We must examine a similar set-up for Northern Ireland; there should be a similar division. Although Northern Ireland can draw from the fund, allocating resources to communities in Northern Ireland would be a giant step forward, and we must take it. Will the Minister confirm that discussions with the Home Office have started on that issue and that the drug-damaged communities in Northern Ireland will get their share of the recovered assets?
I have a considerable amount more to say, but I recognise that a number of hon. Members want to participate. In a number of areas the Government's responses are weak and some of the formal responses to the Committee's report are of concern. The Government's conclusions state that the current model is "flexible" and that there is no complacency. I hope that that is the truth. The sentiments of Northern Ireland Ministers are commendable, and I accept that they have done some positive things. However, there is much more to be done. Today's debate should focus the Government's mind and ensure both that they are aware that the report was a serious attempt to contain the growing situation in Northern Ireland and that they learn lessons.
Lady Hermon:I wish to repeat—although from a slightly different angle—the question that I posed earlier. I will repeat it for the very good reason that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has stated:
526WH
"It is recognised that cannabis is the problem drug in Northern Ireland, when compared to other parts of the UK. Consequently, the Government has decided that the maximum penalties available for trafficking of Class C drugs should be increased from 5 years to 14 years imprisonment."
Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is an effective deterrent?
Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me of her question. I suffer from industrial deafness. Not answering it was a trick to get her to repeat it for me.
Increased sentences are not an effective deterrent. If people are going to peddle drugs on the streets of Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, raising the sentence from five years to 14 will not make any difference because the people who get caught are the small fry. We should be after the people who bring in the drugs in bulk and send them out to the minnows, thus creating havoc in communities across the UK. Increasing the sentence from five years to 14 years is not a replacement for reclassifying cannabis.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Increasing the sentence may not be a deterrent, but if people are caught and the sentence is imposed on them, they will at least be kept out of circulation for a longer period, and will not be able to involve themselves in the drugs trade.
Mr. Tynan:I admire my hon. Friend's view that we live in a wonderful world in which things are simple and easy to understand. Five years should be a big deterrent to people selling cannabis. If they will sell it when the sentence is five years, they will continue to sell it if the sentence is increased to 14 years. That is my personal opinion, but my hon. Friend may be correct. I fear that reclassification is a major problem. It will send all the wrong signals, and it will encourage young people to take up cannabis use. The mental effects of that will haunt the population of this country in the future.
I am delighted to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate. I look forward to receiving the Government's support on many of the issues that I have raised.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: At least six Members are trying to catch my eye. The Front-Bench contributions will start no later than 5 o'clock. I hope that Members will bear that in mind and tailor the length of their speeches.
3.7 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I fully support all the recommendations in the report. Indeed, I commend the recommendations and conclusions to all those who want seriously to address the problem in Northern Ireland, and I appreciate the constructive comments made by colleagues.
I, too, take this opportunity to congratulate the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its notable success in smashing illegal drug rings and for seizing millions of pounds' worth of illegal drugs in recent months. In County Armagh in November five people appeared in court on drug charges following the seizure of cannabis

527WH
with an estimated value of £250,000. In the same month, the police arrested a man coining off the Liverpool ferry who was in possession of an estimated £300,000 worth of cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis resin.
In October, the PSNI broke a major drugs ring operating in the Mid-Ulster area, which had connections to the Loyalist Volunteer Force. The drugs, which had an estimated street value of £1 million, were recovered during operations in the Lurgan and Lisburn areas. I pay tribute to the officers involved and trust that such successes against drug smuggling, drug dealing and the smuggling of other goods will continue.
It could be argued that the problems of drug use and drug trafficking in Northern Ireland have not yet reached a critical stage. There is no room for complacency. It is our tendency to reflect on the relatively minor presence of a drug culture in our society which has left us lagging behind in our ability to stem its growth. We cannot afford merely to react to problems as they arise. On the contrary, we must put in place thoroughly researched and properly thought-out strategies to prevent drug use in Northern Ireland from becoming a problem that is beyond our control.
I will focus on supply. As the report outlines, the main reason for the increasing demand for illegal drugs is their increasing availability. For the most part, those behind drug trafficking to and from Northern Ireland are the organizations—the paramilitaries—that traditionally took an anti-drug line with people in their communities. We are all aware that the paramilitary organisations have, since the ceasefires, also turned their hands to other areas of organised crime, such as racketeering, the illegal trade in petrol, oil and tobacco, and counterfeit goods and money. Those organisations can use the same national and international criminal networks that assisted them in trading arms and raising money. They already have their local communities carved up -under their protection", as they would say. That was an easy, natural transition for them to make, and the disturbing paradox is that the peace process seems to have facilitated it.
We are all aware of which organisations are involved in these crimes. The Minister, the PSNI and the public know who are involved. That prompts the question of why we have yet to see a successful prosecution of any of the major players. The wife and son of the notorious Johnny Adair were charged in Bolton last month with conspiracy to supply heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine after a three-month investigation by Greater Manchester police. English authorities were swift to home in on the Adair family and their involvement in drug trafficking. Why were the Northern Ireland authorities not all over the Adairs when they still resided in Northern Ireland? Are we to believe that they only became involved in the illegal drug trade on their arrival in Bolton, or are there different attitudes to tackling paramilitary drug dealing in England and Northern Ireland?
Countless numbers of others in Northern Ireland flaunt their wealth to such an extent that no effort is made to hide its origins. That is not just confined to loyalist groups. A wealth of evidence suggests that the IRA is up to its neck in drug dealing. It has been linked with FARC, a terrorist group involved in the worldwide
528WH
Colombian cocaine trade. When Martin McAuley, James Monaghan and Niall Connolly were arrested in Bogota, they were found to be covered in traces of both explosives and cocaine. It is, therefore, not an unreasonable assumption that the republican movement was teaching FARC how to launch urban bomb attacks in exchange for fixing up a lucrative drug and weapons connection.
The case of the Bogota three is not the first time the IRA has been linked to drugs. In 2000 Neil Mackay in the Sunday Herald uncovered the fact that during the trial of another three IRA men in Florida, details emerged of a huge arms cache in Colombia, which the IRA wanted to ship to Ireland. That was linked to a convicted American drug dealer, Robert Flint, who had flown cocaine out of Colombia for organised crime gangs. When he was arrested in Galway, Mr. Flint—who incidentally was also a major contributor to Noraid, one of Sinn Fein's big US donors—claimed that Seamus Moley, a senior IRA man, was also involved in a complex plot to transport five tonnes of cocaine to Iran, where it was going to be used to pay for weapons from Poland, which would be shipped to Ireland via Rotterdam in Holland. Yet Sinn Fein-IRA still insist on portraying a public image, through groups such as Direct Action Against Drugs, that is firmly against drugs and therefore not involved in drug dealing. Perhaps the Government's reluctance to come down too hard on those paramilitaries involved lies in their reluctance to disrupt the activities of the political wings of the organisations involved in the political process.
Rev. Martin Smyth: In pursuing that position, does my hon. Friend recognise that in the past the IRA and some loyalist elements were getting the rake-off from the drug dealers, but when so-called peace broke out the drug dealers did not have to pay the fees, so the real reason why Direct Action Against Drugs came into being was to punish the drug dealers who were not paying their dues?
Mr. Beggs: There are strong suspicions that paramilitaries were losing out and not benefiting to the extent that they thought they ought to from the sale of drugs. Unfortunately, some people paid the ultimate price for getting on the wrong side of paramilitaries and were murdered, so they were cut out of the frame altogether.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who is in Dublin this afternoon facing up to some of the Sinn Fein representatives, raised the issue of Sinn Fein's funding several times on the Floor of the House recently. There can be no doubt that organised crime, which clearly includes the illegal drugs trade, is inextricably linked to the funding of a supposedly democratic political party. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect no distinction to be made between paramilitaries on the periphery of political life and those within it, yet the Government appear content to go along with Sinn Fein's duality. We remember too well Sinn Fein's strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box. However, for democrats in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein's current strategy of the ballot box and the smuggler-counterfeiter drug dealer is just as difficult to swallow.

529WH
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was yesterday in receipt of a final report from Professor Ronald Goldstock, who was tasked with looking into organised crime. Professor Goldstock's remit was to establish which loopholes in legislation pertaining to Northern Ireland are open to exploitation from criminal gangs. I am aware that that report is not to be made public, but can the Minister assure us that the Government will move swiftly to mend loopholes, implement Professor Goldstock's recommendation and abandon political expediency regarding the peace process and drug dealing?
Efforts to break Northern Ireland's drugs trade should never be considered in exclusively national terms; rather we must recognise that drug trafficking is an international problem. Northern Ireland is not a drug-producing country. Illegal drugs are brought in from the Netherlands, Colombia, Afghanistan and other countries around the world. It is therefore in the interests of the Government, not just the Northern Ireland Office, to establish links with intelligence services in those countries to break the chain before the drugs find their way to Northern Ireland.
Channels are already open to us for cross-border co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, and there is no reason why that should not be widened. Indeed, we have already seen how a closer working relationship with the Republic can be effective. In October last year, police investigating loyalist paramilitary drug dealing were led to Holland, where they were able to seize several million pounds' worth of drugs.
Before I finish, I shall highlight the dichotomy in the Government's thinking on Northern Ireland. On the one hand, we are witnessing the reduction of security staff at our ports and airports, yet on the other we are hearing how drug trafficking through our ports and across borders is increasing. Is it not time that the Government regarded security and law and order as entirely separate from the political demands of republicans?
The Government are intent on achieving normalisation, but I cannot understand how reducing police presence and security will help us beat ever-increasing crime in our society. True normalisation in Northern Ireland, to bring us in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, should entail treating drug dealers as the criminals that they are, not judging them on a case-by-case basis from the perspective of what semi-political organisation they are affiliated to. No one in Britain would put up with that, and no one in Northern Ireland should have to put up with it either.
3.19 pm
Mr. lain Luke: Today's debate is relevant, although as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, it could have taken place in the west of Scotland 15 years ago. In the past five years, the north-east of Scotland has also had experiences similar to those described in the report.
Such a debate allows us to take steps early on to lessen some of the worst effects of the illicit drugs trade. By the time I joined the Committee, it had conducted extensive and excellent research. Throughout the report, we see the firm but fair hand of the Chairman as he guided the Committee to its final conclusions.
530WH
Northern Ireland is not yet at the stage of the full-blown crisis that exists in many parts of the United Kingdom; it has not reached that critical mass. It is important that these strategies are put in place so that we provide services for people who are suffering, and those who will undoubtedly suffer in years to come, from taking drugs.
The Committee made good recommendations on the education of the young. Early education—especially at primary school—is an important element in any drugs strategy. I have children who attend primary school. Children are made aware from an early age of not accompanying strangers, of not taking drugs and of the side effects of drugs.
I attended school when the anti-smoking campaign started, when the link was first discovered between lung cancer and cigarette smoking. A large number of pupils were subjected, week in and week out, to slide shows and films, and many of us never took up smoking. If a survey were conducted the results would probably show that many of the pupils from those classes that were targeted in the 1960s never went on to smoke. It is good that there are pilot programmes in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ludicrous that the Government have reclassified cannabis? The wrong signals are going out to young people that there are such things as good drugs and t ad drugs, and it will be very difficult to explain that to young people.
Mr. Luke: I have read the comments in the report and heard those made in the Chamber. I support the Government on declassifying—not decriminalising—the use of cannabis. I listened to an excellent programme on Radio 4 several weeks ago on the changing social situation in Northern Ireland and the exciting club scene to be found in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. There is a greater chance of young people in those clubs taking ecstasy, because of its growing popularity, rather than cannabis. Ecstasy is a greater threat than cannabis. Declassification—not decriminalisation—allows police forces throughout the United Kingdom to develop a strategy to tackle harder, and potentially more dangerous, drugs that are unfortunately available throughout the United Kingdom.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not significant that in Northern Ireland there have been more deaths from taking ecstasy than any other drug? The police have not been able to tackle that. Are there any hopeful signs that they will be able to deal with a drug by declassifying it? Surely it will cause confusion.
Mr. Luke: I am not soft on drugs. I have a young family and am greatly aware that drugs are available in schools and on streets throughout the United Kingdom. When I said "declassifying" I meant "reclassifying" because cannabis is still classified. All drugs pose a danger. Indeed, I discussed the issues raised in a recent programme on the north-east of Scotland with the local chief constable because they were relevant.
The big issue on the streets of Dundee is not cannabis—although cannabis is obviously a drug, involves criminal offences and needs to be tackled—but

531WH
crack cocaine. That is a killer. It is very addictive and has hugely harmful effects. We have to allow the police to concentrate on such drugs while continuing to look at the effects that all drugs have in a proportionate and balanced way.
Mr. Tynan: There is a danger that we might get involved in a debate on cannabis instead of on the report. However, Professor Murray made it clear that people who smoke cannabis in their teens could, at a later date, experience serious mental health problems and go on to mental institutions. On that basis, does my hon. Friend not agree that it is far better to be safe than sorry?
Mr. Luke: The position that the Government took on the reclassification of cannabis was in the light of evidence and of expert opinion from the police, put before Members by the Home Secretary. I hope that the Government are sensitive enough that, if we need to review this reclassification in the light of further medical or police evidence, they would undertake such a review and, if necessary, reclassify the drug again. The decision was taken in the light of the scourge-like effect that crack cocaine is having throughout the UK and the knock-on effect that that has on crime. Hopefully, that can be stemmed in Northern Ireland before it suffers the effects that many other areas have experienced.
I am obviously aware of the need to put strategies in place. The points have been well made on the issue of cannabis, and the conclusion that one should draw is that we should never be complacent about drugs or about new information from research on the effects of drugs. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said that some of the arguments in the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations seemed slightly complacent. The strategy is based, to an extent, on historical data, although it has some relevance to the current situation.
We need to take a wider view by looking throughout the UK and western Europe at the implications of some of the drug scenes there. We also need to put in place strategies that are far reaching and far sighted. I mentioned education, especially education aimed at the young. We also need to consider creating residential rehabilitation accommodation throughout the community. The ideal is to treat problems within the community by offering advice and providing local centres. It is a real strength to have a residential rehabilitation and treatment centre where people can concentrate on the worst aspects of a problem. It gives them a chance by taking them out of the community, isolating them, treating them, and trying to equip them to cope with going back into the outside world and facing up to the temptation of drugs.
Although the Government are working on that issue, I note from their response to recommendation 43 that there is some slippage in the timetable for considering that specific problem. As it remains a priority, hopefully we might be able to push them on it because it is a useful facility to have in light of the problems that can occur in communities.
Another thing that was stressed by some of the more eminent and knowledgeable members of the Committee was that since the cessation of paramilitary violence—I
532WH
am not suggesting that such organisations have gone away—there has been a move from terrorist activities to criminal activities, with the aim of raising money. I saw that happen on the mainland two years ago when the Red Hand Commando of Ulster carried out a raid on a public house in Dundee in broad daylight to raise money for its activities in Northern Ireland. It was good that the police apprehended the criminals, who were part of a local cell based on the east coast of Scotland. They have now been dealt with and have received custodial sentences. However, Dundee is not Belfast, where the disciplined nature of such groups allows them to carry out their criminal activities very effectively.
Lady Hermon: Given that the Assets Recovery Agency has done an excellent job to date, will the hon. Gentleman, other Labour Members and, indeed, the Minister have a loud or, if they prefer, a quiet word with the Home Office to ensure that the agency's budget does not stagnate at the current level, but increases to enable it to do the job that we all expect it to do extremely well?
Mr. Luke:The hon. Lady always makes important and relevant interventions, and I am glad to respond. All Back Benchers should put pressure on Northern Ireland and Home Office Ministers to ensure that the agency's funding is not cut. To take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), the Scottish solution, whereby money raised through crime by people involved in paramilitary activity is repatriated across the border to the Scottish Parliament to fund community projects, is an enormous step forward. I would be glad to hear that something similar was to happen in Northern Ireland, because it would be all to the good.
The report notes the need for a strategy to tackle the new move by paramilitary organisations into drug-related activities and other criminal activities, and to ensure that such illicit fundraising is stopped. If there is evidence of connections between paramilitaries and political groups, those groups should be investigated. If connections exist, groups should be banned from political activity and from taking part in elections.
Mrs. Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Justice Minister and the Republic's Fine Gael leader have both commented on links between IRA criminality in the south of Ireland and the funding of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland? Would he condemn such links?
Mr. Luke: I am aware that a question was asked on the subject in either Northern Ireland questions or Prime Minister's questions. I would condemn such links. If a political party is committed to the political process, it must, like every other political party, operate in a way that is seen to be above board and within the law. Any party that accepts funds that are raised illegally by other groups is acting illegally and should not be allowed to participate in legal political activity. I therefore agree with the hon. Lady.
The issue is controversial and much more work needs to be done. The report highlights that and the fact that the essence of tackling much of the drugs trade in Northern Ireland lies in tackling the illicit paramilitary organisations that deal in drugs. Doing that would benefit all.

533WH
No one can deny that things are getting better in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) said, the cessation of warlike military activity by the paramilitaries, as they move on to other activities, and the removal of restrictions, as the situation improves, mean that drugs are becoming readily available. The time-warp situation in which the hostilities retarded the use of drugs and their flow across borders has been reversed.
I said that Belfast is highly rated as a nightclub area. That is breaking down the sectarian divide, because young people from both sides of the community come together to enjoy the benefits of what would be thought of as normal life in any other UK city. However, that has a negative side effect in that ecstasy is sold in such clubs, creating a drug problem that must be tackled. There is a price to pay for normality and we must be clear that the drug problem is always be high on our agenda.
Lastly, the report is very good in that it looks at the subject in great depth. Its one weakness is the fact that we are considering it here. For a strategy to be successful it has to be dealt with at a local level. As I have said before, the forum in which such a report should be considered and acted on is a devolved Assembly in Belfast, not Westminster Hall. We have done a great job in raising the issueߞthis is the second report that we have producedߞand I hope that before the next report comes out, there is a devolved Government in Stormont to take up the points that have been made and to ensure that the strategies that we are told are being developed are completed and used successfully to ensure that the scourge or blight of drugs is lessened. It will never be combated completely, but we should be able to eliminate some of the problems that have been experienced in the mainland if we get our act together now.
I commend the Committee on its report. It makes interesting reading and is relevant to the lives of the citizens of Northern Ireland, especially the young, who are the ones who will suffer from drugs. I hope that the Government response will be in place as quickly as possible, so that future problems are countered successfully.
3.37 pm
Mrs. Iris Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. As has been said, it is only days since Professor Ronald Goldstock, the former head of New York's organised crime task force, presented to the Government his report on gangsterism in Northern Ireland. I should have liked as much as possible of that report to be placed in the public domain but, unfortunately, that will not be possible. Like the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), I hope that the Government will act to close any loopholes that are revealed by his findings. However, I recognise that it will require a sustained effort on the Government's part for any meaningful improvement to occur. I agree with the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) that it is a matter of the utmost urgency that the Government provide all the necessary resources to deal with the scourge.
At last week's Northern Ireland questions, one of my party colleagues pressed the Minister on the scope of the Assets Recovery Agency. It has achieved some success
534WH
in tackling the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. The same vigour does not yet seem to have been applied towards republicans. Many law-abiding people in Northern Ireland feel that kid gloves have too often been used in the interests of the so-called peace process. I trust that we can be assured that investigations of the Assets Recovery Agency will never be hampered by political considerations. I am sure that we all welcome the encouraging fact that the funding of the ARA is to increase next year by 19 per cent. to £15.5 million.
It turns the stomach of the law-abiding majority on both sides of the community to see thugs feathering their nests, first on the back of decades of sectarian murder, and now by diverting attention to newer pursuits that destroy young lives. There was little evidence of a serious drug problem in Northern Ireland until a decade ago. Now, however, class A drugs are more readily available, and what is described as the recreational use of other drugs is more widely tolerated. Waking up to morning news reports of drug seizures has become a regular occurrence. I pay tribute to our police force for its hard work and achievements in that field.
Criminal networks, boosted by paramilitaries, are devoting ever greater energy to organised crime and the drugs trade, to the extent that the number of known gangs has reached three figures. The relationship between terrorists and other criminals proves mutually beneficial. They can combine connections and expertise in evading detection and, as a result, the bully boys are able to exert greater influence in the social housing estates in their general locality. That has led to lavish lifestyles and extravagant homes for some people who have no other discernible source of income.
There is a marked overlap and co-operation between loyalist and republic paramilitaries. I note that of those currently subject to drugs squad investigations, 30 per cent. are connected with loyalist and 15 per cent. with republican paramilitaries. However, another 11 per cent. have connections in both camps, and that concerns organisations that are self-proclaimed freedom fighters.
The years since the Belfast agreement have seen drug dealers being murdered by paramilitaries, including by the IRA. The Committee's report highlights two reasons why they murder drug dealers. First, they can appear to act as defenders of their community, and secondly, they can exert control over the area. Surely, however, the uppermost benefit in their minds is self-interest. With the competition out of the way, it is much easier for them to capture a greater share of the drugs market. Their involvement in the drugs trade shows up the terrorists in Northern Ireland for what they really are. There are some things that Armani coats and suits cannot always hide.
I hope that the report has proved beyond any lingering doubt the true nature of those despicable individuals. The drugs problem is symptomatic of many of the Province's problems, post-cease-fire. Many of those in the golf clubs and garden centres are relatively content, but others who may live less than a mile away in the social housing estates see no peace dividend. There, the grip of the terrorist is stronger than ever. Rather than destroying paramilitarism, the agreement gave it credibility and strengthened it.
The report details a rogue element theory regarding the terror organisations, but I challenge that. If it is present, it can be only minimal and short-lived. Those

535WH
organisations are extremely tightly controlled, with little occurring that has not been sanctioned from on high. A semi-blind eye might have been turned to some of those individuals immediately after the agreement, but nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of the law enforcement agencies now weeding them out of society. Provision in Northern Ireland for limiting the granting of bail could prove useful, not just for drug trafficking but for other serious offences. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that aspect of the report.
I am concerned at the inevitable consequences of reclassifying cannabis. The range of drugs commonly used in Northern Ireland remains different from that on the mainland. Class A drugs are rarer, and cannabis continues to provide a large proportion of income for our criminals. I fear that new supply routes could emerge as a result of Government plans to reclassify cannabis.
I have been concerned for some time about the extent of addiction services in Northern Ireland, and I recently learned through a parliamentary question that there are only 54 in-patient beds in the Province for the treatment of addiction. That, of course, includes alcohol addiction. The Ulster Community and Hospitals trust in Strangford has just seven such beds. The largest allocation is 14, in the Down and Lisburn trust area. Realistically, the total number of beds must be increased, or else young people will die while waiting for appointments for an overstretched service. I appeal to the Government to ensure I hat the necessary funding is made available to improve services for such young addicts. Apart from the addiction aspect of mental health, the use of cannabis, amphetamines and other drugs is recognised as a cause of psychosis. We have little idea of the future effect of that on our health resources.
According to a Royal Automobile Club study, drug-driving is the greatest killer on the roads in Great Britain. Just yesterday, the Police Service of Northern Ireland launched an anti-drug-driving campaign, to which the Minister has refer red. One in four fatalities on the Province's roads were found to involve evidence of drug use. Drug-driving should be treated as severely as drink-driving, and I am on record encouraging the introduction of drugalysers.
When the Assembly was sitting at Stormont, I learned about work done on the mainland, including work on targeting the proceeds of drug trafficking, community involvement in the development of drug strategies, diverting young people at risk of drug misuse to healthier pursuits and reintegrating abusers into training and employment. The "Positive Futures" initiative was a successful venture providing sporting programmes for drug abusers, and I would welcome extending it to Northern Ireland.
I commend those who have been willing to roll up their sleeves and play a constructive part at community level in combating the scourge of drugs. In the north Down area, a support group has been set up by a mother whose family was tragically affected by the curse of drugs. Curiosity in teenage years can have disastrous consequences for the individual and cause heartbreak for family and friends. I trust that, as a consequence of
536WH
the report, the Government will leave no avenue unexplored to rid Northern Ireland's society of those whose despicable actions can only lead to greater heartache.
3.46 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise to other hon. Members, Mr. O'Hara, because I have to leave Westminster Hall at 4 o'clock. That means my doing a particular discourtesy to the person speaking after me, in that the normal custom of the House is to stay and listen to that speech in particular. Depending on how long I take, I might hear a little of it. If the sitting goes on for its allotted time, I shall certainly be back in time to hear summings-up, but there is some doubt about whether it will.
In paragraph 21 of its interim report, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs said that it did not question the arguments for the reclassification of cannabis. That sort of negative Committee language has allowed Committee members to take different positions in the debate. The Minister may see that as something that takes us towards her position, but the interim report does not say that we support reclassification of cannabis. It is the other way round; we are not questioning it, though perhaps that is only for the practical reason of getting a report together.
My position on the reclassification of cannabis has hardened as a result of the Select Committee's experiences in our investigation. At one time, I would have quite readily accepted the Government's proposal, but I have become quite worried about what has taken place. There is nothing like research, knowledge and experience to help move one to better understanding.
In paragraph 25, we concluded that the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive must intensify their efforts to communicate the fact that the use of cannabis remains illegal and harmful. In the current absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, that applies to the Northern Ireland Office. We are asking it to take action to communicate the problem. That is exactly what the Home Office has done today in making the announcement about spending £1 million on an advertising campaign to stress that cannabis is still illegal, which ties in with the Select Committee's recommendations.
The Northern Ireland population is only 3 per cent. of the total population of the United Kingdom. If the money is shared out, I work out that only £30,000 will be available to Northern Ireland, but since my maths is not great as I failed O-level maths, I hope that hon. Members will check that. I realise that the money spent on publicity will sometimes apply to the whole United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland will benefit, but there is a case for saying that more should be spent on advertising the problems in Northern Ireland because of the situation there.
Mr. Mates: Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to ask the Minister what proportion, if any, of the £1 million has been allocated to the Northern Ireland

537WH
Office. I doubt whether any has. In turn, is the Northern Ireland Office allocating any of its money for its own publicity in the local media in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Barnes: Those are certainly pertinent questions. I might not be here to hear the answers, but I hope that the Minister will respond.
In paragraph 1 of the interim report, the Committee says that the drug of choice for the majority of users in Northern Ireland remains cannabis rather than class A drugs. The proportion of the problem connected to cannabis is therefore greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
An additional problem described by hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), is the supply of drugs by organised gangs that have links with or which are themselves in paramilitary organisations with links to political parties. The handling of general problems in Northern Ireland becomes tied in with what the report deals with. I therefore hope that the Minister responds to the points that were raised by the Chairman of our Committee.
Lady Hermon: Given that the hon. Gentleman must leave at 4 pm, I would like it to be known that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), has confirmed that the campaign in Northern Ireland is in line with, and will be as effective as, that planned elsewhere, while having a distinct local emphasis. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman reassurance before he leaves.
Mr. Barnes: My point is that it should be more than that. The hon. Lady's comment suggests that Northern Ireland will get its fair share. However, a fair share may be unfair for the situation that exists in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) made several points about matters of security, and what has been spent and what has been cut. As I have said time and again, with a peace process in operation—it might not be perfect, but I support it—there is supposed to be a peace dividend too. There is a clear case for saying that considerable compensation should begin to be available to organisations in Northern Ireland.
An advertising campaign is only one of the actions that the Select Committee recommended should be taken. The role of the PSNI in achieving several successes in interrupting supply routes was pointed out; it needs to be in a position to do that in the future, as the hon. Member for East Antrim said.
The role of Customs and Excise is somewhat different because it applies essentially to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but it is important. It has received an improvement in resources; it has been transformed since I became involved in its investigations because of the great petrol smuggling problem in Northern Ireland. Resources are sometimes diverted into other areas, but although the border may not be the major route by which drugs enter Northern Ireland, it must be properly controlled, and Customs and Excise has a key role to play.
The Northern Ireland Office is responsible for education at present, but we hope that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly will become
538WH
responsible for it once again. There is a role to play with regard to schools and the youth service. There is a special emphasis on primary schools because there is a problem with solvents. Youngsters are moving into that area, and they are the people who become involved with drugs.
What the Select Committee learned about the movement of drugs by air, ship, lorries, postal services and human carriers reveals how difficult it is in an open society to control the drugs trade. We are not in a position to say that we have an ideal solution to that, and that we can get to a situation where there is no drug use or that it is minor, but there is a window of opportunity to stem the tide in Northern Ireland, where the scale of the problem is not yet as serious as it is elsewhere, even if it is serious enough. The situation there has not yet caught up with that in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.
The cases of Northern Ireland and the Republic show how drug problems develop along with what is otherwise a welcome opening up of societies. In the Republic of Ireland, the dominance of the Catholic Church and the norms associated with it has declined somewhat in recent years. That makes it easier for the drug culture to position itself. As the peace process has moved on in Northern Ireland, the loosening control of the Army and the police, and of the paramilitaries on occasions, has led to the problem continuing and growing.
I do not doubt that the west of Scotland has also been affected by strong cultural changes, which are a part of modernisation processes. Concentrating on stemming the drug culture in Northern Ireland could provide important lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom. We have passed the stage drat Northern Ireland is at with regard to that problem, and we cannot draw lessons back through time. However, significant factors must emerge from a close concentration on the situation in Northern Ireland. We must try to learn the lessons.
I have run out of time. There were other points that I wished to make but they can wait for another day. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to make some general points about cannabis, the drug culture, and the situation in Northern Ireland.
3.59 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Like everyone else, I bring my background and experience to this debate. Before election I worked as a solicitor and was principally involved in criminal court practice, initially as a prosecutor and latterly as a private practice defence agent. Much of my work was in direct drugs cases, which involved the supply or simple possession of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, or in cases of indirect drugs crime, such as acquisitive crime, housebreaking and acts of violence that sometimes result from drugs. The one thing that I learned over the years in the criminal courts was to be exceptionally suspicious of anybody who claimed that they had the answer to the drugs problem. There is no such thing as "the drugs problem"; rather, there are as many drugs problems as there are people who have problems with drugs. As a result, there will be as many answers to those problems. Whether people need total abstinence or a programme of harm reduction, all methods should be available to people who suffer from drugs misuse in our society.

539WH
Accordingly, my party is pleased to welcome the report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is exceptionally well researched. The Committee has come up with lucid and coherent recommendations. I particularly welcome the fact that the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and others said that the Committee would return to the issue later. The hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Committee, hit exactly the right note about the Government's response, saying that it lacked a sense of urgency. That is my own feeling. As I said to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), the report could probably have been written about Aberdeen 10 years ago, about Glasgow 15 years ago and about London 20 years ago. Given what we now know about how the drugs problem escalated in those communities and the speed at which that happened, I find the lack of urgency in the Government's response a bit more than concerning. I hope that tint; Minister will take that on board as the Government continue to deal with the issues that the report raises.
It is almost a cliché to say that we have a massive drugs problem in this country. However, a new aspect to the problem was brought home to me when I met Customs and Excise enforcement officers in my constituency last Friday. They brought a Customs and Excise cutter to Shetland, into Lerwick, and showed us its capabilities. That is relevant to Northern Ireland Members, because the same, boat will service the north channel. As part of the presentation, the Customs and Excise officers showed us a money scanner. They said that 90 per cent. of bank notes in circulation are contaminated by illegal drugs of some sort. We all nodded politely in response, thinking that it was probably an exaggeration. I was therefore more than slightly embarrassed when a fiver that I produced from my wallet, which a London taxi driver had given me in change that morning, went through the scanner and tested positive for cocaine and heroin. Some 90 per cent. of the bank notes in circulation have been handled by somebody who has been using drugs or has been in proximity to drugs. That is a quite shocking illustration of the scale of the problem that our society faces.
Other hon. Members have spoken about the extent of cannabis use in Northern Ireland, which is clearly a major issue of concern. However, I want to reinforce the point made by, I think, the hon. Member for Hamilton, South about the cross-fertilization between cannabis and other drugs such as MDMA, or ecstasy, as it is called, cocaine—particularly crack cocaine and heroin. They are particularly pernicious and addictive substances.
The people who sell those drugs are generally the same ones who sell cannabis. The fact cannot be ignored that if cannabis is targeted and there is a large seizure, people are put in a position that results in their using more serious drugs. That is how people get into heroin or crack cocaine. They go to the dealer and say, "Can we get cannabis?" They are told, "It's all been taken. I haven't got any cannabis for you today, but why don't you try a wee bit of this?" That is how people first try
540WH
heroin or crack cocaine. Because those substances are so addictive, they are hooked and the cycle continues downwards.
Mr. Stephen PoundI caution the hon. Gentleman and ask him to exercise discretion about the structure of events that he has just formulated. The theory that drinking milk leads to drinking whisky and that cannabis leads to heroin has been the staple of sensational journalism for 20 or 30 years. Empirical evidence absolutely denies it. All the criminal evidence is that the people who deal in cannabis are not those who deal in heroin or cocaine. They are different dealers for different drugs. Cross-fertilisation may well exist, but on nothing like the scale that the hon. Gentleman implies.
Mr. Carmichael:I had not spoken of the scale. We can perhaps debate that another time. I do not subscribe to the tabloid view, which I think the hon. Gentleman was alluding to, that someone who uses cannabis will necessarily go on to heroin or cocaine. Evidence from Holland, for example, where the link between cannabis and hard drugs has been much more effectively broken by the use of so-called cannabis cafés, is that the average age of a heroin user is somewhere in the high 30s. In this country, I reckon it would be the late teens or early 20s. That suggests that heroin users in Holland are people who got into the habit before the link was broken.
Mr. Tony ClarkeThe hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is that the drug use of many young people in Northern Ireland is totally recreational. A study in 1992, I think, put the number of young people who engaged in recreational drug use, or who had tried drugs, at about 15 per cent. That rose to 38 per cent. in 2000. Does not that prove that drug use is recreational for many young people in Northern Ireland, and linked to nightclubs and dancing, which is something totally separate from use of crack cocaine or heroin, which prohibits recreation by those who take it?
Mr. Carmichael:Yes, and I suspect that that is the pattern of the increase in and shape of drug use in Northern Ireland; it is not different in that from the rest of the United Kingdom. My plea is that we should not view any illicit substance in isolation. We must look at the question of drug misuse in its totality. Use is often recreational, but everyone starts with recreational use. Very few start at the top of the ladder, as it were, going straight to heroin or crack cocaine. The challenge is to break the bridge between recreational use of less harmful substances and the use of more addictive substances.
Perhaps the most important part of the report, for me, is the recommendation about the increased use of resources from the voluntary sector. The Government will no doubt find that attractive, because it almost removes responsibility from them at one stroke. However, it is crucial, if we are to tackle the problem effectively. It comes down to community involvement. We are wasting our time even trying to tackle the problem unless we can get the community behind us in the fight against drugs.
Lady Hermon:Will the hon. Gentleman extend the point that he just made? As well as helping the voluntary

541WH
agencies, surely the legal system should be in place to help individuals whom the paramilitaries have targeted to traffic serious drugs in Northern Ireland? Will the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and sister party in Northern Ireland—the Alliance party of Northern Ireland—support non-jury trials where witnesses are intimidated when drug traffickers are prosecuted?
Mr. Carmichael: No, I do not support non jury trials, as the hon. Lady well knows. There are wider issues, and the hon. Lady's argument risks throwing the baby out with the bath water. Tinkering with any legal system is exceptionally dangerous. I do not understand the great stress that some people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland place on jury trials. I am a trained Scots lawyer, and the right to a jury trial in Scotland is determined by the prosecutor.
Lady Hermon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman allowing me to intervene for the second time. Having non-jury trials is not "tinkering with" the legal system. Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies to Northern Ireland and allows for non-jury trials
"where there has been intimidation, or attempted intimidation, of any person who is likely to be a witness in the trial."
In other words, it is already on the statute book.
Mr. Carmichael:I imagine that anyone can be intimidated as a witness, whether or not a jury is present. I thought that juries were removed because of the intimidation of jurors rather than witnesses. With respect to the hon. Lady, just because the measure is in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not mean that it is not tinkering. The Government have done many things that tinker, rather than tackling whole issues.
I was talking about the importance of involving the community through the voluntary sector. I believe that the war against terrorism finally turned in Northern Ireland because the community was persuaded that it would not put up with it any longer. The same is true of the war against drugs. There is a real prospect of the challenge being met if people in individual communities are prepared to lift the phone and report the people responsible for drug dealing to the appropriate authorities—the police. The involvement of voluntary organisations will be crucial to that community support, without which the Government and the police service will be trying to push water uphill.
I add my weight to hon. Members' pleas for assets recovered by the Assets Recovery Agency to be returned to Northern Ireland. Again, that would be a very positive message to send to the community in its efforts in giving information about drug dealers to the police and to the other agencies involved and helping to remove those drug dealers from the community.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) intervened on the hon. Member for Hamilton, South to ask about the increased sentence for class C drug trafficking. She was absolutely right to do so. It is probably a necessary alteration to the sentencing structure in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a result of the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug. I do not believe that it will be sufficient, however, because unless resources are committed to ensure that the people are caught and properly prosecuted for those drug trafficking offences, it will be little more than a gesture.
542WH
A number of hon. Members spoke about the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug. I am mindful of the fact that I speak from my party's Front Bench, and perhaps 1 should not say this. However, we are all friends here, and nobody will mind. I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton, South; I think that reclassification was a mistake. If one considers the drugs listed as class C under the misuse of drugs orders, they are essentially prescription-only medicines obtained without prescription; drugs such as temazepam and diazepam. Frankly, when one considers that list and sees cannabis in the middle, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
The classification of cannabis along with drugs such as amphetamine sulphate, which is a class B drug in its powdered form—it is class A in its injected form—was unsatisfactory. That illustrates the need for a comprehensive revisiting of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It seems remarkable that we have a road traffic Act every 10 years on average but that the Misuse of Drugs Act, the subject of which leas been the largest single growth area of business through any criminal court over the course of those 30-odd years, has remained largely unaltered. The time has co me for the Government to grasp the nettle.
I have taken longer than I intended, although there is still a generous amount of time for the Conservatives, and for the Minister to answer all the points fully. I congratulate all members of the Select Committee who are present. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and to what the Committee will have to say when it revisits this most important problem, as it said it would.
4.17 pm
Mr. David LidingtonI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and his Committee on, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, a comprehensive, well-researched and well-articulated report that has managed to cover a range of disparate subjects. Those subjects taken together provide an analysis of the drugs challenge in Northern Ireland and a series of proposals to remedy it.
I drew a number of general conclusions from the report. First, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned, Northern Ireland—in part because of other problems—has lagged behind the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of the severity of the drug problems that it faces. However, there is no doubt that the problem in Northern Ireland is getting worse, and appears to be doing so at an accelerating pace.
Figures given in the report show that seizures of ecstasy and cocaine are on the rise, although seizures of cannabis have remained roughly steady in recent years. I am aware that when talking about seizures one has to be careful not to consider figures that might describe an increase in enforcement activity rather than an increase in the trafficking and consumption of illegal drugs. However, other information collated in the report reinforces my suspicion that the figures for seizures suggest a real increase in the severity of the drug problem. We can see that in the past four years street prices have fallen quite dramatically, although they remain higher in Belfast than in the cities in Great Britain.

543WH
The Police Service of Northern Ireland estimates cited by the Committee are that the street price of cannabis in Belfast between 2000 and 2003 fell from £120 an ounce to £80 an ounce, a reduction of no less than a third. Over the same period, the street price of heroin fell from between £100 and £120 a gram to between £80 and £100 a gram. Those figures suggest that the supply and availability of drugs in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland is on the increase. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) said, the shocking figures released yesterday by the police show that no fewer than a quarter of all drivers killed in road traffic accidents in Northern Ireland are found to have prohibited drugs in their bodies.
The second conclusion I draw from the report is that the links between drug trafficking and supply and the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland are strong, and that any serious strategy to confront and check drug trafficking in the Province has to take account of that reality. As the hon. Lady said, no fewer than 56 per cent. of people investigated by the drugs squad in Northern Ireland are thought to have paramilitary links. In its inquiry on cannabis, the Committee took evidence from Assistant Chief Constable Albiston, who said at paragraph 141 of the evidence that
"in some ways the changes in Northern Ireland since 31 August 1994 have made things more difficult for the police and easier for the gangsters."
He went on to argue that things that are welcome to the law-abiding majority, such as the removal of checkpoints and the scaling down of security measures, have also made life easier for criminals; it has made it a lot more convenient for people who want to move drugs or other illegal goods around Northern Ireland.
Lady Hermon:May I repeat the question that I asked the Liberal Democrat spokesman? Do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Conservative party agree that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be used if there is a risk of jury tampering by paramilitaries who are themselves so involved in drug trafficking in Northern Ireland? Will the Conservative party support non-jury trials in the prosecution of those serious criminals?
Mr. Lidington: I would be prepared to look at the arguments and evidence of the police and the prosecuting authorities as to whether jury trial was a serious obstacle to the effective prosecution and conviction or organised criminals. However, I must say plainly to the hon. Lady that my starting position would be one of scepticism to a further move away from the right to jury trial beyond what is already provided for in counter-terrorism legislation, particularly by the Terrorism Act 2000, and its special provisions for Northern Ireland.
Although I understand the hon. Lady's arguments, I believe that there is always a cost—in this case, in the public's confidence in the criminal justice system?—when we try to do without jury trials. I would look at the strength of the case, but I would require to be persuaded that the evidence justified the measure that she is advocating.
544WH
The Government need to do four things to tackle the paramilitary links, although I appreciate that they are not always things that fall immediately within the power of any Minister. First, there needs to be rigorous, effective policing on the ground. It is important that there is rigorous, impartial policing without political considerations getting in the way of the need to deal properly with people who are trafficking in illegal drugs. I have no doubt that the Chief Constable and the PSNI intend to apply the law in exactly that way.
Mr. Clarke: I do not wish to dilute the obvious link between the paramilitaries and Northern Ireland's drug trade, but that does not explain one of the baffling aspects of the Committee's work. On moving away from the estates of Belfast and Derry we found that the hotspot for heroin and cocaine abuse was the loyal, God-fearing hamlet of Ballymena. I fail to see how we will get to the heart of Northern Ireland's drug problem—which seems to know no boundaries in terms of paramilitary links, urban areas, or rural sprawl—justby chasing the paramilitary links.
Mr. Lidington: I have never argued that it is only a matter of dealing with the paramilitaries. In the PSNI figures that I quoted earlier, 56 per cent. of people being investigated by the drug squad have paramilitary links, but 44 per cent. do not. The paramilitary organisations are the most firmly established and long-established organised criminal bodies in Northern Ireland; that is common sense and can be read in the evidence given to the Committee, and in its conclusions.
During the brief time that I have held my Front-Bench responsibilities I have had conversations with the authorities in Northern Ireland and become aware of their view that as a result of the cessation of bombing and shooting, many people who have known no other way of life than gangsterism have been moving towards gangsterism associated with drug trafficking, oil smuggling or other illegal activity. Effective policing is vital. The police must not be deterred from their responsibilities by the fact that paramilitary organisations with political links are involved in such activity.
This would be a good opportunity for those political parties with links to the paramilitaries to demonstrate that when they protest that they oppose drugs, they are serious. If Sinn Fein in particular could bring itself to give a wholehearted endorsement to the PSNI—which it deserves it would enable the police to carry out their job more effectively in republican and nationalist areas. Drugs are a scourge of Protestant, Catholic, nationalist and Unionist people alike.
Secondly, we need to have effective data sharing between different organisations. That challenge is not unique to the difficulties of dealing with crime related to paramilitaries; it is particularly important in trying to deal with organised criminal gangs. I was concerned to read that there were worries in some of the evidence taken by the Committee that the application of the Data Protection Act 1998 was getting in the way of effective action against drug trading. I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance on that count.
Other hon. Members have mentioned that rigorous action to recover assets is needed, because that is one of the strongest measures in our armoury against

545WH
organised crime of all types. I add my support to the comments of other hon. Members about the risk that recent Home Office decisions may lead to Northern Ireland getting an unfair share of the recovered assets.
I will make one final point on the subject of paramilitaries and organised crime. In view of recent comments made by the Justice Minister in the Irish Republic, we must examine the problem of organised crime—and drug trafficking in particular—alongside the review that the Government will, I believe, carry out within the next year into the operation in Northern Ireland of legislation that applies to donations to political parties. At the minimum, I ask the Minister to accept that on foreign and anonymous donations, exempting parties in Northern Ireland from the normal rules that apply to political parties elsewhere in the UK would inevitably make it easier for drug money or other money from criminal activity to be laundered to fund political campaigning.
Mrs. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman also request that the Government encourage funding bodies not to support groups within the community that are fronts, particularly for paramilitary groups? That is happening at the moment.
Mr. Lidington: If there is evidence that any group is a front for a paramilitary or terrorist organisation, Government agencies should sup with a long spoon.
A number of other things come out of the report that require ministerial reassurance and Government action. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about what he felt was a lack of urgency in the Government's response to the report and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) talked about the Government's response being slightly complacent; I think that that was the phrase he employed.
I accept that there are difficulties, complexities and, at times, uncertainties about information when one tries to deal with a subject as complex as the challenge posed by drugs. When I read the Government's response, I felt that there was a little too much of the touch of Sir Humphrey running through it; it contained his language, which seemed designed to provide reassurance without demonstrating much in the way of conviction.
I was concerned—as were other Committee members who have spoken about the gap that appears to exist between the official perspective and the view of people in voluntary or Government agencies on the ground who deal with drug misusers and with this problem daily. There were differences about the level of street prices and the reliability of historical data in giving an accurate picture of how fast the challenge of the drug problem is growing in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East about the need for greater provision of residential treatment, as well as treatment within a community setting. In Northern Ireland—as elsewhere in the country at least some of that residential provision should be secure. If people can be helped within their families and communities, that is all well and good. All of us know of people in our constituencies who live such chaotic and undisciplined lives that they do not have the support of family, friends or community organisations that would
546WH
help to get them away from a drug habit. Their only chance of breaking free and establishing an ordered way of life lies in being able to go to a disciplined, safe place where treatment and rehabilitation have a chance of making some sort of impact.
Before I close I turn, unavoidably, to the matter of cannabis. I join the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in saying that, somewhat to my surprise and probably to his consternation, I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). It is a moment of comradely solidarity that we shall, no doubt, both treasure. The Government response contains plenty of good intentions and, I am happy to acknowledge, many examples of initiatives and activity that I welcome and that are likely to command broad cross-party support.
However, in the case of cannabis, the Government have made a rod for their own back. The decision to reclassify the drug has already led to confusion among the people who are at greatest risk of becoming misusers of cannabis. Page 18 of the Committee's report refers to the evidence of a project run with schools by the Council for Education in World Citizenship, which told the Committee:
"In 2003 participants displayed confusion relating to the reclassification of cannabis—some now believing that its consumption was on a level with under-age drinking, something not quite legal but not punishable by law."
It is not sufficient for the Government to say that everything is all right because they have also put up the maximum sentence for trafficking in cannabis. That prompts all sorts of questions about how often the maximum penalty is going to be applied by the courts. More seriously, it is often difficult to prove intent to supply, particularly when the quantity of cannabis that is found on a person is relatively small. The police might believe that it was almost certainly being used to supply other people in the area, but that is very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt in court if the individual either maintains silence or continues to argue that the drug was for his or her personal use only.
The change in the maximum sentence for trafficking is inadequate and the change in classification is sure to lead to a further increase in the consumption of cannabis in Northern Ireland at a time when it is already the most commonly used illegal drug. That increased consumption is certain to lead to an increase in the medical problems with which cannabis is associated and which are described in the report. The evidence given to the Committee by doctors in Northern Ireland is that the consumption of cannabis is leading, particularly among young men, to more cases of psychosis, of depression and of paranoia. The link between cannabis misuse and mental health problems should concern the Government and all Members of Parliament, from whichever part of the United Kingdom they come.
Today we face the ludicrous spectacle of the Government spending £1 million of taxpayers' money in order to explain to the British public what they meant by their policy in the first place. That £1 million would have been much better spent on community nurses in Ballymena or Ballymurphy, on local drug addiction teams, or on help for voluntary organisations that are working on the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers. It is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom,

547WH
and it flows directly from a misguided and ill-thought-out policy that should be reversed at the earliest opportunity.
Despite that real and serious disagreement on cannabis, I conclude on a more harmonious note. I believe that the Committee has worked hard to identify the problems associated with drug trafficking and misuse in Northern Ireland. The Government have largely accepted the Committee's analysis, but I share the concern of other hon. Members who believe that a bit more energy and drive are needed, rather than just words of good will from Government Departments. I am sure that neither the Minister nor any of us in this debate want to come back in five years to debate the same subject and to consider evidence from a future Select Committee that the drugs problem in Northern Ireland has got far worse because insufficient urgency was displayed by the Government today. I hope that the Minister will reassure us not only about the Government's good intentions, but about the energy and drive that they will show to tackle the problems before they get even worse.
4.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): First, I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate to discuss issues arising from drug misuse in Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for the many informed contributions to it. I acknowledge the expertise and commitment of the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates).
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) highlighted an important matter. Perhaps I owe him an apology; he certainly did not feel loved or wanted as a result of the ministerial response. We welcome the report, and I am sorry that that was not clearer in our response. There is certainly no complacency. I was saddened by comments made by the hon. Member for East Hampshire and others, who felt that the report was complacent. I assure them that that is not the case. I take issue with the comments made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about Sir Humphrey; if that makes me Jim Hacker, I am extremely disappointed.
The drugs situation in Northern Ireland bears similarities of nature and scale to the drugs situation in the rest of the United Kingdom, the British isles and western Europe as a whole. However, there are also crucial differences, which the report outlined. I commend the Committee; it is tricky to highlight such similarities and differences in the same report. I welcome the constructive comments and the analysis found throughout the report.
I will try to cover as many of the points raised as I can, but many of the issues addressed by the report cut across departmental and sector boundaries and cover the work of three Northern Ireland Ministers: myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar). Health is one of my direct responsibilities, and I will deal with the issues relating to that. My ministerial colleagues, who have responsibility
548WH
for education, criminal justice and organised crime, would have been present today, but unavoidable, prearranged Government business demands their presence elsewhere, for which they apologise. I will pass on to them any points relating to their responsibilities that require their attention.
To a large extent, the Committee's concerns have been reflected in the debate, and they cover three broad areas: drug misuse, problem drug use and issues arising from the illegal drugs trade and trafficking. Given the timing, it was inevitable that several Members also wanted to concentrate on the reclassification of cannabis. I emphasise "reclassification", as several Members referred to "declassification", which has led to some misunderstandings. I will say more about that later.
The Government's response—through the drug strategy joint implementation model, of which the Committee was aware—has been to support activities and initiatives in education, prevention, treatment and enforcement. It is noticeable that the bulk of the report's comments and recommendations cover those three broad issues and responses.
On a more general point, the report provides an assessment of drugs in Northern Ireland, but several hon. Members referred to the fact that people's perception of the situation differs. The Government draw up an overview of the nature and scale of drug misuse from various sources, in a process that has been described as putting together a jigsaw puzzle. One problem is that we do not always have all the pieces, while some are newer than others and may seem more relevant. Our evidence includes official statistics, reports and surveys, but also anecdotal reports from people who work in the field and, indeed, from those who take drugs.
The evidence does not always fit together as neatly as we would like, but it is all taken seriously, and we look at it all to try to get a picture of the current situation and to develop an indication of past trends and, if possible, of new trends and issues. In no way does that indicate complacency over the issue. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. The Government response shows a determination to get things right and to respond effectively. It is worth highlighting that these issues are complex, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) explained, albeit from a lawyer's perspective, which I regret.
On the specific issues, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) referred several times to giving priority to drugs education at primary level, and he was right to do so. The existing guidelines, which were produced in 1996, already advocate that primary pupils should be made aware of the dangers associated with illegal drugs. Of course, different approaches are appropriate to different age groups, and I agree with the Committee's recommendation that we need a coordinated response that involves children and parents. The Department for Education and Skills is committed to working with the Department of Health along those lines.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned the conflicting evidence that had come from the Police Service of Northern Ireland and community workers on the availability of cocaine and crack. I have highlighted

549WH
some of the reasons for that and referred to the different information comes through. However, we concur with the police view that there is a growing problem with cocaine, although its use is still relatively restricted, and there is little evidence of crack cocaine use. The drugs misuse database supports that view but suggests that the number of people using cocaine is increasing, albeit from a very low level. In drugs raids, the police have found no evidence of the equipment needed to make crack cocaine, and there have been few seizures of either drug. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Ballymena, where there has been a seizure, but that appears to be a local phenomenon and is not particularly widespread.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Northern Ireland Office projects that had received funding up to 2004. He asked for an assurance that they would be funded in the longer term, and I can give it to him. Seven of the eight projects have been secured until March 2006, including the ones that he mentioned. I hope that he is satisfied with that response.
Mr. Mates: Seven eighths satisfied.
Angela Smith: The eighth project has not yet won funding, but the other seven will be fully funded until March 2006. Seven eighths satisfied is probably better than the hon. Gentleman would get from a lot of Ministers.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned pharmacists. The issue of needle exchanges and substitute prescribing highlights the work that they do and the contribution that they can make. My Department and the Department of Health have provided £500,000 to fund the installation of time-delay safes. They have now been introduced and there have been no successful armed thefts involving controlled drugs in the past six months, which we welcome. We also encourage pharmacists to offer wider services, including smoking cessation clinics, because they are often accessible to the whole community. The needle and syringe exchange scheme is another service.
The apocryphal story of the sunglasses in Ballymena has been mentioned several times. Obviously, such things are not acceptable. As I said in my evidence to the Select Committee, pharmacies were given up to £5,000 each to improve security and safety, possibly by installing CCTV. We must make every effort to work with pharmacists to protect not only people's privacy and dignity, but the security of pharmacy staff.
We have had interesting discussions with pharmacists about whether it would be appropriate to have consulting rooms. Not all of them thought that they would be appropriate for their own security and safety, but they took on board the points about people's dignity, security and safety, and several pharmacies have used amounts up to the £5,000 available to provide that kind of service.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire also raised concerns about the delay in producing the hepatitis C strategy. I acknowledged in my evidence to the Committee and in the Government response that that delay was not acceptable, and I hope to produce an explanation in early March as to why it happened. The explanation will acknowledge the problem and will not be an excuse. We are working towards the March target,
550WH
so it should not be too long before it is produced. On the issue of substitute prescribing, I can inform Members that all boards are now signed up to substitute prescribing, and we are making progress on that.
Several Members raised the issue of involving users of drugs in the planning of services. Users' use can be made known through the voluntary and community sector networks and the independent sector forums. Any individual who has knowledge of, information on or an interest in drug and alcohol matters can make their views known to the drug and alcohol strategy team communication database, which has proved to be very valuable. It has played a significant role in the development of substitute prescribing services.
The issue of vacant drug and alcohol co-ordinator posts was also raised. I noted that some hon. Members welcomed the appointment of a co-ordinator, who took up the post on 27 October 2003 and is making progress. The negotiations about the additional five junior-grade drug and alcohol co-ordinators are almost complete and they should be appointed by summer at the latest, so there has also been significant progress in that regard. I think that we are all disappointed that those posts have been vacant for so long, but that should not happen again because the funding has been made recurrent. That issue has been dealt with, and we have responded to the Committee's concerns.
The Committee stated in its report that the post of regional drug and alcohol strategy co-ordinator is central to providing drive and momentum to the strategy. We certainly accept that. The appointment of the new co-ordinator provides a new opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to continue successful implementation of that strategy. Ongoing meetings show how valuable that post is.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has raised concerns about the involvement of the voluntary and community sector. He has been right to state how vital that is, because unless we have grassroots and community sector support, we do not bring people along with us. We really need that support, particularly from those implementing services on the ground, and from users. One mechanism is the drug and alcohol implementation steering group, or DAISG, which I chair. At our meetings, the most recent of which was on Tuesday, we are able to get reports from voluntary and community sector representatives. Their participation in that steering group has been invaluable and I am grateful for their work. Each of the four drug and alcohol co-ordination teams involves members and supporters of the voluntary sector. They recently extended their membership, which is a valuable opportunity for the community to be involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South and the hon. Member for East Hampshire made comments about the review of the strategy, and the latter asked for reassurance that the comments in the report would be taken on board for the review. I can tell him that they certainly will be. The review was slightly delayed. I know that he regretted that, but it was tied in with the appointment of the regional co-ordinator. The review will be comprehensive and extensive. It will take into account various elements: the drugs and alcohol strategy; the joint implementation model; and the Northern Ireland drugs and Alcohol campaign.

551WH
We have already begun work on the terms of reference and at our meeting on Tuesday the relevant material was circulated. We expect responses by the end of January, so that the terms of reference will be established by then. I am pleased that the work is moving on, and I am sure that the hon. Member for East Hampshire welcomes that assurance.
Several hon. Members made comments about the Assets Recovery Agency. I am pleased to inform the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that the budget is increasing from £13 million this year to £15.5 million in 2004ߝ05. That is an increase of just over 19 per cent. That shows the value of the agency's work.
As to concern about money not returning to Northern Ireland from the fund, I can report that the recovered assets incentivisation fund has proved successful with its bid, and that there will be an allocation of £240,000 from that bid. However, I completely take on board the comments about the Community Fund. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley, has been in contact with the Home Office about the matter. We have not yet received a response, but have asked for the Department to reconsider and to respond as soon as possible.
Lady Hermon:I appreciate that the Minister has only a few minutes left. Will she just confirm that the Assets Recovery Agency has no cash-flow problems and is content with the budget allocation for the forthcoming years?
Angela Smith:I have had no indication that it is not content with the budget. That question would be better addressed to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. A 19.2 per cent. increase in funding is one that many agencies would welcome.
I should tell the hon. Lady that I could go on for another half an hour, but I promise that I will not; I saw her look of horror at the suggestion.
Several hon. Members referred to the new test of impairment and the campaign on drug-driving. Wearing my other hat, as Minister with responsibility for the environment, I launched that campaign with the PSNI yesterday. Its aim is to show how dangerous drugs and driving are; that includes legal as well as illegal drugs. Sometimes people forget that some legal drugs, including over-the-counter medicines labelled "May cause drowsiness", make it dangerous to drive. The money is being spent to ensure that people are aware of the problem. There is a direct reference to cannabis in the campaign, and that is appropriate. I think that it is a very valuable campaign.
To make a slight correction to what hon. Members seem to have understood from the figures, approximately one in four of drivers and riders killed in accidents whose bodies were tested for drugs showed evidence of drugs. Not all drivers were tested. In cases where someone dies some time after the accident, there might not be testing. However, the figure is alarming, and we want to work closely with the police on this matter. There is considerable advertising on the issue, and it will be heavily supported by police enforcement, which is the key to making the campaign work.
552WH
It would remiss of me not to deal with the reclassification of cannabis. I understand people's concerns, particularly given the misuse of terms such as "declassified" and "decriminalised", which are not accurate. I shall do my best to lay to rest hon. Members' concerns. I was interested when the hon. Member for East Hampshire said that people were unclear on the matter. He focused on whether people thought it was legal to smoke cannabis before the announcement this week.
There has been considerable confusion. The message must be that cannabis remains illegal and harmful and that it is not just illegal drugs that are harmful. As Minister with responsibility for health, I am very concerned about the effects of smoking. Tobacco is a very harmful drug, but I would never suggest—no hon. Member has this afternoon suggested—that it be made illegal. Legal and illegal drugs can cause harm. There is a health issue; we need to ensure that the Government's message gets across.
As things stand, law enforcement agencies throughout the UK will continue to enforce the prohibition of all drugs. Cannabis remains an illicit substance, as the hon. Member for North Down mentioned several times. It is a significant deterrent that the penalty for supplying cannabis is to be increased to 14 years.
Mr. Mates: I hear what the Minister says, and she acknowledges that there has been confusion on the matter; but the problem—this shows the complacency of the Government machine—is that although the announcement about reclassification was made eight months ago, the campaign is starting this week. That is why there have been eight months of confusion. People were so confused when we talked to them while carrying out our inquiry.
Angela Smith: The Government campaign will clear up any confusion and will help enormously. Quite erroneously, there has been an acceptance that cannabis is not harmful, but it is. The campaign is unprecedented across the UK; no previous Government have run such a campaign to highlight the problems with cannabis. The campaign will make a distinct difference. The PSNI and myself are confident that co-operation with police forces in Great Britain and the National Crime Squad, and internationally, will not be compromised by reclassification, an issue raised in the debate. We have had the same response from Customs and Excise; its procedures are also unlikely to change.
Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister give way?
Angela Smith: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall first address an issue that he raised. It might prevent me from having to give way. I also welcome him back to the Chamber.
I was asked how much was being spent in Northern Ireland. The Home Office budget is separate. The approximate figure for Northern Ireland this year is just

553WH
over £60,000, but I can give my hon. Friend the actual figures. Proportionately, it is significantly more than is being spent in the rest of the UK.
Mr. Barnes: How much of the £60,000 comes out of the £1 million that has been announced, or was the money provided for earlier? Could not a wodge of the £1 million be added?
Angela Smith: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I was not sufficiently clear. What I was trying to say—I
thought that I had made it clear—was that the £60,000
is completely separate from the £1 million. It is from a completely separate budget from the Northern Ireland health budget, and is not from the Home Office budget. Proportionately, the sum is significantly more than the Home Office is spending.
Mr. Barnes:Will any of the Home Office budget be used for Northern Ireland?
Angela Smith:No, because the Home Office spends its budget with reference to the different situation in England and Wales. We are talking about the Northern Ireland budget, which, per head of the population, is significantly more; I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that. The situation is different in Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that the message sent out in Northern Ireland is tailored to the circumstances there. That is what the separate budget enables the campaign to do, and I am happy to supply my hon. Friend with some of the campaign materials if he is particularly interested. I think that they strike home. They deal specifically with Northern Ireland and the circumstances pertaining to it.
Mr. Tynan: On the reclassification or Declassification—however we want to put it—of cannabis, there is medical evidence that cannabis is creating enormous health problems, both in throat cancer and in mental disease. It has been said that the evidence for changing the classification was based on evidence from people who are regarded as experts in the field. However, the experts that the Government involved in cot death syndrome have created an enormous problem because the evidence has been found to be false. The same situation may be found to apply to the evidence that justified the reclassification or declassification of cannabis.
Angela Smith: I understand my hon. Friend's point. We could probably debate the issue for another half hour or hour, and I would be happy to do so with him at some point, but the key message has to remain that cannabis is illegal and harmful. No one is saying anything else. We have to have some credibility on the issue, and I do not think that we have any when we put cannabis in the same category as amphetamines. There is a difference.
Mr. Carmichael Mr. Carmichael rose—
Angela Smith: If I could finish the point, it is important to publicise the differences in the risks that drugs pose. The Government campaign is not saying that there is no harm or risk from cannabis. It is saying that cannabis presents a different kind of risk, which is the reason for the reclassification. My hon. Friend the
554WH
Member for Hamilton, South talks about language, but we are simply talking about a reclassification; there is no way that that should be seen as declassification.
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister makes a perfectly valid point. To classify cannabis with amphetamine sulphate was wrong. By the same token, does she not agree that it is incongruous to see cannabis among prescription-only medicines such as diazepam and temazepam?
Angela Smith: It seems that I am more in line with the view of my Front Bench than the hon. Gentleman is with his. I do not agree with him. The penalty for trafficking cannabis is different; it is 14 years which is not the case for all class C drugs. This is an issue of credibility. I am not dismissive of hon. Members' concerns, which I understand, and that is why the information campaign is so important.
Mr. Lidington: Following the reclassification of cannabis, does the Minister believe that the consumption of cannabis in Northern Ireland is likely to go up or down?
Angela Smith: A lot depends on how we get the message across. The advertising and drug-driving campaigns provide us with an opportunity to send out a message in a way that we have not done before about how drugs can be harmful and impair driving ability. I hope that that awareness will have a positive effect in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) raised the Goldstock report and asked what was being done about it. It was received on Monday and is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. I am confident in their determination to tackle these problems. The very reason why they asked for a report from Ron Goldstock was so that they could act on the findings and deal with a serious problem. I have no reason to distrust their commitment.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, South and the hon. Member for Aylesbury asked about the Data Protection Act 1998 and whether the PSNI will share information with other bodies. I assure hon. Members that the PSNI is prepared to share information on seizures and arrests, although the Act prevents it from commenting on individual cases, and that also applies to patient confidentiality. Information can be shared, and joint working between law enforcement agencies is especially important.
The hon. Member for East Antrim made the slightly unfair point that the police were acting against paramilitaries. In particular, he mentioned Johnny Adair, whose licence was revoked by the Secretary of State because of his behaviour, which included drug dealing. The police have taken considerable action against paramilitary organisations involved in drug dealing in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that; he even mentioned some of the cases in his speech.
Mr. Beggs: We welcome what has been done, but the community in Northern Ireland as a whole wants to see much more being done. There is a perception that some parts of Northern Ireland are still no-go areas.
Angela Smith: Operational matters and deployment of police officers are the responsibility of the Chief Constable. Over the next three years, £2.1 billion has been allocated to the police as a result of the recent spending review. That is more than £400 per head of the population per year, which is two and half times greater than the average for the rest of the UK. Significant resources are therefore available to the PSNI over and above what is available to the rest of the UK. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, of which I know the hon. Gentleman is aware, provides for significant changes that will help the Chief Constable.
Lady Hermon: I am delighted to hear that we have the Minister until half-past 5; she has a long while to go until then. I know that the Minister is not responsible for criminal justice at the Northern Ireland Office, but as she was speaking on policing and justice a moment ago, will she confirm that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in relation to non-jury trials talk about where there is evidence of a "real and present danger" of jury tampering taking place? Will she confirm that the Government would have no hesitation in using that provision in the prosecution of drug traffickers in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Edward O'HaraOrder. Before the Minister responds, I point out to hon. Members who may wish to intervene further that we hope to allow the Committee Chairman a little time to respond. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
Angela Smith:Your calling us to order, Mr. O'Hara. allowed me to recall the exact provisions. The hon. Lady is correct that section 44 oft he Criminal Justice Act 2003 could be used to hold non-jury trials, but that overarching power has not yet commenced in Northern Ireland. It is unlikely to be enacted there until 2005.
Lady Hermon: The Minister's reply spurs me to rise to my feet again. Her opening words were that the Government were "not complacent" about the drugs problem in Northern Ireland and that the Government needed to be effective in the measures that they took. What on earth is the reason for section 44 of the 2003 Act not being implemented in Northern Ireland for another 18 months? It is quite unreasonable.
Angela Smith: The hon. Lady seems to suggest that nothing else is happening, and that the 2003 Act would solve all the problems. The Government are not complacent. I understand that that is what was agreed by the Ministers who took that Act through Parliament, and I can ask my colleagues to write to her explaining the reasons. It would not be fair to say that because it does not come into force until 2005, the Government are complacent. The other measures that I have outlined today that were addressed by the Committee show that the Government have no complacency on the matter.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am appreciative of the interest shown by the Committee in an important social and public health issue, and I
556WH
welcome the constructive comments made in the report. I also welcome the additional comments made this afternoon.
The key to tackling drug misuse in Northern Ireland, an issue that impacts across all sections of our community, is to develop a co-ordinated and integrated response. That was the intention behind the original drugs strategy that was launched in 1999, and the subsequent joint implementation model that was launched in 2001. Through that plan, over 300 regional and local activities and initiatives have been funded, covering education, treatment and control. They are designed to reduce the level of drug-related harm in Northern Ireland by reducing actual drug use, by treating and preventing problem drug use and by addressing those issues involved with drug trafficking and drug-related crime.
I am pleased to tell the Select Committee and hon. Members present today that the process of reviewing the strategy and the joint implementation model to take action to address those issues for a further five years has just begun. I assure the Committee that the report and its conclusions and recommendations will be taken into account during that review. It was with an excellent sense of timing that this debate took place today. I emphasise that there is no lack of understanding in the Government, nor a lack of commitment or determination to tackle the problem.
5.14 pm
Mr. Mates: This has been a useful debate, and I congratulate all those hon. Members who took part. I particularly thank the members of the Committee who took part; nine of the thirteen Committee members are here today, which is good on a Thursday afternoon and with no Whip. Some were here for a slightly shorter time than others, but I am grateful to them not only for being here and contributing to the debate, but for the work that they did in getting the report published.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I am aware that some of the questions that we put to her were not for her Department, and one or two may have been slightly above her pay grade. Nevertheless, the fact that we have been pressing her is an excellent example of the use of a Select Committee. We produce a report, and we say what we think, unanimously and on a cross-party basis. That galvanises Ministers into action, because they have to come to the Chamber to answer the report. That in turn galvanises the officials. I venture to say that none of the announcements that you have made this afternoon would have been made today if the Minister did not have to come here.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Order. I am not aware that the Chair has made any announcements.
Mr. Mates: The moment I said "you", Mr. O'Hara, I realised that I had gone wrong. I had hoped you would not notice, but that was in vain, too.
The whole purpose of the Select Committee system has been shown in very good order today, and we have had some answers which perhaps would have churned rather longer through the bureaucratic machine had it

557WH
not been for the discipline of today's debate. I think that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I assure the Minister that we will return to this subject, we will keep watching what the Government are doing and we will want to be more satisfied about the urgency with which this problem is being tackled. As I have said, we have two or three years to get this strategy right, otherwise the
558WH
problem will be as out of control as it became in the rest of the United Kingdom. I and all my Committee very much hope that this will not happen, and we intend to keep a very sharp eye out to see that it does not.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the benefits of Bayer GM rice approved by her Department as animal feed on 7 January. [148610]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: 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 Directive requires each application to market GM crops for commercial importation or cultivation to be assessed on a case-by-case basis on the scientific evidence of any risks it may pose to human health or the environment. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment concluded 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." No assessment is required or made of comparative advantages with other products. The full UK assessment of Bayer's application is available on the Defra website at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/euconsent. htm.

  The UK is the lead member state on the application and therefore undertakes the initial assessment. 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.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to(a) conduct and (b) commission further research on how GM plants might invade new habitats. [148903]

  Mr Morley
  The Department has commissioned research on the potential invasiveness of GM crops. An example is "An Investigation of Feral Oilseed Rape Populations" the report of which was published in February 1999. Details of this and other Defra-funded research projects that have included a consideration of the invasiveness of GM crops are available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research.

  In addition to work funded by the Department there has been a large body of research on the invasiveness of GM and other plants conducted elsewhere. This body of research was recently reviewed by the GM Science Review (details available from www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk). Chapter 6.2 of the their final report specifically considered research on the risks of invasiveness of GM crops.
  1366W
  The risks of invasiveness of GM crops are carefully assessed prior to any release. The Government's statutory advisers on GM crop releases—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE)—have advised that in the case of all previous releases, that the risks of invasiveness have been low. This view was supported by the Science Review. However both ACRE and the Science Review highlight the need to continually monitor developments and we are currently considering future research requirements in this area.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the evaluation of the costs and benefits of the commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK over the next 10 to 15 years. [148905]

  Mr. Morley
  As part of the GM dialogue the Strategy Unit carried out a study of the costs and benefits of GM crops. This looked at not only the range of GM crops currently available, but also those that might be available in 10–15 years.

  The unit concluded that GM crops could offer some cost and convenience advantages to UK farmers, although any economic benefit is likely to be limited in the short-term as only a narrow range of existing GM crops are currently suited to UK conditions, and weak consumer demand may limit take-up. In the longer term it concluded that future developments in GM crops have the potential to offer more wide-ranging benefits, to both farmers and consumers.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will decide their GM food policy. [148906]

  Mr. Morley
  We are considering our policy on GM food and crops generally in the light of all the information we have gathered. That includes the reports of the public debate and the science review, the Strategy Unit's costs and benefits study, the AEBC's report on coexistence and liability, and now ACRE'S advice on the FSE results. We will set out our conclusions in due course.

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated in which badgers have been systematically removed from an area, and the area kept free of badgers, where the incidence of TB in cattle has declined; and what conclusions she drew from this work. [148660]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Four large-scale badger clearances have been carried out, at Thornbury in Avon (104 sq km), at Steeple Leaze in Dorset (12 sq km), at Hartland in North Devon (about 62 sq km) and in an area of East Offaly in the Irish Republic (738 sq km). All four clearances were followed by a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle.

  However, none of the previous TB control strategies that involved badger culling have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns, other factors may also have influenced these. In the

  1367W
  absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.

  A complete assessment of previous TB control strategies can be found in the 1997 Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers by Professor John Krebs and the Independent Scientific Review Group (the "Krebs Report"), available in the House Library.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the resources necessary to ensure that a given area is cleared and kept free of badgers, with particular reference to(a) number of visits and (b) personnel employed; [148651]

  (2) what (a) financial and (b) human resources are allocated to the (i) clearance of badgers and (ii) the maintenance of badger-free areas in the Krebs proactive areas. [148659]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), ten areas are subject to "proactive" treatment. As many badgers as possible within the design of the trial are culled in these areas (each approximately 100 sq km) and badger numbers are kept as low as possible. After the initial cull, the work involves an annual re-survey and cull of all proactive areas. However, the human resources for "proactive" work cannot be separately identified, except at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the costs of trapping as a "proactive" culling method in the RBCT cannot be used to assess the resources required to clear an area of badgers, because this would require the use of snares, poisoning or gassing which have been ruled out by the Government on welfare grounds. The RBCT clears as many badgers as possible from proactive areas using cage traps, but this removes, at best, 80 per cent. of badgers.

  The average number of field staff employed by the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit for field operations in the RBCT and the associated costs by financial year are given in the following table:

  WLU Field Staff and Costs

  Year

  Number of Field Staff

  Total cost of Wildlife Unit (£ million)

  1998–1999

  62

  2.9

  1999–2000

  90

  4.2

  2000–2001

  110

  5.5

  2001–2002

  136

  5.5

  2002–2003

  127

  5.6

  2003–20041

  133

  6.8

  1projected

  For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. Over the first three years of the Trial, contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with the Central Science Laboratory and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, is always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.

  Carbon Trust
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to assess the effectiveness of the enhanced capital allowances scheme managed by the Carbon Trust; and if she will make a statement. [148915]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: On behalf of Defra the Carbon Trust are carrying out an Impact Assessment of the Enhanced Capital Allowance for energy-saving technologies. Defra and the Carbon Trust will use the results of the assessment to consider further promotion of the scheme to ensure that it has the greatest possible impact.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with EU Ministers in connection with the Common Agricultural Policy since the Agriculture Council in June 2003. [148861]

  Alun Michael
  Since June last year, the Common Agricultural Policy has been on the agenda at several of the monthly meetings of the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or her ministerial colleagues have attended. At its September meeting, agreement was reached on the Council Regulation implementing the June reform agreement. Since then, there has been discussion of the European Commission's proposals for further reform of the CAP, covering the cotton, tobacco, olive oil and hops sectors and of options for reforming the sugar regime.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend discussed CAP reform with the Irish Agriculture Minister in November as part of his preparations for Ireland's presidency of the European Union. Agriculture was also a major issue at the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun in September at which my right hon. Friend discussed the June agreement and future CAP reform with her EU colleagues.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with colleagues in the Department for International Development in connection with the development implications of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [148862]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has regular meetings with her colleagues from other Departments, including the Secretary of State for International Development, to discuss issues relating to the current World Trade Organisation negotiations. These discussions encompass the relationship between development and CAP reform.

  Flood Defence Plan (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of the proposed flood defence plan for Cheltenham. [148540]
  1369W
  Mr. Morley
  Defra agreed the Environment Agency's strategic approach to flood management measures for Cheltenham in 1999 and has since provided grant to the Agency for the first three phases of works. Defra is currently considering the Agency's application for grant on the detailed proposals on the remaining four phases of works but in any event the commencement of works must necessarily await the outcome of the Agency's application for planning permission for these works. I understand that the Agency's proposals would reduce the risk of flooding to over 600 properties and provide environmental and amenity benefits. I also understand that there are local concerns about disruption during construction, the removal of trees (although a major planting scheme is planned in mitigation) and a change in the use that could be made of an area identified by the Agency as a flood storage area. It will be for the planning authority to reach a view on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed works in the first instance.

  US Ships (Decommissioning)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the purpose was of the meeting held on 7 January, involving the Environment Minister, at which ghost ships were discussed; who requested the meeting; what factors were taken into account before the Minister agreed to meet representatives of Able UK Ltd.; what the outcome of the meeting was; and if she will make a statement. [148616]

  Mr Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: I met the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Mandelson), at his request, with the Mayor and Chief Executive of Hartlepool Borough Council and the Chief Executive of Able UK. The meeting agreed that the issue of the US Ships in Hartlepool is a matter for the regulatory bodies—in particular, the Environment Agency and the local planning authority. The meeting enabled the participants to understand the respective responsibilities of the bodies involved, and to help ensure that all the necessary procedures are followed.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Environment Minister will agree to meet a delegation representing groups and individuals opposed to the proposed dismantling of US ghost ships in Hartlepool. [148617]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: I am always happy to consider requests to meet local delegations from the relevant Member of Parliament. I recently met my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), along with Mayor of Hartlepool and others, to discuss the US ships.

  Joint Environmental Markets Unit
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost to public funds was of the Joint Environmental Markets Unit in each of the past 10 years; and what the total value is of waste management contract which British companies have secured overseas as a direct result of the activity of the Joint Environmental Markets Unit in each of these years. [144575]
  1370W
  Mr. Morley
  JEMU is a joint unit between DEFRA and DTI. JEMU provide support for the environmental goods and services industry, of which waste management is a sub sector. The total public funds (from both departments) spent on the Joint Environmental Markets Unit over the past 10 years are as follows:

  Year

  Total budgets (£000)

  1993–94

  1488

  1994–95

  1819

  1995–96

  11,032

  1996–97

  1990

  1997–98

  11,133

  1998–99

  11,046

  1999–2000

  11,026

  2000–01

  11,305

  2001–02

  11,254

  2002–03

  1,333

  2003–04 (Year's allocation)

  1,404

  1These figures are an estimate based on available records.

  JEMU targets its international trade work at developing markets, where it can add most value. JEMU has worked with other parts of Defra and the Environment Agency to promote UK Environmental Policy as a means of marketing UK expertise. Relationships in these countries take time and persistence to develop and contracts can take several years to be finalised. JEMU is aware of at least two waste management companies who, in recent years, have won contracts totalling in excess of £5 million as a direct result of JEMU work. Feedback from waste companies, who participated in a JEMU trade mission to SE Asia last March, has also forecasted total potential business of £63 million over the next three years. JEMU introduced a systematic method of monitoring performance recently, and will be evaluating the results of this carefully.

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned into the economic effects of the introduction of the Large Combustion Plant Directive on the United Kingdom coal industry. [148511]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: We are continuing to assess the potential economic impact of the introduction of the Directive on the UK coal industry, and on the coal-fired electricity generating industry which is its major market, using both internal analyses and independent research. We are also in detailed dialogue with these industries to help us to understand their views.

  Livestock Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recovery of livestock farming in(a) Chorley and (b) Lancashire; and if she will make a statement. [148228]

  Alun Michael
  Other than the June annual Agricultural Census, which among other things records the number of animals present on holdings on the designated census day, no specific assessment has been
  1371W
  made of the recovery of livestock farming in Chorley and Lancashire. Data from the Agricultural Census1 show the following:

  1June 2003 data is expected to be published in March.

  Chorley

  Lancashire

  Sheep and Lambs

  2000

  35,337

  776,586

  2001

  31,502

  703,205

  2002

  29,887

  656,886

  Cattle and Calves

  2000

  14,941

  250,038

  2001

  15,435

  245,617

  2002

  14,676

  227,990

  Pigs

  2000

  6,369

  113,640

  2001

  6,184

  100,845

  2002

  4,685

  94,048

  Milk
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total supermarket share of the(a) liquid milk and (b) cheese market was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [148691]

  Alun Michael
  The supermarket share of the biggest four supermarkets (Asda, Safeways, Sainsburys and Tesco) of liquid milk in 2001–02 was 36 per cent. If smaller supermarkets are included (excluding town centre and local shops) the share rises to 48 per cent. The corresponding market shares for cheese are 64 per cent. for the big four and 80 per cent for all supermarkets. Figures are from the Expenditure and Food Survey and are only available for the twelve month period ending in March 2002.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the outcome of the retail price initiatives on liquid milk and cheese during the last three years. [148692]

  Alun Michael
  The evolution of farmgate and retail prices over the last three years is tabulated below. Last year, in a Milk Development Council commissioned study by KPMG on "Prices and Profitability in the British Dairy Chain", London Economics undertook an econometric study of various aspects of the supply chain, including price transmission. For the UK, London Economics found that increases and decreases in retail prices for liquid milk are fully transmitted to farmgate prices with a lag of five months. However, price changes at farmgate level are not fully transmitted, A 1 unit increase in farmgate price results in a 0.56 unit increase in retail price, while a 1 unit decrease in farmgate prices results in a 0.71 unit decrease in retail price. For cheese they found no transmission and for butter they found some evidence that a fall in the farmgate price of milk resulted in an increase in the butter price.
  1372W

  Farmgate/Retail Milk Price Comparison July 2000—November 2003

  Year

  Farmgate pence per pint

  Retail1 pence per pint

  November 2000

  10.57

  35

  December 2000

  10.38

  35

  January 2001

  10.41

  35

  February 2001

  10.33

  36

  March 2001

  10.16

  36

  April 2001

  10.48

  36

  May-2001

  10.17

  37

  June 2001

  10.63

  37

  July 2001

  11.62

  37

  August 2001

  11.85

  37

  September 2001

  11.76

  37

  October 2001

  11.63

  37

  November 2001

  11.39

  37

  December 2001

  11.14

  37

  January 2002

  10.68

  37

  February 2002

  10.40

  36

  March 2002

  10.23

  36

  April 2002

  9.09

  36

  May 2002

  8.45

  36

  June 2002

  8.73

  36

  July 2002

  9.42

  36

  August 2002

  9.66

  36

  September 2002

  9.73

  36

  October 2002

  10.31

  37

  November 2002

  10.29

  37

  December 2002

  10.09

  37

  January 2003

  10.05

  37

  February 2003

  10.03

  36

  March 2003

  9.88

  36

  April 2003

  9.57

  36

  May 2003

  9.09

  36

  June 2003

  9.39

  36

  July 2003

  10.35

  37

  August 2003

  10.77

  37

  September 2003

  10.94

  37

  October 2003

  11.14

  37

  November 2003

  11.17

  37

  1The retail price is an average of one point of delivered milk and one pint of shop bought milk. Because most milk is shop bought this overstates what is actually paid per pint by most consumers.

  Source:

  Defra/National Statistics

  Municipal Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the application by the Department for a derogation for(a) 2006, (b) 2009 and (c) 2016 on the biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets of the Landfill Directive. [148757]

  Mr. Morley
  Article 5.2 of the Landfill Directive lays down demanding targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill and the timescale for achieving those targets. The targets require the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to be reduced to 75 per cent. of the total amount (by weight) of such waste produced in 1995 by 2006; to 50 per cent. by 2009; and to 35 per cent. by 2016.

  For those member states (like the UK) which landfilled more than 80 per cent. of their municipal waste in 1995, the Directive contains a derogation permitting a delay to the target dates by up to four years i.e. to 2010, 2013 and 2020. If a member state intends to take advantage of this derogation, there is an obligation on it to inform the Commission in advance. The UK will

  1373W
  meet that obligation by informing the Commission at least a year in advance if it intends to make use of the derogation for a target year. As was made clear in the recent consultation, planning for the Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme assumes that the derogation will be used for all three target years

  Pollution Prevention
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to require companies storing oil to undertake environmental risk assessments. [148916]

  Mr Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: There are no plans to require this. However, a full assessment of a company's site to identify potential sources of pollution and the development of a plan to minimise these risks is a central recommendation in the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidance on Industrial Sites (PPG11).

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to place the Environment Agency's pollution prevention guidelines on a statutory footing; and if she will make a statement. [148917]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: There are currently 27 Pollution Prevention Guidelines jointly published by the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Environment & Heritage Service for Northern Ireland. These establish best practice for the prevention of pollution for a wide range of sectors and activities. Where appropriate, statutory codes of practice may refer to the standards set in the Pollution Prevention Guidelines. There are no plans at present to change the status of the Guidelines themselves.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to extend the Oil Storage Regulations to cover(a) domestic and agricultural waste oil and (b) underground oil storage tanks. [148918]

  Mr Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: There are no current plans to extend the regulations. Separate regulations are already in place for agricultural fuel oil, waste oil storage is subject to waste regulation controls and statutory guidance is in place for underground oil storage. Large domestic storage tanks are already included in the Oil Storage Regulations and all new domestic installations are now subject to control under building regulations.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to establish a targeted inspection and enforcement regime in connection with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) 2001 Regulations; and if she will make a statement. [148919]

  Mr Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The Regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency and apply minimum prescriptive standards on a blanket basis to all premises storing oil in above ground fixed or mobile tanks or facilities. There are no plans to change the Agency's approach to enforcement which is explained in the Defra guidance note which accompanied
  1374W
  the Regulations. The Legislative background in that Guidance states that the Environment Agency will not need to make a special visit to individual sites to assess risks, but will enforce the regulations during routine visits and thus reduce resource burdens.

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions are pending in the(a) Foot and Mouth Department, (b) Forestry Commission, (c) Environment Agency and (d) IACS Payment Department. [148922]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a)None by Defra.

  (b)Nine prosecutions are currently listed before the Magistrates Courts.

  (c)Three hundred and sixty five prosecutions are currently listed before the Courts (based on information provided by the Environment Agency).

  (d)Five prosecutions in relation to cases investigated by the Rural Payments Agency are currently listed before the Courts.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Civil Service (Disablities)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will set out the number of employees in her Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148984]

  Mr. Caborn
  Data on disability is collected on the basis of voluntary self-classification. The Department currently employs 12 people declaring a disability. The Department's Code of Practice on Equal Opportunities Monitoring prevents us from disclosing data for individual groups fewer than five. This is also in accordance with exemption 12 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial support her Department provides for the maintenance of historic buildings; what plans she has to increase this support; and if she will make a statement. [149493]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's financial support for the maintenance of historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage, which received a baseline grant-in-aid allocation of £115.4 million in 2002–03. English Heritage's baseline grant-in-aid for 2003–04 and 2004–05 is £121.7 million. Funding for English Heritage beyond 2004–05 is currently under consideration.

  In addition, Lottery funding is available for repairs to historic buildings through the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has a joint grant scheme with English Heritage for repairs to listed places of worship.
  1375W
  This Department also administers the Treasury's Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which has provided £16.6 million of grants towards the cost of repairs to listed places of worship since December 2001. The Scheme is expected to continue until March 2006.

TRANSPORT

  A40 (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to carry out a review of the new traffic arrangements on the A40 at the Charlton Kings Sixways Junction in Cheltenham; and in what form he would like submissions to the review. [148535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The next review of the scheme is due in September 2004. This will be a formal Road Safety Audit. There is no statutory or formal consultation as part of this process but the Highways Agency would welcome feedback from local people about the scheme.

  A565
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money Sefton council received on transference of ownership of the A565 from the Highways Agency; and how much it will receive on an annual basis. [148928]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has a programme for handing over responsibility (known as detrunking) for the A565 trunk road to Sefton borough council on 1 April 2004. The statutory process to enable detrunking to proceed is currently ongoing, and includes negotiations with the council. A Grant, calculated to be in the region of £600,000, will be awarded based on a formula for maintenance expenditure. This Grant, uprated for inflation, will be paid in the 2004–05 financial year and will continue until detrunked roads are included in the Highways Maintenance Formula Spending Share.

  Air Transport
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received from the National Air Traffic Service on the need for them to validate capacity forecasts contained in the White Paper on The Future of Air Transport; [149045]

  (2) whether he has commissioned the National Air Traffic Service to validate the capacity forecasts contained in the White Paper on The Future of Air Transport. [149046]

  Mr. Darling
  National Air Traffic Services responded to the consultation exercises carried out prior to the publication of The Future of Air Transport, but have not made any representations to the Government since the White Paper was published. Air Traffic Management is an essential part of the Aviation White Paper strategy and NATS will have a key role in delivering it.

  Car Insurance
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents there were in each region of England in each of the last five years involving a driver or drivers who were uninsured; and what 1376W
  percentage of those accidents involved (a) third party personal injury and (b) third party property damage. [148739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]: Information on the insurance status of drivers involved in accidents is not held centrally in my department.

  However, the Motor Insurers' Bureau (Mffi) holds figures for accident claims in the United Kingdom involving uninsured or untraced drivers. For the past five years, the MIB paid claims as follows:

  £ million

  1999

  173

  2000

  213

  2001

  222

  2002

  214

  2003

  235

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the overall cost to public funds in the latest year for which figures are available of driving without adequate insurance cover. [148741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]: Information on the overall cost to public funds of driving without adequate insurance cover is not held centrally.

  The main costs of uninsured driving will be the substantial ones arising from accidents involving uninsured drivers. In the public sector these costs will fall on the emergency services (police, fire, ambulance and hospitals). Costs will also fall on the victims, and (through increased insurance premiums) on the honest, insured motorist. The estimated cost to the honest motoristsl insurance premium is an average of £30.

  There will also be a cost to the Courts Service arising from the need to prosecute and to enforce fines and penalties.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of the Coastguard Service work in Wales; and how many worked in Wales in 1996. [150012]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency currently employs 90 Coastguards in Wales. There are also 476 Auxiliary Coastguards based in Wales.

  Due to a change in Human Resource systems, there are no exact figures for 1996. However, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency estimates that there were 60 Coastguards and 500 Auxiliary Coastguards in Wales at that time.

  Hemsworth Bypass-Al Link Road
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to(a) commence and (b) be completed on the link road between the Hemsworth bypass and the A1; how much funding he has made available for this purpose; and if he will make a statement. [149671]
  1377W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This scheme is awaiting the completion of the necessary statutory procedures. We confirmed in the 2004–05 Local Transport Capital Expenditure Settlement, announced last month, that we would provide sufficient resources for completion of the scheme up to a maximum of £11.261 million. However, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council recently notified us of a cost increase of £9.337 million over and above this agreed contribution. I cannot make a decision on the case for additional funding until the statutory procedures have been completed.

  Road Network
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the(a) motorway and (b) dual carriage network has raised central reservation barriers to eliminate the glare of headlights from oncoming traffic. [149708]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no recorded examples on the English dual carriageway trunk road or motorway network where the central reserve barriers have been raised to eliminate the glare of headlights from oncoming traffic.

  A trial of an anti-glare device attached to central reservation barrier has been undertaken on an English motorway but this proved to be ineffective in reducing accidents.

  Speed Cameras (Essex)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 6 January 2004,Official Report, column 215W, how much of the money raised in fines from speed cameras in Essex was spent in Essex on the costs of purchasing and operating speed cameras for each of the five years prior to 2001–02. [149382]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: Before the safety camera netting off trial began in April 2000 money raised in fines was retained by the Treasury and the cost of placing and maintaining cameras met by local authorities. The money claimed back by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership to meet the cost of operating cameras for the financial year of 2000–01 was £1,846,480.

  Vale Link Community Transport Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure the long-term future of the Thornbury-based Vale Link Community Transport scheme; and if he will make a statement. [150075]

  Mr. McNulty
  Vale Link Community Transport was awarded funding of £612,000 from the Department's Rural Bus Challenge (RBC) competition in 1998. The long-term future of the scheme is primarily a matter for the local authority and the other local organisations concerned to consider.

  We have taken a number of steps to support community transport schemes. From May 2002 many community transport organisations are eligible to receive Bus Service Operators Grant and I understand Vale Link Community Transport is in receipt of this
  1378W
  grant. We have also extended Rural Bus Subsidy Grant, of which South Gloucestershire has been allocated £285,000 this year, to enable authorities to use it for the further support of schemes that have previously received RBC funding. However, it is essentially for individual authorities to decide which services are most appropriate for support in their respective areas.

  Waterborne Freight
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to increase the percentage of waterborne freight on UK flagged ships. [149445]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Freight Facilities Grants are available to encourage the carriage of freight by inland waterways, coastal and short sea shipping. Freight Facilities Grants are non-flag specific.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Child Care
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Minister for Women what representations she has received on the barriers to women working due to the lack of high-quality child care provision. [149754]

  Ms Hewitt
  My postbag leaves me in no doubt about how much high quality childcare provision gives real choices to women. This is why I welcome the announcements by the Chancellor in his Pre- Budget Report on record spending on childcare.

  Government Departments (Gender Balance)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues about gender balance within Government Departments. [149756]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women is holding a series of meetings with ministerial colleagues to review progress on gender balance in Government Departments.

  Women Entrepreneurs
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask Minister for Women what action she is taking to help women entrepreneurs. [149758]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are now actively implementing the Strategic Framework for Women's Enterprise which was launched in May last year, to provide a co-ordinated and long-term approach to the development of women's enterprise.

  We are now working with many partners nationally and in the regions to take forward the recommendations of the Framework. And we continue to work productively with women's enterprise organisations such as PROWESS and Everywoman.

  We are encouraged by the findings on women's enterprise of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor's most recent report which finds levels of total female entrepreneurship in the UK having risen from

  1379W
  3.3 per cent. in 2002 to 3.8 per cent. in 2003 and female attitudes to start-up having become far more positive during the last year.

  Early reports from the regions suggest levels of women's enterprise are rising; although it is still early days, it encouraging to hear of real progress being made in the north east, East Midlands and the south east.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on manufacturing industry in England. [149742]

  Jacqui Smith
  Having put in place the first Government manufacturing strategy for 30 years with the active support of industry and unions, we are making good progress in addressing the key factors for manufacturing success identified in that strategy-promoting investment, applying science and innovation, best practice and skills to achieving more high value manufacturing.

  Post Office
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the sum allocated for improvements to urban post offices under the urban reinvention programme has been applied for. [149743]

  Mr. Timms
  To date, my Department has paid £5,448,897 to Post Office Ltd. under the urban reinvention programme for investment grant funding. This includes an element of pre-funding to the company to facilitate prompt payments to sub-postmasters. I understand from Post Office Ltd. that the total number of applications submitted by sub-postmasters so far is 485, with further cases under discussion with individual sub-postmasters. Of these applications, 98 grants, totalling £506,934, had been paid in full as at 20 January 2004.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-postmasters of(a) rural and (b) urban post offices in each constituency have applied for compensation to close their business; how many have been successful in their application; and how much has been paid to them to date. [147066]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: Decisions on compensation to sub-postmasters are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 796W, on benefit payments (pensioners), if she will publish the figures used by the Post Office to justify the proposed closure of (a) Belgrave Branch, 326 Wilnecote Lane, Belgrave, Tamworth, (b) Dosthill Branch, 49 High Street, Dosthill, Tamworth, (c) Kerria Road Branch, Kerria Centre, 34 Kerria Road, Tamworth, (d) Hockley Branch, 158 Hockley Road. Wilnecote, Tamworth, (e) Kettlebrook Branch, 134 Kettlebrook Road, Tamworth, (f) Silver Link Branch, 66 Caledonian, Tamworth, (g) Two Gates
  1380W
  Branch, 1 Springfield Road, Two Gates, Tamworth and (i) Wilnecote Branch, 80 Watling Street, Wilnecote, Tamworth. [149492]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on proposed closures of post offices are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. (POL). I understand that the figures used by POL in proposing the closure of a post office are commercially confidential.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted into the use of carbon capture technology to enhance recovery of North sea oil. [149744]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has conducted its own research and sponsored research jointly with the oil industry since the mid 1980's into the use of carbon dioxide injection into mature oil fields to recover more oil. We are currently investigating the feasibility of demonstrating the use of carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery in the North Sea. We expect to publish the findings of this investigation in March.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support she is providing to the shipbuilding industry. [149745]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department gave a £2.8 million grant to the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association for a four-year programme of productivity improvements and research and development benefiting shipyards, which concluded on 31 December 2003. Separately, my Department is funding the Science, Engineering and Marine Training Agency (SEMTA) to undertake a range of studies into training needs and provision in the shipbuilding industry, with the aim of ensuring that the UK shipbuilding and marine engineering sector has sufficient numbers of properly skilled people to meet the Ministry of Defence's substantial naval procurement programme.

  Electricity Prices
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to facilitate the connection to the national electricity grid at affordable prices of potential consumers living in remote areas. [149746]

  Mr. Timms
  I have no such plans.

  Connections for those in remote areas are generally more difficult and this is, unfortunately, reflected in the cost. There are no provisions in existing legislation which could be used to require the cost of connection to be subsidised by, for example, the existing customer base.

  Natural Gas
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has carried out into the availability of natural gas worldwide. [149748]
  1381W
  Mr. Timms
  DTI uses information on natural gas availability from a variety of sources including the International Energy Agency, the Energy Information Agency of the US Department of Energy and the BP-Amoco Statistical Digest.

  World Trade
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards trade negotiations following the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancún. [149749]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Her Majesty's Government remains committed to delivering a development Round that will benefit industrialised and developing countries alike.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the number of financial services jobs being exported to(a) Eastern Europe and (b) Asia. [149750]

  Ms Hewitt
  We do not have official figures for the number of financial services jobs being offshored. We are addressing this issue through seeking views from parties interested in offshoring as part of our consultation exercise. In recognising the economic and social importance of this issue, we are also looking at how we can improve data collection.

  Altran Foundation for Innovation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to inform(a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) universities of the Altran Foundation for Innovation's award for 2004 on the theme of Discovery, Understanding and Enjoying Science through innovation. [144502]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand that Ecsite-UK, the organisation that represents Science Centres, has details of this award on its websites.

  Business Starts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which inter-ministerial group is responsible for the English equivalent of the Scottish Business Birthrate Strategy; and which ministers are members of that group. [149634]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Responsibility for small business policy, including start-up strategy, is a matter for the Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs, Productivity and Competitiveness. The member are:

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chair)

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

  1382W

  Leader of the House of Lords and The Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury and Chief Whip

  Secretary of State for Education and Skills

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for Wales

  Minister without Portfolio

  Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister for State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mike O'Brien)

  Business Links
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have been helped by each of the UK business link organisations; what the average sum of money received by these businesses is; how many of the businesses helped are still operating; and how many of those businesses have increased their profitability. [148190]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In the last full operating year (2002–03) over 300,000 businesses were helped by Business Link Operators (BLOs) in England. A breakdown of this total"by individual BLO—follows. Information about business survival rates are not collected individually.

  BLOs do not report on levels of support funding received by the businesses they assist.

  A Gross Value Added measure to enable BLOs to quantify—in terms of wealth creation and productivity improvements—the impact of their support to businesses will be available from 2004.

  County Durham—2,834

  Northumberland—2,438

  Tees Valley—3,718

  Tyne and Wear—4,685

  Cheshire and Warrington—6,642

  Cumbria—4,428

  East Lancashire—3,187

  Manchester—11,540

  Merseyside—6,286

  North and West Lancashire—6,435

  North Manchester—5,445

  Humberside—8,817

  North Yorkshire—9,231

  South Yorkshire—5,511

  West Yorkshire—12,335

  Derbyshire—4,631

  Leicestershire—4,409

  Lincolnshire and Rutland—4,720

  Northamptonshire—3,186

  Nottinghamshire—5,592

  Birmingham and Solihull—8,149

  Black Country—5,365

  Coventry and Warwickshire—5,377

  Hereford and Worcestershire—8,489

  Shropshire—3,074

  1383W

  Staffordshire—6,666

  Bedfordshire—2,400

  Cambridgeshire—3,223

  Essex—8,655

  Hertfordshire—7,281

  Norfolk 3,981

  Suffolk—4,423

  London—32,730

  Kent—10,465

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire—10,542

  Surrey—12,199

  Sussex—9,446

  Wessex—15,511

  Berkshire—6,827

  Devon and Cornwall—9,157

  Gloucestershire—4,357

  Somerset—3,047

  West—7,132

  Wiltshire—5,099

  Total—309,665

  Business Support
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact that(a) regional venture capital funds have had on (i) the overall productivity of United Kingdom businesses and (ii) reducing disparities in regional productivity, (b) Faraday centres have had on enterprise areas, (c) University Challenge Seed Funds and (d) the SMART scheme. [146147]

  Jacqui Smith
  The nine regional venture capital funds have only recently become operational. The first funds became operational in January 2002 and the final fund in July 2003. These funds have a 10 to 12 year lifespan and it is, therefore, too early to assess their impact on the areas you have identified. Plans are already in hand, to assess their impact at the appropriate time.

  An early evaluation, to measure progress, was concluded in July 2003 and a summary report can be found on the following website address: http://www.sbs.gov.uk/content/finance/SBS_RVCF_Esummary_ july2003.pdf

  Information and Communications Technology
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) actual and (b) percentage change in the take-up of connectivity technologies among the UK's micro and small businesses was in each year since 1997; and what steps are being taken to increase take-up. [146133]

  Mr. Timms
  Measurement of take up of connectivity is covered by the DTIs International Benchmarking Study (IBS). The IBS has been produced annually since 1997 and copies are available from the Libraries of the House.

  IBS 2003 shows UK businesses in general have reached saturation point on internet access although
  1384W
  there has been a slight falling off in connection by micro and small businesses. A similar situation applies to the use of websites.

  The Government will continue to promote the benefits of being connected to the internet for micro and small businesses but emphasis will be placed on encouraging a more effective use of information and communication technology (ICT). Businesses of all sizes need to use ICT in a more sophisticated way, paying due attention to people and processes, as well as the technology, if they are to gain the expected benefits.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of employees in the information and communication technology sector are women; and what steps are being taken to increase the representation of women in the sector. [146138]

  Ms Hewitt
  The proportion of women in ITEC occupations across all sectors is currently 23 per cent. (e-skills UK and ONS, Labour Force Survey 2002).

  As part of the Government's strategy the DTI announced in December the award of a contract to the JIVE Consortium (Bradford College, Sheffield Hallam University, the Open University and Cambridge University) to operate a new resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology (SET) occupations, which include IT. JIVE will offer advice and support to SET employers about best practice in recruiting and retaining women and also support and advice for women wishing to work in or already working in SET occupations. This strategy is aimed at increasing the representation of women in all SET occupations at all levels, and will include the provision of a dynamic and content-rich website; good practice guides for SET employers; a 'Good SET Employer' recognition for women wishing to return to SET occupations. Working with their Open University partners JIVE are developing specific ideas about increasing the number of women in IT. Bradford College already trains women to be Microsoft professionals and their experience in this field will be invaluable in ensuring that the new resource centre is effective.

  Miners' Compensation/Pensions
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims there have been for(a) chronic pulmonary emphysema and (b) vibration white finger in the Easington constituency; how many have been settled; and what amount of compensation has been paid to date. [148852]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information is as follows:

  COPD

  VWF

  Claims received (number)

  8,098

  5,607

  Interim payments made (number)

  2,012

  3,764

  Full and final offers made (number)

  3,541

  2,218

  Offers accepted (number)

  2,466

  1,918

  Total amount paid (£ million)

  24.4

  38.4

  1385W
  Constituency figures can be found on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. The information is compiled in the middle of the month and shows the figures for the end of the previous month.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many vibration white finger cases the Government have referred to the Vibration Reference Panel; and on what date the Vibration Reference Panel was set up. [149027]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Three cases.

  The VRP was set up on 1 September 2002.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much the Government have charged the(a) Miners Pension Scheme and (b) British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme for their role as guarantors in each of the last six years; [148939]

  (2) how much the Government intend to charge the (a) Miners Pension Scheme and (b) British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme in April for their role as guarantors. [148938]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government do not charge for providing the guarantee for the Mineworkers' pension Scheme or the British Coal Superannuation Scheme.

  The Government guarantee that members' basic pensions as at the time of privatisation will always rise in line with inflation, irrespective of underlying economic conditions.

  Any surpluses from the guaranteed fund are shared between the Government and the schemes.

  Procurement (Outsourcing)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether her Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries her Department has outsourced these jobs; how much her 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. [147583]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI does not have a specific procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing. In all procurements, the DTI always seeks to achieve best value for money, having due regard to propriety, regularity and the European procurement directives.

  The DTI is not outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies.

  Renewable Energy (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list windfarm sites in operation in Cambridgeshire, giving their(a) location and (b) output in kW hours. [149678]

  Mr. Timms
  As far as I am aware there are currently only two operational windfarms in Cambridgeshire. These are both single turbine facilities.
  1386W
  A 225 kW turbine operated by Fivestone Ltd. commissioned in September 1990 is located at Kings Bush Farm, London Road, Godmanchester, Huntingdon.

  A 225 kW turbine operated by Wood Green Animal Shelters, commissioned in October 1993, is located adjacent to Priory Produce, St. Mary's Road, Ramsey.

  Energy output in kWh on a site by site basis cannot be provided due to confidentiality undertakings between the site owners and Ofgem, for sites eligible under the Renewables Obligation.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of electricity generated in Cambridgeshire was from renewable sources in each of the past five years. [149679]

  Mr. Timms
  Statistics for electricity generation are not available at county level. This is because such data would disclose information about individual private companies. Out of the 11.4 MWh of electricity generated from renewable sources in 2002, 1.3 MWh (11 per cent.) was generated in the east of England region that includes Cambridgeshire.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) her Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147907]

  Ms Hewitt
  129 staff passes have been reported lost by DTI staff in the past twelve months.

  The respective figure for agencies is 75.

  Neither DTI nor its agencies hold figures for stolen passes.

  Small Business
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of small business failures in the East of England; and if she will make a statement. [149690]

  Nigel Griffiths
  VAT registrations and de-registrations and insolvency statistics are the best official guide to the number of business success or failures.

  There were 17,190 VAT de-registrations during 2002 in the East of England, which was 470 less than those registering for VAT during the same year. There have been more registrations than de-registrations in the East of England each year from 1995 to 2002.

  The number of company insolvencies in the East of England area also fell between 1999–2000 and 2002–03. A stable economy with low interest rates has assisted the net growth of business in the East of England.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Smart Feasibility award winners have failed to launch product or service due to failure to attract investment. [146315]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The report of the most recent, independent evaluation of the Smart scheme was published in September 2001. It found that 29 per cent. of those businesses which received only a Feasibility
  1387W
  Study award and 19 per cent. of those which received both a Feasibility Study and a Development Project award did not or expected not to introduce a new or improved product or process as a result of the project. Of those businesses, regardless of the outcome of their projects, which found barriers to the introduction of new products or processes to market, 37 per cent. which received only a Feasibility Study award and 31 per cent. which received both a Feasibility Study and a Development Project award cited "lack of finance" as a barrier.

  Software Patenting
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of current EU proposals for software patenting on the small and medium sized enterprise sector. [142016]

  Ms Hewitt
  The current European Commission proposal for a Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions has been subject to a regulatory impact assessment, which was cleared by the European Scrutiny Committee of the House in its forty-first report of the 2001–02 session.

  Although the scope of the assessment is necessarily wider than the SME sector, it does specifically consider the effect of the proposals on small businesses. In particular, it indicates that the proposed Directive would reduce the uncertainty concerning the patentability of computer-implemented inventions and should therefore reduce patenting and legal costs. As these costs and uncertainties are of particular concern to small and medium sized businesses, I believe that a Directive that achieves these aims would have particular benefits for the SME sector.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the policy is of the UK Government regarding the EU proposals for software patenting. [142017]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government continue to support the proposal put forward by the European Commission for a Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions that clarifies the existing position and reduces uncertainty in this field. My Department continues to work with interested parties and other member states to achieve a Directive that meets these aims and offers benefits for both software developers and software users in the UK and Europe.

  Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what remuneration will be provided to each of the members of the new Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board. [145685]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chairman will receive £450 for a full day's meeting or £225 for a half-day meeting. Board members will receive £200 for a full day's meeting or £100 per half-day meeting.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often the new Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board will meet. [145686]
  1388W
  Mr. Timms
  The full Board will meet once a quarter. There may be additional meetings of sub-groups on an ad hoc basis.

  Transdepartmental Science and Technology Group
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down the Transdepartmental Science and Technology Group administration costs set out in her Departmental Report 2003, for 2003–04; and what amounts were allocated in each year since 1997. [147801]

  Ms Hewitt
  Allocations of gross administration costs to the Transdepartmental Science and Technology Group (TDST) since 1998–99 are set out in the following table. 1997–98 figures are not available because administration costs were compiled on a different basis before 1998–99.

  TDST gross administration costs: allocation an breakdown per year since 1997

  £000

  Type of expenditure

  Pay and pensions

  Current expenditure other than pay

  Administrator gross total

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998–99

  3,665

  2,738

  6,762

  1999–2000

  3,431

  3,527

  7,173

  2000–01

  3,744

  2,516

  6,380

  2001–02

  4,191

  3,845

  8,171

  2002–03

  4,279

  4,425

  8,704

  2003–04

  4,134

  3,816

  8,085

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the annual economic cost to developing countries of the breakdown of the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancún. [149075]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have no estimate of the annual economic cost to developing countries of the breakdown of the WTO ministerial conference in Cancún. However, there are a number of studies by academics and international organisations of the benefits to developing countries of a successful round of negotiations. The scale of estimated gains depends on a number of factors including the scale of trade liberalisation implemented, its timing and the product coverage. Most recently, a World Bank study ("Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries", 2004) estimated that significant liberalisation could boost developing country incomes by between £159 billion and £349 billion per annum by 2015.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what formal meetings she held at the ministerial conference in Cancún with representatives of developing countries. [149076]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My ministerial colleagues and I between us talked with Ministers from around 40 developing countries, including many from the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group, in meetings in Cancún. A visit to Honduras with Christian Aid to visit poor
  1389W
  families meant I was in Cancún for the last 48 hours of the conference. In that time, in addition to EU and other meetings, I spoke with six developing country Ministers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts since the breakdown of the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancún about(a) improving processes for decision-making and (b) taking account of the views of developing countries. [149110]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have had various discussion with our EU partners and the European Commission since the WTO Ministerial in Cancún.

  My right hon. Friend and I met with my our fellow EU Trade Ministers and the European Commission, on 2 December, to reaffirm our commitment to the current round of negotiations and to send a clear message of the importance of positive and flexible engagement with all WTO members, including taking account of the views of developing countries. We also discussed improvements to the functioning of the WTO, in particular WTO ministerial meetings.

  These discussions are reflected in the Commission's strategy paper, "Reviving the DDA Negotiations—the EU perspective", which was endorsed by the European Council of Ministers on 8 December last year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the progress achieved by World Trade Organisation members in meeting the terms of the Cancún Declaration by 15 December 2003. [149144]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following the disappointing conclusion to the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancan, the Government welcome the fact that all WTO members have committed themselves to re-engaging in the Doha round of trade negotiations. It is vital that all WTO members now turn themselves towards making real and significant progress in implementing the Doha Development Agenda.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) prospective members of the proposed new Armed Forces Pension Scheme and (b) beneficiaries of the associated compensation arrangements he estimates will find the provision for them capped by a £1.4 million limitation on the total value of pension and related arrangements. [149153]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence expects very few members of the new Armed Forces Pensions Scheme to be affected by the Government's proposed lifetime allowance of £ 1.4 million. Payments from the new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme are not retirement pensions for taxation purposes and are not therefore affected by the proposed allowance.
  1390W
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value of the pension provision through the proposed Armed Forces Pension Scheme, capitalised in accordance with the rules proposed by the Treasury, will be for(a) a senior warrant officer, (b) an officer retiring at normal retirement age at the rank of major or equivalent and (c) a four star officer; and if he will make a statement on the assumptions and calculations underlying the valuations. [149154]

  Mr. Caplin
  The figures are as follows:

  £

  4* officer

  1,518,000

  Major (and equivalent)

  493,000

  Warrant officer 1 (higher)

  418,000

  The figures assume broadly mid-point 2003–04 pay rates, 35 years Service (some of which might be after normal pension age of 55) and the new pension scheme provision of a 50 per cent. pension after 35 years' Service. The pensions have been capitalised using the Inland Revenue formula of 20 times pension plus the lump sum, equivalent to three times the pension. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000. The formula used to capitalise pensions is subject to public consultation by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he intends to make in relation to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme and compensation arrangements to ensure that, as the pay rates of the armed forces are increased over time to protect their real value, the full value of pension and compensation arrangements are not restricted by a cap on capitalised value fixed in cash terms. [149155]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Government propose to increase the proposed lifetime allowance annually by the Retail Prices Index. Like any other employer, the Ministry of Defence will keep this under review.

  Conflict Resolution
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what change there will be in his Department's funding for conflict resolution projects over the next five years; [149427]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the amount of money spent by other Defence Departments in European countries on conflict resolution projects; [149451]

  (3) how much his Department spent on conflict resolution projects in the latest year for which figures are available. [149541]

  Mr. Ingrain
  Ministry of Defence involvement in conflict resolution projects, as opposed to operations, is funded through the programme budgets of the United Kingdom's Global and Africa Conflict Prevention Pools. Pool funding levels for future years will be established during Spending Review 2004.

  In Financial Year 2002–03, the Pools funded nearly £41 million of Ministry of Defence support to conflict prevention and conflict resolution projects. Further information on the conflict resolution work of the Ministry of Defence, together with that of the Foreign

  1391W
  and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, can be found in the Global Conflict Prevention Pool booklet, published on 9 September 2003.

  The MOD has made no assessment of the amount of money spent by other Defence Departments in European countries on conflict resolution.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 657W, on vaccination, when he will write to the hon. Member. [149581]

  Mr. Caplin
  There has been a delay in this response as I require further information to establish the precise licensing position on all the vaccines and to provide a precise answer. I will do so as soon as I can.

  European Defence
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the NATO Secretary General about European defence. [149470]

  Mr. Hoon
  I had regular discussions with Lord Robertson across a wide range of issues concerning European defence and I look forward to working with the new NATO Secretary General in the same way. There have been no meetings of the NATO Defence Ministers since the beginning of the year, when Mr. de Hoop Scheffer took on his new role, but one is scheduled for early February.

  In a telephone conversation on Friday 9 January 2004. I congratulated Mr. de Hoop Scheffer on his appointment and outlined some of the United Kingdom's priorities for NATO including the importance of the European nations' contribution to the Alliance and the NATO/EU relationship.

  Falklands War Veterans
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Falklands War veterans were still serving in the(a) Army, (b) Navy, (c) RAF and (d) Royal Marines in 2003. [148457]

  Mr. Caplin
  The matter is being investigated and has taken longer to compile than initially thought. I will write to my hon. Friend when this work is complete and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of modernising the Defence Fire Service to the standard envisaged by Fire Study 2000. [149059]

  Mr. Caplin
  The recommendations contained in Fire Study 2000 for modernising the organisation of the Defence Fire Service would expect to achieve yearly savings rather than increased expenditure.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to co-ordinate tri-Service civil emergencies fire training. [149061]
  1392W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to co-ordinate tri-Service civil emergencies fire training. Dealing with a civil emergency remains the responsibility of the civil authorities. Any assistance provided by the armed forces in the event of such an emergency would be in support of those authorities and at their specific request. It would most likely take the form of general duties support.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many international law enforcement officers are stationed in the British zone in Southern Iraq. [141680]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 16 January 2004, there were around 645 international law enforcement officers stationed in the British zone in Southern Iraq. This figure includes international civilian police officers, contract police officers and carabinieri who are mandated with civilian policing powers.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to the Department has been to date in respect of the Iraq conflict; and what the projected costs are for(a) 2004, (b) 2005 and (c) 2006. [148779]

  Mr. Ingram
  Outturn information for 2002–03 on the cost of operations in Iraq has been published as part of the Ministry of Defence's Annual Report and Accounts. Operating Costs for 2002–03 for operations in Iraq total £629.531 million. Expenditure on capital equipment amounts to £217.680 million. The grand total is, therefore, £847.211 million.

  For 2003–04, funding voted at Winter Supplementary Estimates amounted to £1.2 billion and covered the cost of peacekeeping and associated Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs). The MOD will seek a further £300 million at Spring Supplementary Estimates to cover primarily the cost of the Recuperation of my Department's operational capability. Thus, the total sought in 2003–04 will be £1.5 billion.

  It is too early to say what costs might be incurred after 2003–04.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his statement of 13 January 2004, Official Report, column 690, on the National Audit Office Report on Operation Telic, when he gave Mrs. Samantha Roberts, a(a) summary of the incident in which her husband died and (b) ballistics report; when he met Mrs. Roberts; when the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch report into Sergeant Roberts' death will be published; and when the Army Board of Inquiry into Sergeant Roberts' death will be convened. [149539]

  Mr. Hoon
  Mrs. Roberts was provided with a summary of the incident on 18 June 2003 by the Casualty Visiting Officer. A report summary of the weapons test was passed to Mrs. Roberts in December 2003. I met Mrs. Roberts, together with other members of Sergeant Roberts' family, on 15 October 2003 and 19 January 2004.

  It is not clear when the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch investigation will conclude, but a briefing will be offered to Mrs. Roberts as soon as is

  1393W
  practicable, once the SIB's findings are known. A Board of Inquiry will be convened when the SIB investigation has concluded.

  Night Vision Goggles
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason the pilots of the two helicopters of 849 Naval Air Squadron which collided on 22 March 2003 had not been issued with night vision goggles; [149876]

  (2) what the criteria are for the issuing of night vision goggles to Naval Air Squadron personnel; [149877]

  (3) if he will list the equipment available to Naval Air Squadron helicopter pilots, other than night vision goggles, to prevent collision in poor flying conditions at low altitude at night; [149879]

  (4) if he will make it his policy that night vision goggles will be issued to helicopter pilots before nighttime missions. [149880]

  Mr. Ingram
  Night vision goggles (NVG) can be operated only in aircraft that have been specifically modified for this role. Naval helicopters are fitted to allow operation with NVG according to their tactical role in operations. The operational role for the helicopters of 849 Naval Air Squadron involved in Operation TELIC did not require the modifications to the helicopters that are necessary for the provision of NVG.

  For RN helicopters, safety is provided by operating procedures such as, air traffic control awareness of hazards through radar detection, communications, lighting and lookout. NVG can, in certain circumstances, enhance these capabilities. But ships operating NVG aircraft need to be compatible. Darkening a ship to allow aircraft NVG operations brings its own safety issues.

  Policy for a fleet-wide night vision capability is currently under consideration.

  Non-British Naval Ships (UK Waters)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 278W, if he will make a statement on co-ordination between external security measures taken by the UK and on-board security measures taken by a visiting nation during the docking of non-British naval ships in UK waters. [148966]

  Mr. Ingram
  External and on-board security measures put in place during the docking of a non-British naval ship in the United Kingdom waters are closely coordinated between the relevant UK authority and the visiting nation. Jurisdiction, however, is clearly delineated, with the visiting ships' Commanding Officer responsible for security within the confines of the ship while external security measures rest with the local police authority or the Naval Base Commander for visits to a Naval Base.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to change the 1394W
  requirement that members of the armed forces take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors. [148930]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Port Facilities (Iberian Peninsula)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preference is given to the use of port facilities at Gibraltar over those at other Iberian ports where Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary or other vessels owned or chartered by his Department transit the Straits of Gibraltar or operate in, or transit, nearby waters. [148958]

  Mr. Ingram
  The goodwill generated from visiting foreign ports makes a significant contribution to Defence Diplomacy, the continuing development of bilateral relations and support to the United Kingdom Industry. A balanced approach is, therefore, taken to ensure that Gibraltar and other ports in the region, including those of other Iberian states, are visited on a regular basis. In addition, ships en route to or returning from deployments east of Suez and Atlantic Patrol Tasks are routinely programmed to visit Gibraltar.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Fleet Auxiliary and (c) other vessels owned or chartered by his Department which has visited (i) Gibraltar and (ii) other Iberian ports in the last year; and what the (A) date, (B) length and (C) location of each visit was. [148959]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following tables lists visits by Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Ministry of Defence-owned or chartered vessels to Gibraltar and other Iberian ports over the 2003 calendar year.

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN, RFA and MOD-owned/chartered vessels during 2003

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  RFA Orangeleaf

  13 January

  13 January

  RFA Orangeleaf

  24 January

  31 March

  MV Laine

  28 January

  28 January

  HMS Westminster

  31 January

  1 February

  MV Ulusoy-4

  1 February

  2 February

  HMS Westminster

  5 February

  6 February

  MV Pancaldo

  11 February

  11 February

  HMS Richmond

  14 February

  17 February

  MV Strada Gigante

  15 February

  15 February

  HMS Westminster

  18 February

  21 March

  MV Dart-9

  26 February

  27 February

  HMS Westminster

  28 February

  3 March

  MV Southern Trader

  2 March

  2 March

  MV Ulusoy-5

  5March

  5March

  HMS Westminster

  7March

  10 March

  MV Germania

  3 April

  3 April

  MV Kapitan Burhanettin Isim

  7 April

  7 April

  HMS Turbulent

  7 April

  12 April

  MV Arroyofrio Uno

  11 April

  11 April

  Mv Tychy

  27 April

  27 April

  RFA Fort Victoria

  2 May

  5 May

  RFA Fort Victoria

  6 May

  8 May

  HMS Scott

  10 May

  10 May

  MV Valibur

  11 May

  11 May

  RFA Gold Rover

  16 May

  17 May

  MV Pacific Winner

  18 May

  18 May

  NAV Kinterbury

  18 May

  18 May

  RFA Argus

  20 May

  24 May

  HMS Ocean

  21 May

  24 May

  HMS Edinburgh

  24 May

  24 May

  HMS Westminster

  5 June

  6 June

  HMS Westminster

  6 June

  7 June

  HMS Westminster

  11 June

  12 June

  1395W

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN,RFA and MOD-owned/chartered vessels during 2003

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  HMS Sutherland

  13 June

  14 June

  MV Arroyofrio Uno

  18 June

  18 June

  HMS Chiddingfold

  27 June

  3 June

  RFA Orangeleaf

  4 July

  7 July

  HMS Cornwall

  12 July

  13 July

  HMS Grimsby

  24 July

  28 July

  HMS Ledbury

  24 July

  28 July

  HMS Ramsey

  24 July

  28 July

  HMS Shoreham

  24 July

  28 July

  RFA Sir Tristram

  24 July

  28 July

  RFA Orangeleaf

  25 July

  28 July

  HMS Richmond

  26 July

  27 July

  HMS Marlborough

  3 August

  4 August

  MV Arroyofrio Uno

  11 August

  11 August

  MV Dart-8

  24 August

  24 August

  HMS Northumberland

  3 September

  4 September

  MV Dart-10

  15 September

  15 September

  HMS Marlborough

  20 September

  22 September

  HMS Marlborough

  26 September

  27 September

  HMS Campbeltown

  7 October

  8 October

  Visits to Spanish Ports by RN, RFA and MOD-owned/chartered vessels during 2003

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Las Palmas

  MV Hartland Point

  5 January

  31 January

  Algeciras

  RFA Brambleleaf

  9 January

  12 January

  Alicante

  RFA Brambleleaf

  13 January

  13 January

  Algeciras

  RFA Oakleaf

  16 January

  20 January

  Alicante

  RFA Brambleleaf

  24 January

  25 January

  Palma, Mallorca

  HMS Grimsby

  31 January

  3 February

  Palma, Mallorca

  HMS Ledbury

  31 January

  3 February

  Rota

  HMS Cornwall

  17 March

  20 March

  Rota

  HMS Cornwall

  20 March

  21 March

  Rota

  HMS Cornwall

  21 March

  26 March

  Alicante

  HMS Cardiff

  24 March

  29 March

  EL Ferrol

  RFA Wave Knight

  7 April

  9 April

  Palma, Mallorca

  HMS Ark Royal

  29 April

  5 May

  Palma, Mallorca

  HMS York

  29 April

  5 May

  Rota

  HMS Northumberland

  1 May

  2 May

  Cartagena

  HMS Northumberland

  4 May

  7 May

  Ibiza

  HMS Blyth

  8 May

  11 May

  Ibiza

  HMS Brocklesby

  8 May

  11 May

  Palma

  HMS Northumberland

  12 May

  14 May

  Rota

  HMS Ark Royal

  13 May

  13 May

  Villagarcia De Arosa

  HMS Blyth

  15 May

  17 May

  Villagarcia De Arosa

  HMS Brocklesby

  15 May

  17 May

  Barcelona

  RFA Fort Austin

  20 May

  23 May

  Palma, Mallorca

  HMS Roebuck

  30 May

  3 June

  Alicante

  HMS Northumberland

  2 June

  3 June

  Alicante

  HMS Northumberland

  3 June

  5 June

  Alicante

  HMS Northumberland

  5 June

  9 June

  Palma, Mallorca

  HMS Bangor

  7 June

  11 June

  Palma, Mallorca

  HMS Sandown

  7 June

  11 June

  Rota

  HMS Kent

  9 June

  10 June

  La Coruna

  HMS Bangor

  16 June

  17 June

  La Coruna

  HMS Sandown

  16 June

  17 June

  Rota

  HMS Kent

  19 June

  20 June

  Barcelona

  HMS Chatham

  25 July

  29 July

  Cadiz

  RFA Sir Galahad

  29 July

  1 August

  Malaga

  RFA Grey Rover

  31 July

  4 August

  Malaga

  HMS Liverpool

  31 July

  4 August

  Algeciras

  RFA Orangeleaf

  13 August

  14 August

  Las Palmas

  RFA Fort Victoria

  1 October

  5 October

  Santa Cruz

  HMS Invincible

  1 October

  5 October

  1396W

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN, RFA and MOD-owned/chartered vessels during 2003

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  RFA Orangeleaf

  8 October

  8 October

  HMS Turbulent

  9 October

  15 October

  HMS York

  11 October

  13 October

  RFA Orangeleaf

  14 October

  15 October

  HMS Cornwall

  17 October

  19 October

  HMS Norfolk

  19 October

  21 October

  HMS Gloucester

  26 October

  28 October

  MV Anvil Point

  3 November

  8 November

  RFA Brambleleaf

  14 November

  20 November

  HMS St. Albans

  14 November

  17 November

  HMS Scott

  19 November

  24 November

  MV Eddystone

  21 November

  22 November

  MV Hurst Point

  23 November

  23 November

  RFA Orangeleaf

  28 November

  1 December

  HMS Richmond

  29 November

  1 December

  MV Hurst Point

  4 December

  7 December

  HMS Lindisfarne

  5 December

  10 December

  HMS Richmond

  5 December

  5 December

  HMS Kent

  12 December

  15 December

  RFA Orangeleaf

  12 December

  14 December

  HMS Portland

  13 December

  13 December

  1397W

  Visits to Spanish Ports by RN, RFA and MOD-owned/chartered vessels during 2003

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Rota

  HMS Somerset

  11 October

  14 October

  Barcelona

  HMS Portland

  29 October

  3 November

  Barcelona

  HMS Sutherland

  21 November

  26 November

  Las Palmas

  RFA Fort George

  29 November

  2 December

  La Coruna

  HMS Pembroke

  11 December

  14 December

  Visits to Portuguese Ports by RN, RFA and MOD chartered vessels during 2003

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Lisbon

  HMS Grimsby

  24 January

  27 January

  Lisbon

  HMS Ledbury

  24 January

  27 January

  Lisbon

  HMS Cumberland

  9 February

  11 February

  Lisbon

  HMS Ramsey

  1 April

  2 April

  Lisbon

  HMS Shoreham

  1 April

  2 April

  Pontadelgada

  HMS Scott

  24 July

  24 July

  Porto

  HMS Grimsby

  30 July

  30 July

  Porto

  HMS Shoreham

  30 July

  30 July

  Porto

  HMS Ledbury

  30 July

  30 July

  Porto

  HMS Ramsey

  30 July

  30 July

  Lisbon

  HMS Chatham

  1 August

  5 August

  Oporto

  HMS Marlborough

  29 September

  1 October

  Lisbon

  HSM Glasgow

  10 November

  10 November

  Lisbon

  HMS Monmouth

  13 November

  18 November

  Lisbon

  HMS York

  29 November

  1 December

  Lisbon

  HMS Albion

  4 December

  8 December

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how compulsory mobilisation of the Territorial Army in Operation Telic affects the continuity of Service calculations for the(a) Territorial Decoration and (b) other longer Service awards. [149280]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Territorial Decoration (TD) was replaced by the Volunteer Reserves Service Medal (VRSM) in 1999, although those members of the Territorial Army (TA) who had already completed a significant period of Service towards the award, can still receive the TD.

  Periods of compulsory mobilisation by TA personnel on Operation Telic will count towards the TD, the VRSM or the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how compulsory mobilisation of the Territorial Army affects eligibility for annual training bounty; [149281]

  (2) whether the Territorial Army's annual training bounty is payable in the respect of compulsory mobilisation service. [149282]

  Mr. Caplin
  While compulsory mobilisation does not in itself qualify members of the Territorial Army for their annual training bounty, certain aspects of that service can contribute towards the award. For example, mobilised service in theatre can be considered as meeting the requirement for a 15-day camp (or training in lieu).

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 683W, on unexploded cluster bombs, if he will list each case for which compensation
  1398W
  has been paid, to the victims of British cluster bombs in (a) Kosovo, (b) Afghanistan and (c) Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [149619]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has no record of compensation payments being made to victims of British cluster bombs in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Colombia
  Mr. lain Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking to ensure that(a) UK and (b) EU aid to Colombia is not used in a way contrary to UN recommendations on human rights. [146755]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Ayr on Thursday, 26 June 2003 Official Report, column. 941W.

  DFI D's one remaining government-to-government bilateral project in Colombia has now ended, This provided advice on improving the exchange of information between Non-Governmental Organisations working in agriculture. The project was consistent with the UN human rights recommendations.

  Africa Peer Review Mechanism
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he will report on the outcome of the technical reviews of economic governance carried out as part of the Africa Peer Review Mechanism. [149978]

  Hilary Benn
  The Africa Peer Review Mechanism is a voluntary process. Work by the Peer Review Secretariat and others involved in the technical assessment is ongoing. We will learn more about progress when the results of the first Peer Review have been published.

  Sixteen countries have signed up for the Africa Peer Review Mechanism. There is no confirmation yet as to which country will be first, although it has been proposed that Ghana and South Africa may be among the first wave. Currently it appears unlikely that the technical assessments will be published separately, but as part of the overall report on each country. The reports will all be published by the NEPAD secretariat.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the(a) resources available to and (b) effectiveness of the African Union presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [149187]
  1399W
  Hilary Benn
  I understand that the African Union is currently represented at an administrative level only in the DRC. At the present time it does not appear to have a significant profile in Kinshasa on DRC issues.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consideration is given to levels of HIV infection when approving a country for Heavily Indebted Poor Country debt relief. [149426]

  Hilary Benn
  The amount of debt relief a country receives under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative is determined by its Debt Sustainability Analysis. A country's debt is compared with its export earnings and government revenue, and relief is provided either to bring the debt to export ratio down to 150 per cent., or the debt to government revenue ratio down to 250 per cent, whichever gives the greater amount of relief. This framework is straightforward and transparent. It also captures all of the factors that could affect a country's ability to service its debt, including levels of HIV infection, as these will affect the export and government revenue figures. Additional relief — or `topping up' — can also be provided at Completion Point, for those countries that, as a result of exogenous shocks, risk exiting the Initiative with debts above the HIPC sustainability threshold.

  Levels of HIV infection are also addressed directly through the development of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which are a requirement for receiving HIPC debt relief. Governments in HIPC countries lead national processes to develop PRSPs. These strategies set out national priorities and include an estimate of the cost of reaching medium-term development targets. The planned use of HIPC debt relief, along with all other forms of assistance for addressing social problems, such as HIV/AIDS, are addressed in these strategies. For many HIPC countries, analysis of poverty trends in PRSPs shows HIV/AIDS is an important factor, and public action plans can be costed within national spending plans. In this way, savings made under the HIPC Initiative are channelled directly towards tackling this issue.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the extent of the food shortage in Ethiopia(a) in absolute terms and (b) by comparison with December 2002; and what measures are being taken to improve the situation. [148090]

  Hilary Benn
  In December 2003, the Government of Ethiopia appealed for food assistance for 7.2 million people, amounting to 964,690 metric tonnes of cereal. This is a 45 per cent. reduction from the 13.2 million people requiring relief in December 2002.

  However, there is unlikely to be any overall shortage of food in Ethiopia during 2004. Some five to six million people require assistance every year even without shocks such as drought. For this group, we are working with Government to develop a safety net that will provide timely and sufficient resources to not only save lives but help people become more productive.
  1400W
  We also work with Government and others to promote long-term development and sustainably reduce vulnerability to shock. For example, we are expanding local level roads to improve access to markets and supporting the development of vulnerable groups such as pastoralists.

  Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) nature and (b) cost is of his Department's support for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation. [148556]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provides financial support to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI) and works closely with the partnership to further its objectives. The UK was on the Board of GAVI for two years to July 2003. We remain engaged with GAVI work on the evaluation of its support to country health systems, on the introduction of new vaccines, and on initiatives to overcome health system barriers to increasing immunisation. DFID has supported GAVI since its inception, initially with a grant of £3 million and then a grant of £35 million over five years (2001–05).

  Millennium Development Goals
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the percentage change was between 1990 and 2003 in the numbers of underweight children under five years of age in each country covered by the millennium development goals. [149065]

  Hilary Benn
  The information readily accessible refers to the percentage of children in developing countries aged under five who are seriously underweight. The data are not collected on an annual basis and very few countries have data more recent than 2000. The table sets out the information on the prevalence of child malnutrition by country for the year which most closely approximates to 1990 and 20001. Where the reference year is different from these two dates this is specified. The final column sets out the difference in percentage points between the two statistics.

  1 Countries without any internationally comparable data have been excluded from the table.

  Percentage of underweight children (weight for. age)

  Country

  1990

  Year

  2000

  Year

  Change over period where appropriate(percentage points)

  Afghanistan

  1—

  49

  1997

  Albania

  8

  1998

  14

  -6

  Algeria

  9

  1992

  6

  3

  Angola

  1—

  41

  1996

  Argentine Republic

  2

  1994

  5

  1996

  -3

  Armenia

  3

  1998

  3

  0

  Azerbaijan

  10

  1996

  17

  -7

  Bangladesh

  66

  48

  18

  Belize

  6

  1992

  1—

  Benin

  29

  1996

  23

  2001

  6

  Bhutan

  1—

  19

  1999

  Bolivia

  11

  8

  1998

  3

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  1—

  4

  Botswana

  17

  1996

  13

  4

  Brazil

  1—

  6

  1996

  Burkina Faso

  33

  1993

  34

  1999

  -1

  1401W

  Percentage of underweight children (weight for. age)

  Country

  1990

  Year

  2000

  Year

  Change over period where appropriate(percentage points)

  Burma

  32

  43

  1995

  -11

  Burundi

  1—

  45

  Cambodia

  47

  1996

  45

  2

  Cameroon

  15

  1991

  22

  1998

  -7

  Cape Verde

  14

  1994

  1—

  Central African Republic

  23

  1995

  1—

  Chad

  39

  1997

  28

  11

  Chile

  2

  1993

  1

  1999

  1

  China

  17

  1992

  10

  7

  Colombia

  8

  1995

  7

  1

  Comoros

  19

  1992

  25

  -6

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)

  34

  95

  1—

  Costa Rica

  3

  5

  1996

  -2

  Cote d'Ivoire

  24

  1994

  21

  1999

  3

  Croatia

  1

  1994

  1

  1996

  0

  Czech Republic

  1

  1991

  1—

  Djibouti

  1—

  18

  1996

  Dominican Republic

  10

  1991

  5

  5

  Ecuador

  1—

  14

  1998

  Egypt

  10

  4

  6

  El Salvador

  11

  1993

  2

  1998

  -1

  Equatorial Guinea

  1—

  1—

  Eritrea

  41

  1993

  44

  1995

  -3

  Estonia

  1—

  1—

  Ethiopia

  48

  1992

  47

  1

  Fiji

  8

  1993

  1—

  Gabon

  1—

  12

  Gambia

  26

  1996

  17

  9

  Georgia

  1—

  3

  1999

  Ghana

  27

  1994

  25

  1999

  2

  Guatemala

  27

  1995

  24

  1999

  3

  Guinea

  23

  1999

  33

  -10

  Guinea-Bissau

  1—

  25

  Guyana

  18

  1993

  12

  1997

  6

  Haiti

  27

  17

  10

  Honduras

  18

  1992

  17

  2001

  1

  India

  64

  53

  1993

  11

  Indonesia

  34

  1995

  25

  9

  Iran

  16

  1995

  11

  1998

  5

  Iraq

  12

  1991

  1—

  Jamaica

  5

  1991

  4

  1999

  1

  Jordan

  6

  5

  1997

  1

  Kazakhstan

  8

  1995

  4

  1999

  4

  Kenya

  23

  1993

  22

  1998

  1

  Korea Dem. Rep. (North)

  1—

  28

  Kuwait

  1

  2

  1997

  Kyrgyzstan

  1—

  11

  1997

  Laos

  44

  1993

  40

  4

  Lebanon

  1—

  3

  1996

  Lesotho

  16

  1992

  18

  -2

  Libya

  5

  1995

  1—

  Macedonia (FYR of)

  1—

  6

  1999

  Madagascar

  41

  1992

  40

  1997

  1

  Malawi

  28

  1992

  25

  3

  Malaysia

  25

  20

  1995

  5

  Maldives

  39

  1994

  43

  1995

  -4

  Mali

  1—

  27

  1996

  Mauritania

  48

  1991

  32

  16

  Mauritius

  15

  1995

  1—

  Mexico

  17

  1996

  8

  1999

  9

  Mongolia

  12

  1992

  13

  1999

  -1

  Morocco

  10

  1992

  1—

  Mozambique

  27

  1995

  26

  1997

  1

  Namibia

  26

  1992

  1—

  Nepal

  49

  1995

  48

  2001

  1

  Nicaragua

  11

  1993

  12

  1998

  -1

  Niger

  43

  1992

  40

  3

  Nigeria

  35

  31

  1999

  4

  Oman

  24

  1991

  23

  1995

  1

  Pakistan

  40

  1991

  38

  1995

  2

  Panama

  6

  1992

  8

  1997

  -2

  Paraguay

  4

  1—

  Peru

  11

  1992

  7

  4

  Philippines

  34

  32

  1998

  2

  Qatar

  6

  1995

  1—

  Romania

  6

  1991

  1—

  Russian Federation

  4

  1993

  3

  1995

  1

  1402W

  Percentage of underweight children (weight for. age)

  Country

  1990

  Year

  2000

  Year

  Change over period where appropriate(percentage points)

  Rwanda

  29

  1992

  24

  5

  Senegal

  22

  1992

  18

  4

  Serbia and Montenegro

  2

  1996

  2

  0

  Sierra Leone

  29

  27

  2

  Solomon Islands

  1—

  21

  1997

  Somalia

  1—

  26

  South Africa

  9

  1995

  1—

  Sri Lanka

  38

  1993

  33

  5

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  1—

  20

  1996

  Sudan

  34

  1993

  11

  23

  Swaziland

  1—

  10

  Syria

  12

  1993

  13

  1995

  -1

  Tanzania

  29

  1992

  29

  1999

  0

  Thailand

  19

  1993

  18

  1995

  1

  Togo

  19

  1996

  25

  1998

  -6

  Tunisia

  9

  1995

  4

  5

  Turkey

  10

  1993

  8

  1998

  2

  Turkmenistan

  1—

  12

  Uganda

  26

  1995

  23

  3

  Ukraine

  1—

  3

  United Arab Emirates

  1—

  7

  1996

  Uruguay

  4

  1993

  1—

  Uzbekistan

  1—

  19

  1996

  Venezuela

  8

  4

  4

  Vietnam

  41

  1993

  34

  7

  West Bank and Gaza

  15

  1995

  1—

  Yemen

  30

  1992

  46

  1997

  -16

  Zambia

  25

  1992

  24

  1997

  1

  Zimbabwe

  16

  1994

  13

  1999

  3

  1 Not available

  Note:

  Weight for age malnutrition is defined as the percentage of children under five whose weight for age are significantly below (in precise terms minus two standard deviations) the median for the international reference population of the same age group.

  Source:

  Statistics on International Development 2003

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in his Department in the last 12 months. [147980]

  Hilary Benn
  Staff in my department have reported losing 39 staff security passes during 2003. In addition a further four have been reported lost as a result of burglaries and theft of handbags and jackets outside of the office.

  St. Helena (Airport)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on constructing an airport on St. Helena. [150097]

  Hilary Benn
  The response to an international invitation, which had sought outline proposals for private sector participation and investment in possible development of air access, is being considered in consultation with the St Helena Government. An expert assessment of four expressions of interest in the possible venture was received last month. As the next step, we shall soon decide whether any or all of the existing proposals offer a suitable basis for proceeding further.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the Director General of the World Trade Organisation since 15 December 2003. [149069]

  Hilary Benn
  I have had no discussions with the WTO Director General, though the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has.

  Project title

  Country

  Value (£ million)

  Purpose

  Rural Access Programme

  Nepal

  33

  To improve poor people's access to the goods and services that they value in targeted hill areas through an improvement in basic transport, an increase in access for rural populations and the development of a strategy for the future organisation of infrastructure development in these areas.

  Support to Rural Feeder Roads

  Ghana

  27

  To improve access to services and markets in rural areas resulting from development of a sustainable rural road network.

  Bhairab bridge

  Bangladesh

  22

  To facilitate accelerated economic growth and reduced poverty in North East Bangladesh by the construction of a 4 lane road bridge over the Meghna river.

  Institutional Dev Comp of Road Rehabilitation II & III

  Bangladesh

  19

  To reduce the total cost of road transport by improving the road network through more effective design and construction of roads and more effective programming and implementation of road maintenance and improvement of operations of the Road Highways Department.

  Rural Transport Project Phase II

  Vietnam

  19

  To ensure an increased flow of people, goods and services in rural Vietnam by improving basic access for rural areas and providing a strategy for sustainable maintenance of rural roads nation wide

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Classroom Assistants
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many classroom assistants were employed in schools in Warrington North(a) in 1997 and (b) at the last date for which figures are available. [148255]

  Mr. Miliband
  The full-time equivalent number of teaching assistants in maintained schools is recorded in January of each year on the Annual School Census. In Warrington, North constituency there were 120 teaching assistants in maintained schools in 1997 and 230 in 2003.

  1 Includes teaching assistants, nursery assistants in nursery schools, special needs support staff and minority ethnic pupil support staff.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what (1)(a) proportion and (b) type of courses in higher education are subject to variable fees; [149432]

  (2) what proportion of courses in colleges of further education are subject to variable fees. [149433]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]Fees for post graduate, part-time and overseas students in higher education are currently unregulated. Such students make up around 50 per cent. of the total. Fees

  Transport Infrastructure Projects
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the five largest major or national transport infrastructure projects which his Department is funding are. [149169]

  Hilary Benn
  The five largest major transport and infrastructure projects which my Department is funding are listed as follows:

  for full-time undergraduates are currently set at a standard rate of £1,125 per year (for 2003–04): the Higher Education Bill contains provisions to allow higher education institutions and further education colleges that provide higher education to vary their fees for these students up to a maximum of £3,000, provided they have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access.

  Approximately 80 per cent., of further education provision for adults is subject to variable fees. Public funding through the Learning and Skills Council assumes a learner or employer contribution of 25 per cent. to the basic cost of the course. However, colleges are free to vary the fee charged between 0 per cent. and 75 per cent. of the basic cost. No fees may be charged for the 20 per cent. of provision not subject to variable fees. This comprises provision for adult learners on income based benefits and literacy and numeracy courses.

  School Fruit Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of the 50 most deprived council wards have schools taking part in the National School Fruit Scheme. [146014]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  All local education authority schools with children aged four to nine years in four of the nine Government Regions had been invited to join the National School Fruit Scheme.

  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1405W

  Ward

  Local authority

  Index of multiple deprivation score

  Rank of index of multiple deprivation

  Taking part in NSFS/date expected to join

  Benchill

  Manchester

  83.77

  1

  Yes

  Speke

  Liverpool

  83.13

  2

  Yes

  Thorntree

  Middlesbrough

  82.52

  3

  March 2004

  Everton

  Liverpool

  82.10

  4

  Yes

  Pallister

  Middlesbrough

  81.76

  5

  March 2004

  Vauxhall

  Liverpool

  81.47

  6

  Yes

  St. Hilda's

  Middlesbrough

  81.28

  7

  March 2004

  Princess

  Knowsley

  80.80

  8

  Yes

  Grangetown

  Redcar and Cleveland

  80.38

  9

  March 2004

  Granby

  Liverpool

  79.83

  10

  Yes

  Pirrie

  Liverpool

  79.74

  11

  Yes

  Breckfield

  Liverpool

  79.71

  12

  Yes

  Longview

  Knowsley

  79.65

  13

  Yes

  Cherryfield

  Knowsley

  79.64

  14

  Yes

  Portrack and Tilery

  Stockton-on-Tees

  78.41

  15

  March 2004

  Harpurhey

  Manchester

  78.28

  16

  Yes

  Beswick and Clayton

  Manchester

  77.58

  17

  Yes

  Kirkby Central

  Knowsley

  77.37

  18

  Yes

  Regent

  Great Yarmouth

  77.30

  19

  Autumn 2004

  Northwood

  Knowsley

  77.26

  20

  Yes

  Eden Hill

  Easington

  76.99

  21

  Autumn 2004

  Bradford

  Manchester

  76.63

  22

  Yes

  Bidston

  Wirral

  76.23

  23

  Yes

  Melrose

  Liverpool

  76.21

  24

  Yes

  Owton

  Hartlepool

  76.01

  25

  Yes

  Clubmoor

  Liverpool

  75.99

  26

  Yes

  Aston

  Birmingham

  75.96

  27

  Yes

  Smithdown

  Liverpool

  75.81

  28

  Yes

  Ardwick

  Manchester

  75.73

  29

  Yes

  Walker

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  75.57

  30

  March 2004

  Monkchester

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  75.37

  31

  March 2004

  Park End

  Middlesbrough

  75.31

  32

  March 2004

  Sparkbrook

  Birmingham

  75.15

  33

  Yes

  Dovecot

  Liverpool

  75.15

  34

  Yes

  Ordnance

  Newham

  75.06

  35

  Yes

  Elswick

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  74.59

  36

  March 2004

  Nelson

  Great Yarmouth

  74.33

  37

  Autumn 2004

  Cantril Farm

  Knowsley

  74.33

  38

  Yes

  Whitefield

  Pendle

  73.93

  39

  Yes

  West City

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  73.92

  40

  March 2004

  Central

  Manchester

  73.75

  41

  Yes

  Little Norton

  Bradford

  73.48

  42

  Yes

  Southey Green

  Sheffield

  73.36

  43

  Autumn 2004

  Netherley

  Liverpool

  73.27

  44

  Yes

  Newton Heath

  Manchester

  73.13

  45

  Yes

  Spitalfields

  Tower Hamlets

  73.11

  46

  Yes

  Lansbury

  Tower Hamlets

  73.08

  47

  Yes

  Kensington

  Liverpool

  73.05

  48

  YES

  Weavers

  Tower Hamlets

  73.03

  49

  Yes

  Noddle Hill

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  72.91

  50

  Autumn 2004

  School Meals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on school meals per head by each local education authority in the last year for which figures are available. [147247]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department does not collect this information from schools or local education authorities.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what amount of debt he has based his estimate of the length of time it will take the average graduate to complete graduate repayments after 2010; and what the change would be in this time if the annual income threshold for repayment was raised to(a) £18,000 and (b) £20,000. [147769]
  1406W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The estimate of the length of time to repay is the average across all students who take out a loan. This is different from the length of time it will take for some notional average graduate to repay. The estimate is from a model which simulates student loan repayments, based on assumed distributions of: length of time in Higher Education; size of means-tested loan taken out; size of fee loan, net of any fee remission; and borrower lifetime earnings. Some borrowers will repay more quickly than this estimated average and some less so.

  As part of a package of reforms announced with the introduction of the Higher Education Bill, any debt outstanding after 25 years would be written-off. The threshold would increase to £15,000 in April 2005 and be increased with inflation from April 2010 onwards. The average time to repay would be around 13 years.

  1407W
  Under the same approach to uprating the threshold, the average time to repay would be around 15 years with an £18,000 threshold and around 16 years with a £20,000 threshold.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the additional cost to the Student Loans Company of administering student loans if top-up fees are introduced; and if he will make a statement. [148265]

  Alan Johnson
  The introduction of deferred fee loans will have a small effect on the Inland Revenue and the Student Loans Company. Any extra costs will be largely a function of the numbers of graduates repaying loans after 2010. There is also the need to monitor what fees a student is incurring for what courses. There will be one-off development costs to the SLC of introducing the change. DfES would meet the cost. No figures are yet available. Information on the proposals is set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), copies of which are in the House Libraries.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crime Victims (Compensation)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on compensation for victims of crime where the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the same household as the victim. [149204]

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

  Minority Liaison Officers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many minority liaison officers working with victims of crime are employed by the police and other institutions and agencies in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. [149231]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland has an appointed Minority Liaison Officer in each of the 29 police districts established under the Racial Monitoring programme in 1997.

  Other criminal justice agencies do not appoint Minority Liaison Officers, but continue to offer support to victims of crime within the criminal justice system. Support may include the provision of interpreters when required and special measures as provided for by the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.

  Moylinn GP Co-operative
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in identifying a new location for the Moylinn GP Co-operative. [148771]

  Angela Smith
  The Southern Health and Social Services Board (SHSSB) and the Association of Southern Areas Doctors On Call (ASADOC) have continued to work together and good progress has been 1408W
  made in identifying a new location for Moylinn Medical Centre. It is expected that an announcement on the outcome of these discussions will be made shortly.

  Police Service
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Police Service of Northern Ireland officers have been involved in policing operations outside Northern Ireland in each year since its formation; what the nature of the operations involved was; and how long each operation lasted. [142677]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not readily available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The table sets out the number of officers seconded outside Northern Ireland since 3 November 2001.

  Secondment to national police training

  Overseas Service

  2001

  0

  14

  2002

  9

  44

  2003

  4

  4

  Total

  13

  62

  The PSNI have deployed officers to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timor and Iraq. Officers deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina were seconded to the International Police Task force (IPTF). The role of the IPTF is to monitor, advise and train police officers belonging to the Republic Srpska and Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina police forces. A similar monitoring role was undertaken by officers deployed to East Timor.

  Officers deployed to Kosovo are seconded to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). The role of UNMIK is to maintain civil laws and orders with executive police powers. Officers perform border police duties at international border crossings also advise and assist in maintenance of public security and order.

  A senior officer of the PSNI was deployed to Iraq to build capacity and oversee the implementation of the Iraqi national policy strategy and maintain and supervise a regional police training academy.

  Polling Stations
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement on the difficulties experienced in ensuring that enough staff were available at polling stations during the Assembly elections in November 2003; [149613]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that greater numbers of individuals will be available to staff polling stations at future elections. [148820]

  Mr. Spellar
  Difficulties were experienced in the recruitment of polling station staff for the recent Assembly elections. These difficulties arose in part because of the time of year. However, due to the efforts of the Electoral Office, which included using civil servants as polling station staff, it was possible to fill all positions and enable the elections to be conducted successfully.
  1409W
  The administration of elections is a matter for the Chief Electoral Officer. However, the Government will continue to work closely with the CEO in his planning to ensure that polling stations are correctly staffed.

  Race Hate Crime
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to address race hate crime in Northern Ireland. [149234]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a Community Safety Strategy in place through which it can take action against perpetrators of racial harassment and intimidation. Until recently such action, which normally would have entailed steps to repossess property, was only possible in situations where the perpetrator was a Housing Executive tenant. With the introduction of the Housing (NI) Order 2003, the Housing Executive now has enhanced powers not only in terms of the action it can take against Housing Executive tenants but also through the use of injunctions to address race hate crimes occurring within its estates irrespective of the tenure of the perpetrator. The Housing Executive also assists victims of racial attacks through the provision of temporary accommodation pending enquiries into the circumstances pertaining to any individual case and permanent rehousing, where appropriate. It will also take measures to protect the properties and belongings of victims, if requested to do so.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests for assistance from victims of race hate crime were received in the last 12 months by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; how many victims were rehoused: and what instructions have been circulated to local offices. [149240]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the 12-month period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 a total of 30 cases from ethnic minority backgrounds presented to the Housing Executive as homeless on grounds of intimidation. Of the 30 cases, 17 were accepted as homeless as a result of intimidation and eligible for housing assistance. The remaining 13 applicants either abandoned their application or were ineligible for assistance under immigration or homeless legislation. While no specific guidance has been issued to staff in respect of racial discrimination, they have been provided with written guidance and training to deal with housing and homeless applications to ensure that all incidents, whether racial, terrorist or sectarian intimidation, are treated with the same degree of urgency and sensitivity.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers in Northern Ireland who will commence(a) Enbrel and (b) Remicade treatment in 2004; and what the figures were in 2003. [148843]

  Angela Smith
  In 2003, nine patients commenced treatment on Enbrel and 16 patients commenced treatment on Remicade. I announced on 13 January that we would provide additional resources for such anti-TNF drugs for 2004–05. Decisions have yet to be 1410W
  taken on detailed funding allocations so it is not possible to estimate the number of patients who may benefit from these therapies in 2004.

  Suicides
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of suicides that took place in Northern Ireland in 2003. [148952]

  Mr. Pearson
  Mortality statistics for 2003 have not been fully collated and therefore the latest available data relate to 2002. In 2002, there were 162 deaths registered in Northern Ireland due to "suicide and self-inflicted injury" and 21 deaths due to "undetermined injury whether accidentally or purposefully inflicted".

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the criteria used by Roads Service Northern Ireland to decide on areas to be included in traffic calming schemes. [149719]

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

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total expenditure on information campaigns and advertising was for his Department for each year since 1997. [145655]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date, expenditure on information campaigns and advertising has been as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  26,861

  2000–01

  270,494

  2001–02

  186,564

  2002–03

  10,930

  Note:

  Most of the expenditure during this period related to electoral registration information.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what systems are in place to ensure economies of scale in advertising purchasing between the Scottish Executive and his Department. [145679]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office works closely with the Scottish Executive on procurement and purchasing issues and participates in joint contracts, wherever possible.

  Call Centres
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on prospects for employment in Scottish call centres. [148752]
  1411W
  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Scotland is home to a significant proportion of the UK's call centres. The Government recognise the important role that call centres play in the Scottish job market and in the wider economy, and will work to ensure the continued development of the industry.

  The DTI recently commissioned a study into the competitiveness of the UK call centre industry, and its initial findings will be available from the end of March.

  Population Statistics
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the population of Scotland is, broken down by postcode district. [149363]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Population statistics in Scotland is a matter for the General Register Office for Scotland, an associated department of the Scottish Executive.

  Population statistics broken down by postcode district can be obtained from "Scotland's Census Records OnLine" (scrol) which is accessible through the General Register Office for Scotland's website at www.gro-scotland.gov.uk.

  Number of Personal Capability Assessment Appeals cleared at hearing and cleared in favour of the appellant, December 2002 to November 2003

  Total benefit claimants

  Cleared at hearing

  Cleared in favour

  Percentage cleared in favour

  PCA (Incapacity Benefit)

  12,400,500

  41,570

  20,130

  48.4

  PCA (Not Incapacity Benefit):

  Income Support

  24,016,000

  435

  190

  43.7

  Jobseekers Allowance

  3911,300

  4—

  4—

  Not applicable

  Others

  Not available

  90

  30

  33.3

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  5315,300

  35

  20

  57.1

  Appeals Figures Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available. Figures for the latest months may rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  2. Caseloads are rounded to the nearest five and percentages to one decimal place.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Claimant Figures Notes:

  1 As of August 2003; Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2 As of August 2003; Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3 As of August 2003; Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4 Nil or negligible.

  5 As of August 2003; Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Note:

  Not all claimants of these benefits are subject to the PCA. Therefore comparisons between the claimant numbers and appeals should be taken with caution.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. Samples.

  Average clearance time in weeks for PCA appeals from lodged to cleared in the periods shown

  Clearance time

  December 2002 to November 2003

  23.53

  Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available. Figures for the latest months may rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Appeals
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals against decisions made at personal capability assessments were(a) heard and (b) decided in the appellant's favour in the last 12 months, broken down by benefit; what the average length of time between lodging an appeal against a personal capability assessment decision and having that appeal heard was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [147813]

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

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Paul Holmes, dated 19 January 2004:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding how many appeals against decisions made in personal capability assessments were (a) heard and (b) decided in the appellant's favour in the last 12 months, broken down by benefit; and what the average length of time between lodging an appeal against a personal capability assessment decision and having that appeal heard was in the last 12 months.
  The first table shows the number of personal capability assessment appeals cleared and the number found in the appellant's favour, the second table shows the average clearance time in weeks.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  2. Figures are rounded to two decimal places.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Departmental Office (Hebburn)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many staff will be relocated from his Department's offices in Hebburn; [146993]
  1413W
  (2) how many people will be employed at replacement sites for work previously undertaken at his Department's offices in Hebburn; [146994]

  (3) where the replacement sites for the Department's offices in Hebburn will be located; and what the cost of relocation will be. [146995]

  Maria Eagle
  Inland Revenue (IR) is the major occupier of the Reyrolle Building, Hebburn with around 400 staff, and also manages the contract. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) rent space at Hebburn to accommodate around 60 staff from Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) and The Pension Service.

  IR extended the lease on the building until 2006 to provide temporary accommodation for IR and DWP due to the ongoing redevelopment of the Longbenton estate and it will be available for occupation until then.

  DWP Estates are looking at alternative accommodation within the area for DWP staff currently working in Hebburn. Staff are being consulted and factors such as accessibility, local facilities and public transport links will be taken into account.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of re-location of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146873]

  (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; [146884]

  (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; [146898]

  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible relocation of staff in his Department to the regions; and if he will make a statement. [146929]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Local Government Finance (Taunton Deane)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) rent allowance, (b) council tax benefit and (c) non-housing revenue account rent allowance actual settlement was for Taunton Deane borough council for 2003–04; and what the provisional settlement for each was for 2004–05. [150064]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available.

  All funding relating to indirect Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit subsidy will transfer to this Department from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in April 2004. As a result, we have reviewed all current subsidy rates and rules and will pay all Housing
  1414W
  benefit and Council Tax Benefit subsidy direct to authorities from April. DWP Circular S9/2003 sets out all the changes in detail and explains the transitional protection measures to be put in place to protect local authorities who may receive less funding under the new rules. A copy of the circular is available in the Library.

  Pension Payments (Edinburgh)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the(a) City of Edinburgh local authority area and (b) Edinburgh West constituency have been written to by his Department regarding direct payment; how many have opted for a Post Office card account; how many have opted to have their money paid into a normal or new basic bank account; and how many have yet to express a preference. [142622]

  Mr. Pond
  We do not have the information in the format requested. This could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Women's Pensions
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of women's pension provision. [149755]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 505W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 15 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Muhammed Hussain Ahmed. [149544]

  Mr. Mullin
  I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied to my right hon. Friend's letter of 15 December 2003 on 13 January 2004.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the steps that need to be taken to bring about peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [149198]

  Mr. Mullin
  The peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) took a big step forward in 2003 with the ratification of the Global Accord (signed in Pretoria on 17 December 2002) and the inauguration of an inclusive Transitional National Government (TNG) in July 2003.

  The TNG now faces some significant challenges. These include preparation of the country for democratic elections in 2005, economic regeneration, establishing basic systems of governance to help prevent conflicts

  1415W
  and reduce poverty, and security sector reform. The UK Government will continue to work with our partners in a co-ordinated international effort to bring lasting peace. There has also been a large increase in British aid to the DRC.

  Ghana
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Ghana. [148156]

  Mr. Mullin
  Foreign engagements for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not practice to announce such visits until they are firm. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel and occasionally not until they are under way. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Ghana in February 2002 and I visited Accra in 2003.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Ghana. [149494]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him today.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the night goggles provided by the EU to Ghana are used in accordance with the country's undertakings. [149496]

  Mr. Mullin
  All EU members are required to assess rigorously all export licence applications on a case-by-case basis against the 1998 EU Code of Conduct on arms exports, taking account of the circumstances prevailing at the time, embargoes and other announced policies. The 1998 EU Code of Conduct on arms exports is available in the Library of the House. The criteria set out the EU's commitment to take account of the risk that exports might be used for either internal repression or external aggression.

  The Ghanaian armed forces are professional and well respected. We have no reason to doubt that night vision equipment exported by the EU would be used for any other than legitimate purposes.

  Iraq
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library full statements of income and expenditure by the Coalition Provisional Authority. [149086]

  Mr. Rammell
  The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), established under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1483, is charged with auditing income to, and expenditure from, the Development Fund for Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority. The IAMB is made up of representatives from the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development. As soon as the Board has reported on the accounts, I will place a copy of their report in the Library of the House.

  Israel
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Israeli authorities regarding the nature of charges being brought against the soldier arrested for the killing of Mr. Tom Hurndall. [148936]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Israeli soldier, held in connection with the shooting of Tom Hurndall, has been charged with aggravated assault, obstruction of justice and other offences. A second soldier has now been charged. We understand the Israelis are reviewing the charges in light of Mr. Hurndall's death. We are in regular contact with the family and will be discussing the response to these developments with them.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Israeli authorities to ensure that the family of Mr. Tom Hurndall will have access to all evidence relevant to the case. [148937]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have pressed the Israeli authorities for a full and transparent investigation into the shooting of Tom Hurndall. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean is writing to the Israeli authorities regarding the family's wishes to see the results of the investigation.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Israel about their plans to expand illegal settlements in the occupied Golan Heights. [149480]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government regularly raise with the Government of Israel their concerns about continued Israeli settlement construction. Settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to a comprehensive peace in the region.

  Organisation of African Unity
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve relations with the Organisation of African Unity. [149495]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK has increasing contact, at senior official and ministerial level, with the African Union (AU) which formally replaced the Organisation of African Unity in 2002. I met the Chairman of the African Union Commission, Professor Alpha Konare on 19 January 2004.

  The AU has set itself important objectives in promoting peace and security, governance and economic integration. The UK has provided support (£1,089,745) to the AU Conflict Management Centre and the AU's wider peacekeeping work (£5.9 million to the African Mission in Burundi, AMIB). We are also providing small-scale support to assist the current Chairman of the AU Assembly (HE Joaquim Chissano, President of Mozambique) with Mozambique's AU Presidency duties and English language teaching to the AU Commission Chairman.

  The UK also gives strong support to the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), a programme of the African Union, through our

  1417W
  commitments under the G8 Africa Action Plan and also through financial support (£500,000) managed through a UNDP trust fund to the NEPAD Secretariat.

  Occupied Territories
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government plan to provide a written statement to the International Court of Justice on the case, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. [149481]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 530W. I will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the use of Article 308 EC as a sole legal base for European Union measures, its implications for defining the areas of competence of the Union and its implications for the principle of subsidiarity. [147531]

  Mr. MacShane
  Article 308 requires, in order for it to be used as a legal base for action, that a proposal be necessary for the attainment of a Community objective, and have unanimous support at the Council. We have given an undertaking that where the Commission puts forward a legislative proposal citing Article 308 as its legal base, we will provide the Scrutiny Committees with the Commission's justification of this choice of legal base. Any such proposal would need to respect the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 TEC.

  Terrorism
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of collaboration and sharing of expertise between terrorist organisations internationally. [148948]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are varying levels of contact between al-Qaeda and other international terrorist groups either related to al-Qaeda or sharing similar agendas, including sharing ideological ideas and expertise, and co-operating on funding, planning and facilitation. The loss of safe havens such as Afghanistan, and the successful pursuit and arrest of senior terrorists, have made this process more difficult. But terrorist individuals and groups continue to find ways to collaborate and communicate, including through use of the Internet.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Home Office about reducing the time taken by the Home Office to respond to requests for information made by the Visa Section of the British High Commission in Harare about visa applicants. [149487]
  1418W
  Mr. Mullin
  With effect from 10 January, new procedures have been set in place to ensure that requests for information from our diplomatic posts overseas are dealt with expeditiously by the Home Office. In line with these new procedures, the Home Office will notify the Visa Section as soon as they receive the request for information and agree a timescale for providing it. It is envisaged that these measures will create a secure and faster system for exchanging information between the Visa Sections at all our posts including the British Embassy in Harare and the Home Office.

TREASURY

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths from(a) circulatory disease and (b) cancer were recorded in each year since 1997. [149868]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Paul Burstow, dated 22 January 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many deaths from (a) circulatory disease and (b) cancer were recorded in each year since 1997.(149868)
  The latest year for which data are available is 2002. Figures for all circulatory diseases and cancer are shown in the table below for each year from 1997 to 2002.

  Number of deaths from circulatory diseases and cancer1, England and Wales. 1997 to 20022

  Calendar year

  (a) Circulatory diseases

  (b) Cancer

  1997

  228,443

  137,618

  1998

  226,675

  138,306

  1999

  219,087

  136,181

  2000

  207,228

  134,793

  20013

  211,842

  139,135

  20023

  209,433

  140,174

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)for the years 1997 to 2000, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for 2001 and 2002. The codes used are listed below:

  Diseases of the circulatory system—/CD-9 390–459; ICD-10100–199;

  Neoplasms—1CD-9 140–239; ICD-10 COO-D48.

  2 Figures are based on deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  3 The introduction of 1CD-10 for coding cause of death in 2001 means that data for circulatory diseases and cancer are not completely comparable with data for years before this date. The data should therefore be interpreted with caution. The effect of change in classification in 2001 on deaths from these causes is described in a report published in May 2002.*

  Office for National Statistics. Results of the ICD-10 bridge coding study, England and Wales, 1999. Health Statistics Quarterly 14 (2002), 75–83.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance with child care costs is provided through the child care element of the working tax credit. [150206]
  1419W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care element of the working tax credit can provide help with up to 70 per cent. of eligible child care costs subject to weekly maximum limits. For one child the maximum cost that a family can claim for is £135 a week, increasing to £200 a week for the costs of two or more children. This means that the maximum weekly value of the child care element is £94.50 for one child and £140 for two or more children.

  Double Taxation Agreement (Switzerland)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the standard for exchange of information set out in the Double Taxation Agreement between the UK and Switzerland. [149923]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In broad terms, the Agreement provides for each country to exchange such information at their disposal as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Agreement so long as doing so would not disclose any trade, business, banking, industrial or professional secret or trade process and would not be at variance with the regulations and practice of either country.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for the current Double Taxation Agreement between the UK and Switzerland of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Report on Improving Access to Bank Information for Tax Purposes: The 2003 Progress Report, with particular reference to exchange of information on criminal, civil and administrative matters. [149924]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government are committed to effective exchange of information between countries as a vital tool in the fight against cross border tax evasion and avoidance. We have been at the forefront of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's initiative on improving access to bank information for tax purposes. We shall continue to urge those countries that have not yet taken the necessary steps to allow appropriate access to bank information for all tax purposes, to do so as soon as possible.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreements the Government have entered into with Switzerland in compliance with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development standard for exchange of information for tax purposes by 2006. [149925]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK has entered into no such agreements.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances the Government has given to Switzerland in relation to the EU Directive on the Taxation of Savings Income, under the Double Taxation Agreement, with particular reference to exchange of information in criminal, civil and adminstrative matters. [149926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government has not given any assurances to Switzerland under the Double Taxation Agreement in relation to the EU Directive on the Taxation of Savings Income.

  Employer Compliance Review
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the Inland Revenue's Employer Compliance Review. [149860]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employer compliance operations are under continuous review through the Inland Revenue's quality assurance programme.

  Reviews of specific employers are confidential.

  Financial Services (Mutual Ownership)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department plans to review the role of mutual ownership in the investment sector; what steps he is taking to ensure that investors have a choice of mutual ownership in that sector; and if he will make a statement. [149730]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government recognise the contribution of the mutual sector, in competition with other service providers, to providing greater choice and diversity in the market. In the current market, consumers have a choice of ownership model for their investment.

  Fuel Tax
  Mr. James Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the tax revenue which would be lost if the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs target for conversion of petrol cars to liquid petroleum gas was achieved. [149279]

  John Healey
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not have a target for conversion of petrol cars to liquid petroleum gas.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised in the last financial year from(a) four star petrol, (b) unleaded petrol and (c) liquid petroleum gas used in vehicles. [149278]

  John Healey
  The revenue raised by the Exchequer from fuel duties is published by HM Customs and Excise at www.uktradeinfo.com in the Hydrocarbon Oils Bulletin. The amounts for financial year 2002–03 are:

  (a)1.6 million from leaded petrol1;

  (b)10.7 million from unleaded petrol;

  (c)8.1 million from road fuel gases2

  1 Revenue from leaded petrol is approximately equivalent to that from four star but includes other grades.
  2 Revenue from road fuel gases includes that from liquid petroleum gas (approximately 96 per cent.) and compressed natural gas (approximately 4 per cent.).

  Income and Corporation Taxes Act
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax revenue was raised under section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [R] [149817]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Income and Corporation Taxes Act/IR35
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation he carried out before introducing the 1R35 regulation. [R] [149814]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The intention to legislate the tax treatment of people working through intermediaries was announced in the 1999 Budget, a year before the changes were due to take effect. This was followed by extensive consultation. By the end of August 1999, the Inland Revenue had provided over 1,800 copies of the original proposals to whoever asked for them, and held consultative meetings with 38 representative bodies. Over 1,700 written comments and suggestions were received, considered and used to inform development of the intermediaries legislation.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation he carried out before reinterpreting section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. [R] [149813]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There has been no reinterpretation of Section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The Inland Revenue published in April 2003 guidance on their existing interpretation.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of(a) the IR35 regulation and (b) section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 regulation in securing additional tax revenue. [R] [149861]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Those covered by the intermediaries legislation are required to register with the Inland Revenue as employers and to operate PAYE/NIC in accordance with the legislation. The Inland Revenue does not routinely collect data in respect of specific types of employer from either PAYE/NIC returns or in respect of its Employer Compliance Review programme. It is therefore not possible to isolate the increase to the exchequer arising from this legislation. Information on the amount of tax charged under Section 660A Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 is not available.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account is taken of best practice in relation to dealing with people with disabilities in leaflets produced by the Inland Revenue. [150415]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue advertises the availability of leaflets in different formats on their internet site and in most leaflets. Some leaflets, such as the one about blind person's allowance, follow RNIB guidelines as standard.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Inland Revenue has to introduce a leaflet available(a) in hard copy and (b) on the Inland Revenue website explaining revenue help for those with special needs and indicating the main areas of tax legislation giving reliefs for those with disabilities. [150417]
  1422W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue are researching the most appropriate methods, including leaflets, of effectively publicising the help available to those with special needs. The Inland Revenue have been working with the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group on this issue.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Orderline of the Inland Revenue is able to(a) take orders for large print editions of the most commonly requested leaflets and forms and (b) arrange for delivery on request. [150420]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue are researching the most appropriate routes, including the Orderline, for taxpayers with special needs to obtain material in different formats. Currently they are asked to contact their Inland Revenue office or local Inland Revenue Enquiry Centre, if they require specialised products.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether(a) large print, (b) audio and (c) braille products are available on request from the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement. [150421]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes, large print, audio and braille products are available on request from the Inland Revenue. Currently the Inland Revenue are researching the most appropriate routes, including the Orderline, Inland Revenue offices and Inland Revenue Enquiry Centres, for taxpayers with special needs to obtain material in different formats.

  Local Authority Housing Debt (Scotland)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much local authority housing debt he has written off to date under the special stock transfer arrangements for Scotland. [149644]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the stock transfer arrangements, which are broadly similar to those in England, £1,055 million has been provided to repay local authority housing debt.

  National Savings
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many National Savings Ordinary Accounts have been(a) opened and (b) closed in each of the last five years for which records are available. [149484]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number of National Savings and Investments Ordinary Accounts opened and closed in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number opened

  Number closed

  1999

  228,432

  436,295

  2000

  235,293

  440,686

  2002

  216,057

  445,067

  2002

  197,938

  449,447

  2003

  201,169

  415,840

  Tax Collection
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has set for securing additional tax
  1423W
  revenue from investigations under (a) the IR35 regulation and (b) section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 regulation. [R] [149806]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor has not set any targets for securing additional tax revenue from investigations under the intermediaries legislation or Section 660A Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place to monitor the progress of investigations under(a) the IR35 regulation and (b) section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 regulation. [R] [149807]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has procedures in place to monitor all enquiry work including the intermediaries legislation and S660A Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. These procedures include regular reviews by the case officers and their line managers plus reviews by more senior officers in certain cases.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what penalties exist for late payment of tax; and how many times in each of the last five years these penalties have been used; [R] [149808]

  (2) how many fines have been imposed for late payment of taxes in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [R] [149811]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Whilst tax paid late might attract interest or surcharge, the tax legislation does not impose penalties or fines for late payment of tax.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that companies do not avoid paying tax in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [R] [149815]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that individuals do not avoid their tax responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [R] [149816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government are committed to tackling avoidance of tax and has introduced a number of anti-avoidance measures. We continue to monitor the position and shall not hesitate to introduce further legislation to protect the tax base when it is necessary to do so.

  Working Tax Credit
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for the working tax credit by(a) single persons and (b) couples without children there are in each region and nation of the UK; and if he will estimate how many will be eligible in each (i) region and (ii) country of the UK. [149641]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of couples and single adults receiving Child and Working Tax Credits in each country within the United Kingdom and in each region of England is shown at Table 8.1 of "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. October 2003", which is on the Inland Revenue web site at www.inlandrevenue.aov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm
  1424W
  Estimates for January 2004 will be published on 30 January 2004. No estimates will be available of the take-up rate of these tax credits until the Family Resources Survey for 2003–04 becomes available.

HEALTH

  Infertility
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what means the Government will ensure implementation of the forthcoming National Institute for Clinical Excellence clinical guidance on the treatment and management of infertility; [147739]

  (2) whether it is the Government's policy that infertility services should be made available on the NHS to all those with a clinical need. [147740]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The second draft of the guideline produced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was published on 26 August 2003. NICE is considering comments made on that draft. It would not be appropriate to comment on implementation until NICE publishes its final guideline.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary (Heart Surgery Inquiry)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now respond substantively to recommendations 192 to 197 of the Report of the Public Inquiry into Children's Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. [149268]

  Dr. Ladyman
  These recommendations were considered by the paediatric and congenital cardiac services review group which was established in March 2001. The report of the review group, which was published on 18 December 2003, offered advice on ways to ensure that standards are maintained and improved, based on the recommendations from this Inquiry. The report has been placed in the Library and is available on the Department of Health's website at www.doh.gsi.gov.uk/childcardiac

  The review group did not support recommendation 197 that surgical services for children with very rare congenital heart conditions, or involving procedures undertaken very rarely, should only be performed in a maximum of two units and instead made their own recommendations for introducing new procedures.

  With one exception, a recommendation to only keep centres carrying out at least 300 operations per year, the Government accepted all the review group's recommendations.

  Care Homes
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been commissioned by the National Care Standards Commission to inspect care homes for the elderly; and what the full-time equivalent is. [149797]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) does not commission inspectors or inspections. It fulfils its statutory inspection duty by
  1425W
  employing 1,501 inspectors. This is the full-time equivalent of 1,414 people. In addition, the NCSC employs 79 locums.

  Crisis Resolution Teams
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the NHS Plan paragraph 14.31, how many crisis resolution teams have been established; and of these teams, how many are able to offer a 24-hour service. [148061]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]According to the Durham mental health service mapping database (http://www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/amh), there are 132 crisis resolution teams currently in operation, 81 of which are offering a 24-hour service.

  Dentistry
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact that an increased proportion of women in the dental workforce has had on the availability of full-time equivalent practising dentists. [147502]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of male dentists in the general dental service has increased during the past 10 years from 11,819 dentists at September 1993 to 12,607 at September 2003. The number of female dentists has increased from 3,954 to 5,930. The female proportion has risen from 25 per cent. to 32 per cent. The implications are discussed in the report of the Dental Workforce Review, which we will be publishing shortly.

  Diabetes (South Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether South Sefton's Primary Care Organisation has appointed a clinical champion for diabetes; [148997]

  (2) what the percentage is of general practitioners providing (a) diabetes clinics and (b) other forms of structured diabetes care for South Sefton Primary Care Trust; [149000]

  (3) whether people with diabetes are able to have (a) blood glucose tests with results on the same day, (b) urine tests with results on the same day, (c) access on the same day to specialist expertise within primary care and (d) access to equipment for retinopathy screening with interpretation on the same day, under South Sefton Primary Care Trust; [149018]

  (4) whether South Sefton Primary Care Organisation has a protocol for the transfer of young people with diabetes from paediatric services to adult services; [149019]

  (5) whether South Sefton Primary Care Organisation has a local diabetes implementation and planning group to lead service commissioning; [148998]

  (6) whether South Sefton Primary Care Organisation (a) has a population-based register and (b) uses general practitioners' practice-based registers; [149001]
  1426W
  (7) whether South Sefton Primary Care Organisation has a strategy for early identification of people with diabetes; [149002]

  (8) whether the South Sefton Primary Care Trust provided training in the management of diabetes in the last two years for (a) general practitioners and (b) diabetes clinics; [148999]

  (9) whether. South Sefton Primary Care Trust provides joint specialist diabetes and obstetric clinics for people in the area; [149020]

  (10) whether the South Sefton Primary Care Trust provides joint specialist renal and diabetes clinics for people with diabetes who have renal complications; [149021]

  (11) how often people are routinely recalled for retinopathy screening by South Sefton Primary Care Trust; and whether digital cameras are used; [149003]

  (12) what percentage of people with diabetes were screened in the period April 2002 to March 2003 by South Sefton Primary Care Trust; [149004]

  (13) whether people with diabetes in the South Sefton Primary Care Trust area are invited to diabetes education sessions with a healthcare professional; [149005]

  (14) what written information is available on (a) diabetes, (b) self-management of diabetes, (c) personal diabetes record and care plans, (d) local diabetes services, (e) outcomes of care and (f) Diabetes UK to people diagnosed with diabetes by South Sefton Primary Care Trust; and in what languages this material is available; [149015]

  (15) whether South Sefton Primary Care Trust's register enables the call and recall of invitations for people with diabetes to attend services; [149016]

  (16) whether people with diabetes in the South Sefton Primary Care Trust area are able to access (a) routine diabetes care and (b) risk factor monitoring in a single visit; [149017]

  (17) whether the South Sefton Primary Care Trust provides foot care clinics for those at high risk of developing lower limb complications. [149022]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally. However it can be obtained from the following website: www.drfoster.co.uk/diabetes/objectlist.aspx?obid = 271&w = 1 &p = 1.

  The website can be accessed via www.diabetes.org.uk.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) funding and (b) other support there is for parents with children with Down's Syndrome; what plans he has to increase (i) funding and (ii) other support; and if he will make a statement. [149419]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Over £3 billion a year is spent on health and social services for people with learning disabilities, including those with Down's Syndrome. People with
  1427W
  Down's Syndrome also use mainstream health and social services and benefit from increased expenditure on those services.

  People with Down's Syndrome and their family carers will also benefit from our proposals for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers as set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001. "Valuing People" sets out a comprehensive five year strategy to be implemented by the Government and by local agencies.

  The White Paper also announced the creation of two new funds to support its priorities; the Implementation Support Fund (ISF) of £2.3 million a year from April 2001 and the Learning Disability Development Fund (LDDF), comprising of £23.1 million revenue and £20 million capital in 2003–04. Our annual report on learning disability, "Making Change Happen" (HC 514), published in April 2003, announced that the ISF would continue until March 2006. The LDDF will also continue until March 2006.

  Families of children with Down's Syndrome have also benefited from Government programmes to support disabled children. As part of the "Quality Protects" (QP) programme, the disabled children's ringfenced grant rose from £15 million last year to £30 million this year. This, along with the yearly rises in the Carer's Grant, is leading to increases in the levels of provision of short term breaks for parents of disabled children. Direct payments were introduced in the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000; one of the key aims is to give families greater choice and flexibility in how they receive services, including the range of short term breaks. As part of the development of national service framework for children, the Government are considering how best to support the particular needs of families with disabled children, who require flexible services responsive to their particular needs.

  The Down's Syndrome Association has been awarded a grant of £28,000 for a two year project, "Planning for a Healthy Life". The project aims to produce web-based information on the specific health issues that need to be taken into account in health action planning for people with Down's Syndrome by medical students, general practitioners and health workers.

  People with Down's Syndrome and their family carers will also benefit from the outcome of this project.

  Environmental Impact Study
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study on the environmental impact of staff and service users across the NHS. [148316]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is Government policy that environmental considerations must be properly taken into account in all the activities and services provided by the national health service. It is for each individual hospital trust to undertake environmental impact assessments for the services it provides and the facilities used by its staff and service users.
  1428W

  Health and Social Services (Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding(a) in absolute terms and (b) per head of population has been made available in (i) Lincolnshire and (ii) England for the provision of adult social services in each year since 1995. [148475]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Resources provided for adult social services1

  Total adult resources (£million)

  Total per head of population (£)

  Lincolnshire

  1995–96

  60

  125

  1996–97

  67

  139

  1997–98

  72

  148

  1998–99

  73

  149

  1999–2000

  78

  156

  2000–01

  82

  163

  2001–02

  88

  173

  2002–03

  105

  204

  2003–04

  114

  221

  2004–05

  121

  232

  England

  1995–96

  5,220

  140

  1996–97

  5,746

  154

  1997–98

  6,081

  162

  1998–99

  6,458

  172

  1999–2000

  6,827

  181

  2000–01

  7,176

  189

  2001–02

  7,701

  201

  2002–03

  8,766

  228

  2003–04

  9,527

  246

  2004–05

  10,117

  260

  1The funding figures include both FSS and grants. The figures include some grants which can be used to support all social care services. These are Carers, Training Support Programme, Human Resources Development Strategy, Performance Fund and National Training Strategy Grants. It is not possible to split these grants between adult and children's services.

  Health Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with dementia were in residential care in Lancashire in the last year for which figures are available; and how many people were funded by the NHS. [147856]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There were about 80 people with dementia receiving residential care in Lancashire in 2001–02. Information on the number of people with dementia in residential care funded by the national health service is not available.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses work in the (i) Preston and (ii) Chorley hospitals; and what the pay costs were for each of the last three years. [147857]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the numbers and pay costs of doctors and nurses working in Preston and Chorley hospitals for the last three years of available data.

  It should be noted that mental health services and acute services in this area were restructured in 2001–02, with some doctors and nurses previously counted within the returns for the acute trusts transferring to other trusts without hospital based care.
  1429W

  Staffing numbers and costs as at September14

  Doctors

  Cost

  Nurses

  Cost

  2000–01

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  355

  19,265.4

  1,256

  26,285.5

  Chorley & South Ribble NHS Trust

  118

  8,311.5

  772

  20,267.5

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  Total cost

  27,576.9

  46,553.0

  2001–02

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  348

  22,277.1

  1,330

  30,616.0

  Chorley & South Ribble NHS Trust

  142

  9,091.6

  603

  17,713.8

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  Total cost

  31,814.3

  53,102.4

  2002–031

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  Chorley & South Ribble NHS Trust

  —

  —

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  484

  34,444.0

  1,915

  48,746.7

  Total cost

  36,298.7

  74,330.4

  12002–03 cost data is provisional

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Intermediate Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason figures are not available for the number of people who received intermediate care in 2000–01; [148872]

  (2) for what reason figures are not available for the number of intermediate care beds there were in 2000–01. [148873]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The NHS Plan announced targets for intermediate care services in July 2000. A detailed retrospective survey was undertaken by the Department to establish baseline figures for 1999–2000. From April 2001, formalised data collecting began, following the publication of defining criteria in the January 2001 circular (HSC 2001/01: LAC(2001)1).

  Lung Cancer
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to improve the(a) detection, (b) diagnosis and (c) treatment of lung cancer; and if he will make a statement. [148060]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]Early detection of all cancers improves a patient's chance of survival. In March 2000, "Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer" were published and sent to all general practitioners in order to help them identify those patients who are most likely to have cancer, so that they can be referred urgently to a specialist. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is in the process of updating these guidelines. The update is due to be published in February 2005.

  In order to ensure that high quality services for cancer patients are provided across the country, the NHS Cancer Plan set out the following broad approach, which addresses the diagnosis process and treatment:

  the development of a comprehensive package of guidance ("Improving Outcomes" guidance) on services which are most likely to improve outcomes for different types of cancer;
  1430W
  the translation of this guidance into measurable national standards (the "Manual of Cancer Standards"); and
  a national programme of peer review to ensure compliance with these standards.

  "Improving Outcomes Guidance on Lung Cancer" was published by the Department in 1998 and lung cancer services were peer reviewed on the resulting standards in 2001. The "Manual of Cancer Standards" is currently being updated and a three-year rolling programme of cancer peer review against this manual is expected to start in autumn 2004. In addition, NICE is preparing clinical guidelines for the national health service in England and Wales for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. This is expected to be published in November 2004. NICE has also appraised four chemotherapy drugs for treatment of lung cancer and is in the process of appraising a fifth.

  The work of the Modernisation Agency's Cancer Services Collaborative 'Improvement Partnership' (CSC 'IP') is central to the drive to improve the detection, diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. A specific goal of the CSC JP' is to promote early diagnosis of lung cancer.

  In November 2003, the establishment of a Lung Cancer Advisory Group was announced. This group, which will be meeting in March, will be chaired by Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director and will advise on the development and delivery of lung cancer services, including relevant elements of the NHS Cancer Plan.

  Merseyside Health Action Zone
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects and their associated funding arising from the Merseyside Health Action Zone (MHAZ) since 1997; what the total amount
  1431W
  allocated to MHAZ is; and how many administrative posts are required to administer the funding. [147938]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A copy of the information requested on Merseyside Health Action Zones (MHAZ) projects and associated funding has been placed in the Library.

  The Department does not hold information relating to the number of administrative posts that were required to administer the funding.

  Age groups

  Week

  0-4

  5-14

  15-44

  45-64

  65+

  Total (all ages)

  2003

  27 October to 2 November

  97

  129

  789

  211

  110

  1,336

  3 November to 9 November

  95

  159

  818

  235

  132

  1,439

  10 November to 16 November

  112

  280

  820

  238

  109

  1,559

  17 November to 23 November

  97

  240

  736

  248

  113

  1,434

  24 November to 30 November

  92

  182

  635

  217

  100

  1,226

  1 December to 7 December

  120

  252

  646

  229

  103

  1,350

  8 December to 14 December

  73

  129

  537

  183

  84

  1,006

  15 December to 21 December

  61

  96

  524

  192

  113

  986

  22 December to 28 December

  85

  108

  683

  290

  235

  1,401

  Total—27 November to 28 December 2003

  832

  1,575

  6,188

  2,043

  1,099

  11,737

  The figures provided in the answer are the total number of calls where a NHS Direct nurse has used the cold/flu clinical algorithm. These totals do not include NHS Direct callers with a cold or influenza where the NHS Direct nurse has not used the `cold/flu' algorithm.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has collated on the use of NHS Direct(a) broken down by region and (b) within the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [148404]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  NHS Direct usage figures broken down by NHS Direct site for the last six months (July to December 2003) are shown in the table.

  Calls answered by site by month for July 2003—December 2003

  Site

  Calls answered

  Anglia

  112,024

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  127,050

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  132,909

  East Midlands

  199,630

  Essex

  165,545

  Hampshire

  146,462

  Kent, Surrey, Sussex

  211,104

  Manchester

  210,333

  North and Central London

  94,865

  North East

  158,149

  North East London

  77,912

  North West Coast

  193,686

  South East London

  93,783

  South West London

  74,757

  South Yorkshire And South Humberside

  120,679

  Staffordshire

  148,258

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire

  115,786

  Thames Valley and Northamptonshire

  136,650

  West Country

  188,582

  West London

  133,384

  West Midlands

  140,232

  West Yorkshire

  172,411

  Grand total

  3,154,191

  1432W

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls relating to colds or influenza were made to NHS Direct in each week in November and December to date, broken down by the age groups(a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 14, (c) 15 to 44, (d) 45 to 64 and (e) 65 years and over. [145084]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of calls relating to colds or influenza that were made to NHS Direct in each week in November and December are shown in the table.

  The constituencies of Middlesbrough, South and East, Cleveland are covered by Middlesbrough Primary Care Trust (PCT). For the last six months, NHS Direct Tees, East and North Yorkshire have handled approximately 5,500 calls from patients located in the Middlesbrough PCT area.

  Post Mortems
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the scoping study on less invasive approaches to post mortem examination referred to on the Chief Medical Officer's webpage. [148245]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Chief Medical Officer recommended that research should be commissioned into less invasive forms of post mortem examination. In order to take this work forward a scoping study was commissioned by the Department of Health. This will be published shortly and a copy will then be placed in the Library.

  Stroke (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stroke consultants are employed in the NHS in Gloucestershire; what plans there are to increase this number; and if he will make a statement. [149467]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information for consultants in the specialties cardiology, clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, geriatric medicine, neurology, and rehabilitation medicine within Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is shown in the table.

  In line with our policy of shifting the balance of power it is now for primary care trusts, in partnership with SHAs and other local stakeholders, to determine how

  1433W
  best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services, based on the specialised knowledge they have of the local

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Consultants within Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA by organisation and specified specialties

  Number (headcount)

  Cardiology

  Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics

  Geriatric medicine

  2001

  2002

  June 2003

  2001

  2002

  June 2003

  2001

  2002

  June 2003

  Avon,

  Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  15

  22

  24

  1

  2

  2

  24

  36

  42

  SHA Of which:

  5FL

  Bath and North East Somerset PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  RA3

  Weston Area NHS Trust

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  RA7

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  4

  6

  6

  0

  1

  0

  4

  5

  5

  RDI

  Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Trust,

  2

  3

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  5

  7

  RH6

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  RN3

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  2

  4

  3

  0

  0

  1

  6

  4

  5

  RNZ

  Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  3

  RTE

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  9

  RVJ

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  2

  2

  5

  0

  0

  0

  3

  11

  11

  Number (headcount)

  Neurology

  align="center">Rehabilitation medicine

  2001

  2002

  June 2003

  2001

  2002

  June 2003

  Avon,

  Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA

  11

  14

  13

  0

  3

  0

  Of which:

  5FL

  Bath and North East Somerset PCT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RA3

  Weston Area NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RA7

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  RDI

  Royal United Hospitals, Bath NHS Trust

  3

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  RH6

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RN3

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  RNZ

  Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  RTE

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  RVJ

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  4

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  Data for 2001 and 2002 as at 30 September, data for 2003 as at 30 June

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Tuna (Mercury Contamination)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of research undertaken by the US Food and Drug Administration into mercury contamination of tuna; [148591]

  (2) what advice his Department gives to consumers on the consumption of tuna, with particular reference to mercury content. [148593]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency advises that pregnant and breast-feeding women, and women who intend to become pregnant, should limit their consumption of tuna to no more than two medium size cans (drained weight approximately 140 g.) or one fresh tuna steak per week as a precaution due to the mercury content. Other consumers do not need to limit 1434W
  community. I am informed by Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA that there are no current plans for the recruitment of additional stroke consultants in Gloucestershire.

  their consumption of tuna. This is in line with advice issued by the US Food and Drug Administration on fish consumption, based on surveys of the mercury content of fish.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Social Behaviour
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding anti-social behaviour over Halloween. [145344]

  Ms Blears
  I have previously received a few representations about anti-social behaviour over the Halloween period. In particular the issues surrounding the increase of Trick or Treating by children.
  1435W
  The majority of children enjoy Halloween without causing problems to their community.

  Where any individual causes anti-social behaviour at any time of year we are determined that their behaviour is challenged and stopped, and we have provided the tools to ensure this happens.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 will be brought into force on(a) 20 January and (b) 27 February; [149104]

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that Chief Constables and the Crown Prosecution Service are fully aware of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provisions that come into force on (a) 20 January and (b) 27 February; [149105]

  (3) when the timetable giving the dates for commencement of the sections of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 that are not yet in force will be published; and which sections of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 have not yet been subject to commencement orders. [149106]

  Ms Blears
  We published "Together-Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour: A Guide to the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003" on 20 January 2004. This explains the Act's contents, how it can be used to deal with the anti-social behaviour and provides commencement dates for all measures in the Act. Copies of the Act will be sent to all Chief Constables in England and Wales and to the Crown Prosecution Service. Copies have also been sent to all Members of Parliament today.

  Burglars
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of burglars who are convicted in each of the areas of England and Wales are sentenced to prison. [147366]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Courts will approach the decision to sentence for offences of burglary on the basis of guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal in December 2002 and the Magistrates' Courts Sentencing Guidelines issued by the Magistrates' Association (most recent version effective from 1 January 2004). These Guidelines assist the courts in adopting a consistent approach. The new Sentencing Guidelines Council will take on responsibility for these guidelines and for monitoring the way in which the guidelines are used in order to ensure that there is a common approach to sentencing.

  Number of persons sentenced for burglary1 at all courts and those sentenced to immediate custody, by police force area, England and Wales 2002

  Police force area

  Total persons sentenced for burglary

  2Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Percentage sentenced to immediate custody

  Avon and Somerset

  695

  379

  55

  Bedfordshire

  224

  131

  58

  Cambridgeshire

  335

  174

  52

  Cheshire

  500

  288

  58

  Cleveland

  677

  377

  56

  Cumbria

  253

  120

  47

  Derbyshire

  533

  290

  54

  1436W

  Number of persons sentenced for burglary1 at all courts and those sentenced to immediate custody, by police force area, England and Wales 2002

  Police force area

  Total persons sentenced for burglary

  2Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Percentage sentenced to immediate custody

  Devon and Cornwall

  526

  188

  36

  Dorset

  244

  131

  54

  Durham

  432

  217

  50

  Essex

  434

  230

  53

  Gloucestershire

  247

  93

  38

  Greater Manchester

  1,614

  816

  51

  Hampshire

  776

  310

  40

  Hertfordshire

  314

  145

  46

  Humberside

  579

  318

  55

  Kent

  489

  220

  45

  Lancashire

  1,223

  610

  50

  Leicestershire

  458

  212

  46

  Lincolnshire

  323

  137

  42

  London, City of

  27

  14

  52

  Merseyside

  650

  358

  55

  Metropolitan Police

  3,234

  1,776

  55

  Norfolk

  261

  109

  42

  Northamptonshire

  237

  122

  51

  Northumbria

  927

  389

  42

  North Yorkshire

  300

  162

  54

  Nottinghamshire

  747

  356

  48

  South Yorkshire

  937

  523

  56

  Staffordshire

  534

  301

  56

  Suffolk

  235

  89

  38

  Surrey

  191

  88

  46

  Sussex

  402

  214

  53

  Thames Valley

  744

  360

  48

  Warwickshire

  187

  95

  51

  West Mercia

  494

  246

  50

  West Midlands

  1,862

  1.039

  56

  West Yorkshire

  1,598

  873

  55

  Wiltshire

  233

  92

  39

  Dyfed Powys

  214

  77

  36

  Gwent

  384

  146

  38

  North Wales

  317

  147

  46

  South Wales

  785

  388

  49

  England and Wales

  26,376

  13.350

  51

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  2 Detention and training order, detention in a young offender institution, detention under secs 91/92 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and unsuspended imprisonment.

  Coroner's Court Hearings (South Gloucestershire)
  Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that coroner's court hearings affecting residents of South Gloucestershire will take place at locations convenient for residents of South Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [148620]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Any decision to hold an inquest at a particular location is a matter for the coroner concerned. I understand that following the closure of the coroner's court in Bristol the office has transferred to a site in Long Ashton. However, the inquest may be held at other locations subject to the needs of those wishing to attend and availability of accommodation.

  Crime (North-West)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) theft and (b) robbery of school property there were in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the north west region and (iv) England in each year since 1997. [147168]
  1437W
  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not collect information on the type of location for recorded crimes, except where it is implicit in the crime type (e.g. theft from a shop, or shop-lifting). It also does not collect information on ownership of property stolen. For these reasons, numbers of robberies and thefts involving school property are not collected separately.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what incentives he is giving trusts to stay within the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 not to discriminate against deaf people in terms of equitable access. [147695]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Trusts are responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), including the provision of equitable access for deaf people. There are a number of means by which the Department and others continue to help them.

  In 1999, the National Health Service Executive issued management guidance to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care groups in implementing Part III of the DDA and a guide "Doubly Disabled" was published to increase managers' and staff's awareness of disabled people.

  Currently, the Department is developing with the Disability Rights Commission a framework for partnership action on disability, which identifies key areas for joint action. This will deliver real improvements for disabled people as users and providers of health and social care. Access and communication has been identified as a priority and the Department is establishing a working group to oversee a range of initiatives on access, including the production of sector-specific guidance on good practice, and a programme to promote awareness of the access duties set out in the DDA. The NHSU is also working closely with the Disability Rights Commission and others to develop a framework and programme to address training on disabilities issues in health and social care.

  Ford Open Prison
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners absconded from Ford Open Prison in each year since 1990. [146473]

  Paul Goggins
  Information is available from 1992. The information recorded at Prison Service headquarters on the reported numbers of absconds from HMP Ford is set out in the following table:

  Year

  Number of prisoners absconding from HMP Ford

  1992

  59

  1993

  39

  1994

  40

  1995

  20

  1996

  46

  1997

  51

  1998

  41

  1999

  56

  2000

  69

  1438W

  Year

  Number of prisoners absconding from HMP Ford

  2001

  50

  2002

  86

  2003

  127

  Figures are as recorded on the Prison Service incident reporting system and may not be entirely reliable, particularly prior to 1998 when changes were made to the electronic database.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Forensic Science Service is contracted out to private operators in(a) Lancashire, (b) Cumbria, (c) Cheshire, (d) Greater Manchester, (e) Merseyside and (f) North Wales in 2003–04. [148212]

  Ms Blears
  The Forensic Science Service (FSS) has not contracted out any work received from the named police forces to private sector forensic service providers in the financial year to date.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Home Detention Curfew. [148890]

  Paul Goggins
  The operation of the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme is monitored on a weekly basis. Between January 1999, when the scheme was introduced, and 9 January 2004, over 86,000 prisoners have been released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme. At any one time about 3,600 low risk prisoners, who would otherwise be filling prison places, are serving the last part of the custodial portion of their sentence on HDC.

  Since the scheme began 90 per cent. of those granted HDC have completed their curfew period without any problems at all and 2 per cent. are reported as having been convicted, cautioned or are awaiting prosecution for an offence committed whilst subject to HDC.

  In addition, the Home Office published an evaluation of the operation of the first sixteen months of the scheme in June 2001 (Home Office Research Study 222: "Electronic Monitoring of released prisoners: an evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme").

  I am satisfied that the scheme continues successfully to provide suitable prisoners with a smoother and more effective re-integration back into the community by enabling them to be released from prison early while still subject to restrictions placed on their liberty.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his written statement of 14 January,Official Report, column 31 WS, what other recent exceptional cases may be deemed unsuitable for the Home Detention Curfew Scheme. [149304]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]No cases have, so far, been referred to the Chief Executive, of the National Offender Management Service. The
  1439W
  policy will apply to any case where the applicant for Home Detention Curfew has been involved in a notorious crime or crime of concern to the public, where release would bring the scheme in to disrepute. Prisoners affected by this change will be able to make representations supporting their release to the Chief Executive of NOMS.

  We expect that only a small number of cases will be referred to the Chief Executive.

  Imprisonment (Costs)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to public funds of the imprisonment of Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel has been. [144523]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not maintain information on the cost of imprisonment of specific prisoners. However, as an alternative it is possible to provide the average cost of keeping a prisoner in the establishments in which the particular prisoners referred to in this question served their sentences. This suggests that the total cost to public funds of the imprisonment of Sally Clarke was in the region of £111,000. The cost of detaining Angela Cannings was approximately £57,000.

  Trupti Patel did not spend time in prison custody, as she was bailed upon charge and subsequently acquitted.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to ensure that juvenile prisoners are fed adequately while being transported from court to prison. [144358]

  Paul Goggins
  Escort contractors have a contractual responsibility to provide meals to all prisoners, including juveniles, who are in their custody between 11:30 hours and 14:00 hours; and also in circumstances, such as a late court sitting, which would result in prisoners arriving at the prison after mealtime. The contract requires that meals must be sufficient to sustain the prisoners and meet dietary needs.

  Mr. Liton Miah
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the application by Mr. Liton Miah for a work permit under the business and commercial arrangements on Form WP1 (REF ISCO/BO 69511) was refused on the grounds that he was of too high a level of skill; for what reasons he was subsequently refused after applying for a work permit under the sector based schemes on the grounds that he was of too low a level of skill (REF DWA/BO 69511); and if he will make a statement. [144082]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 22 January 2004.

  Police National Computer
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many updates of the Police National Computer took place in each of the last three years; how many people are authorised to insert, delete 1440W
  or change data on the Police National Computer; what checks are in place to ensure the accuracy of (a) data changes and (b) the data held; and if he will make a statement. [148414]

  Ms Blears
  The number of updates of the Police National Computer for the past three years is as follows:

  Number

  2001

  14,733,611

  2002

  15,185,975

  2003

  15,194,333

  I regret that information on the number of people authorised to insert, delete or change data on the Police National Computer is not available. It is the responsibility of the Chief Officer of each police force to make the necessary arrangements.

  It is also the responsibility of Chief Officers to have in place checking processes to ensure the accuracy of the data held and any changes that are made to it. All the Forces are inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to ensure compliance with the Association of Chief Police Officers and Police National Computer Compliance Strategy. The Chief Constables' Council agreed the strategy on 27 April 2000. The Compliance Strategy sets a number of standards that forces are required to meet, in particular the entering of data on to the Police National Computer in a timely manner.

  Prison Officers (Industrial Action)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking in response to the decision by prison officers across the United Kingdom to take industrial action in support of their Northern Ireland colleagues. [147196]

  Paul Goggins
  Following detailed negotiations, the dispute between the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Prison Officers' Association (POA) has been successfully resolved as a result, the threat of industrial action by POA members in England and Wales has been lifted.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to tackle bullying of prisoners by other inmates. [149101]

  Paul Goggins
  Prison Service Order 1702, Anti-Bullying Strategy, contains mandatory instructions to Governors to ensure that all prisons implement and maintain locally an appropriate, advertised anti-bullying strategy. The strategy must aim to prevent bullying behaviour and to address it constructively where it occurs.

  It is mandatory for establishments to appoint an anti-bullying co-ordinator, who is responsible for monitoring that the nature and extent of bullying in the prison. They examine a number of factors including the number of requests to move wing and the number of applications to the Independent Monitoring Board, number of assaults. They are obliged to complete at least once every two years.
  1441W
  Unless the prison is particularly small, it is expected that establishments set up a multi-disciplinary anti-bullying committee that meets regularly and makes links with other related areas such as suicide prevention or The Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme.

  Reducing violence, in all its forms, is fundamental to the objectives of the Prison Service. By constructively and consistently taking action to prevent violence and promote fairness and decency, prisons can offer a structured environment in which to influence future behaviour, encourage positive communication and develop social skills that assist offenders with rehabilitation. Further, maintaining a safe environment reduces stress and anxiety, and promotes individual, organisational and public confidence.

  Problems of inter-prisoner violence and bullying are being addressed through development of a Service-wide Violence Reduction Strategy. By the summer of 2004, each prison will have in place a local violence reduction strategy appropriate to needs. Intranet toolkits will help establishments to develop practical solutions, including environmental and physical measures as well as alternatives for behaviour management. Specific issues such as racism, substance misuse, violence, verbal abuse and various types of bullying will be covered with good practice examples. A whole prison approach will be encouraged, with the aim of reducing violence and fear of violence. A focus on personal safety, supporting victims, and repairing the physical and emotional harm caused by violence or abuse, will link closely with the suicide prevention strategy.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost is of keeping someone in prison per day. [148886]

  Paul Goggins
  The average cost per day of each prisoner during the financial year 2002–03 was £99.36. This figure covers the whole of the prison system, including public sector and contracted prisons, as well as an element of headquarters overheads.

  The cost per prisoner varies according to the security of each prison establishment and other factors such as the gender and age of the prisoner. The range of daily costs for 2002–03 was £119 to £54, with the highest being for the High Security estate and the lowest for the Category C estate, which tends to hold a more settled population.

  Rehabilitation Programmes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number and what percentage of short-term prisoners completed a fast track rehabilitation programme during their time in prison in each of the last five years; and what plans he has to increase this percentage over the next two years. [148908]

  Paul Goggins
  Information is not collected specifically on treatment provision by length of stay in prison. There is currently no system to "fast track" prisoners onto rehabilitation programmes. A short duration drug treatment programme is to be piloted in April 04, giving access to short term and remand prisoners. Detoxification is available immediately on reception into prison.
  1442W
  The Street Crime Initiative makes provision for prisoners to be fast tracked into drug treatment interventions. This includes CARAT services (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice & Through care), as well as detoxification. From April-November 2003, 2,453 prisoners were referred to CARATs. Of those, 1951 were appropriate referrals, 1,807 received an initial assessment and 898 received detoxification.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the FOR rehabilitation programme which ran in South Wales to other areas. [148909]

  Paul Goggins
  The FOR resettlement programme for short-term prisoners is currently in development and being piloted in two establishments. The Prison Service will be seeking the advice of the Correctional Service Accreditation Panel on the programme and will take decisions about extending it to other areas in the light of the advice provided and resourcing available.

  Scottish Police
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Scottish police officers are seconded to or are serving in a permanent capacity with UK-wide police bodies. [147524]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are 23 Scottish police officers on secondment to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Information is not held centrally on the number of Scottish officers seconded to or serving in other UK-wide police bodies such as the Police Information Technology Organisation and the Police Scientific Development Branch.

  Terrestrial Trunked Radio
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research into the health and safety issues of terrestrial trunked radio his Department has collated since July 2001. [149196]

  Ms Blears
  On the recommendation of independent experts, the Home Office set up a comprehensive programme of work on TETRA health issues. The Home Office also funds TETRA-related research as an adjunct to the Mobile Telecommunications Research Programme co-ordinated by the Department of Health.

  TETRA was found to have no effect on calcium exchanges in cells—the main concern of the Stewart report. Independent checks confirm that TETRA equipment fully conforms with health and safety regulations. Longer-term human volunteer studies are under way.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission further research into the health and safety issues of terrestrial trunked radio masts. [149197]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have no plans to commission any further research into the effects of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) masts.
  1443W
  The National Radiological Protection Board's independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGN IR) has recently published a report on "Health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields". The report confirms that there is no reason to believe that signals from TETRA base stations should be treated differently from those from other base stations. The AGNIR experts do not suggest any further research on TETRA masts.

  Independent checks of the TETRA masts used by the new police radiocommunications system, Airwave, have confirmed that they fully comply with international health and safety guidelines.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children in(a) Stoke Heath and (b) Onley Young Offender Institutions have been placed in the segregation units of those Institutions since January; and for how long in each case. [144360]

  Paul Goggins
  Data on the number of children held in segregation at Stoke Heath and Onley Young Offender Institutions from January to November 2003 are shown in the following tables. This has been split to show the number of times the segregation unit was used for(a) less than seven days, (b) for longer than seven days and (c) for longer than 28 days during this period.

  Data on Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution in 2003

  Number of Juveniles

  Month—2003

  Held for less than 7 days

  Held for longer than 7 days

  Held for longer than 28 days

  January

  19

  7

  0

  February

  17

  8

  0

  March

  15

  7

  0

  April

  6

  13

  0

  May

  9

  7

  0

  June

  11

  6

  0

  July

  13

  8

  0

  August

  8

  0

  0

  September

  8

  7

  0

  October

  2

  18

  0

  November

  0

  10

  0

  Data on Onley Young Offender Institution in 2003

  Number of Juveniles

  Month—2003

  Held for less than 7 days

  Held for longer than 7 days

  Held for longer than 28 days

  January

  10

  3

  0

  February

  24

  0

  0

  March

  17

  0

  0

  April

  13

  2

  1

  May

  43

  8

  0

  June

  12

  8

  0

  July

  21

  9

  0

  August

  11

  9

  0

  September

  9

  12

  0

  October

  28

  39

  1

  November

  17

  7

  0

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made to provide juvenile female prisoners with clothing. [144366]
  1444W
  Paul Goggins
  All young women under the age of 18 in custody wear their own clothing. However, every young woman received into custody automatically receives items of underwear and nightwear. If a young woman does arrive in custody with insufficient clothing she will be given additional clothing provided by the establishment.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Minutes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in what circumstances decision-making meetings between civil servants and ministers are not minuted; and if he will make a statement. [148400]

  Mr. Leslie
  Detailed policies and procedures for the creation and management of all records relating to government business are the responsibility of the department concerned. However, the National Archives has a supervisory role in ensuring the safe-keeping of historical value. In this connection the National Archives has issued 'guidance on the management of private office papers', which is available on those records which, once created, are likely to be of enduring its website at: http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/standards/privateoffice. htm

  Sentencing Decisions
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Department of Constitutional Affairs what the Appeal Court must conclude for a sentence to be reduced. [145969]

  Mr. Leslie
  Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 provides that an appeal may be allowed against sentence if the appellant may be sentenced "differently" from the way in which he was sentenced in the Crown Court. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) will always interfere and quash a sentence if it considers it "manifestly excessive". In addition there are a number of other reasons why an appeal against sentence may succeed. Circumstances between the date of sentence and the hearing of the appeal may change. For example, the CACD may be provided with information about help given by the individual defendant to the prosecuting or prison authorities, which justifies a reduction in sentence. The CACD itself often seeks and is provided with reports from prison, which may give grounds for concluding that although the sentence imposed at the Crown Court is not open to criticism, the sentence has had the necessary impact, and is no longer appropriate. This is of particular importance where the offender is young and his rehabilitation may progress more rapidly if, having served some time in custody, a community sentence was now imposed on him. Changes in relation to sentencing policy may also affect the result of a sentence appeal, where, for example, new "guidelines" have been provided after the sentence was imposed. Other circumstances which may affect the decision of the CACD include sentences imposed following procedural errors, or those which may create a justifiable sense of grievance because of sentences passed on other defendants.
  1445W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how many appeals(a) against sentence and (b) against conviction have been (i) successful and (ii) allowed in each of the last five years as a percentage of the total number of committals for trial for (A) the crown court and (B) magistrates court; [146017]

  (2) how many sentencing decisions were made by each judge in the (a) crown court and (b) Court of Appeal in each of the last five years; [146060]

  (3) how many sentencing decisions each serving circuit judge in England and Wales made in each of the last five years. [146061]

  Mr. Leslie
  We do not have this information in the form requested. We do not measure how many sentencing decisions individual judges make, and this will vary according to the types of case they deal with and the complexity and length of cases they hear. There are currently 604 Circuit Judges, Senior Circuit Judges and equivalents, and 1,326 Recorders; not all of whom sit in criminal cases.

  In the five years to 2002, the Crown Court dealt with the following committals for trial or sentence:

  Committals for trial

  Receipts

  Disposals

  1998

  75,815

  77,794

  1999

  74,232

  73,539

  2000

  71,022

  72,762

  2001

  80,551

  75,565

  2002

  83,449

  81,776

  Committals for sentence

  Receipts

  Disposals

  1998

  29,774

  28,224

  1999

  31,928

  30,641

  2000

  27,591

  28,713

  2001

  25,960

  25,717

  2002

  28,837

  28,235

  In the same period the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) heard the following full appeals, excluding applications for leave to appeal which were dismissed. It should be tooted that cases heard in the Court of Appeal in a given year may well not have been heard by the Crown Court in the same year.

  Conviction

  Sentence:

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Retrials ordered

  1998

  290

  403

  1,589

  609

  73

  1999

  171

  380

  1,564

  614

  70

  2000

  150

  333

  1,284

  522

  72

  2001

  135

  313

  1,101

  561

  58

  2002

  166

  319

  1,302

  500

  50

  In the same period criminal proceedings were commenced in the magistrates' courts against the following numbers of defendants. These figures include all criminal prosecutions commenced, whether or not they were contested or proceeded to a full trial.
  1446W

  Year

  1998

  1,951,915

  1999

  1,881,765

  2000

  1,904,677

  2001

  1,837,733

  2002

  1,924,828

  In the same period the Crown Court heard the following numbers of appeals. These did not necessarily relate to prosecutions in magistrates' courts in the same year. These figures do not include appeals from the magistrates; courts to the High Court by way of case stated.

  Appeals

  Receipts

  Disposals

  1998

  16,278

  16,473

  1999

  15,413

  15,381

  2000

  13,902

  14,359

  2001

  12,596

  12,679

  2002

  11,910

  11,940

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he expects to write to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North to fulfil the undertaking given by his hon. Friend, 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 666. [149582]

  Mr. Lammy
  My letter of 15 January informed my hon. Friend that this is a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths), who has agreed to write in response to the points raised on 13 January.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 21 October 2003 concerning Ms B. Quinn of Chelmsford. [149827]

  Mr. Leslie
  Lord Filkin wrote on 16 January 2004 to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford in response to his letter of 21 October 2003. I apologise for the delay, unfortunately administrative errors prevented an earlier reply.

  Divorce
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will take steps to standardise divorce court proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. [149616]

  Mr. Leslie
  Northern Ireland is a separate jurisdiction from England and Wales for the purposes of divorce proceedings. Provisions are in place for the mutual recognition of orders and the provision of financial relief as between the jurisdictions. Under the provisions of section 44 of the Family Law Act 1986 orders for divorce, nullity or judicial separation granted in one jurisdiction are recognised in the other. Under the provisions of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and the Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 applications for financial relief can
  1447W
  be made in either jurisdiction in respect of divorces panted in the other. There is also provision for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders.

  There are no plans to standardise divorce law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Expert Witnesses
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of criminal cases were overturned on appeal in each of the last five years; and what proportion involved evidence from expert witnesses. [147186]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures showing(a) the number of defendants convicted in the lower courts, (b) those that appealed to the higher courts either against conviction and/or sentence and (c) the number of appeals allowed or varied are provided in the following tables. Information relating to the involvement of expert witnesses in criminal cases is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Court of Appeal

  Convicted in the Crown court

  Lodged appeal

  Conviction quashed or sentence varied

  Appeal allowed as percentage of those convicted

  Appeal allowed as percentage of appeals lodged

  1998

  63,585

  8,649

  1,921

  3.0

  22.2

  1999

  57,615

  8,274

  1,690

  2.9

  20.4

  2000

  56,130

  7,840

  1,385

  2.5

  17.7

  2001

  55,164

  7,440

  1,202

  2.2

  16.2

  2002

  58,587

  7,718

  1,418

  2.4

  18.4

  Crown court

  Convicted in the magistrates court

  Lodged appeal

  Conviction quashed or sentence varied

  Appeal allowed as percentage of those convicted

  Appeal allowed as percentage of appeals lodged

  1998

  1,407,781

  15,071

  6,703

  0.5

  44.5

  1999

  1,351,245

  14,510

  6,406

  0.5

  44.1

  2000

  1,367,304

  13,032

  6,065

  0.4

  46.5

  2001

  1,293,308

  11,818

  5,381

  0.4

  45.5

  2002

  1,361,637

  11,124

  4,795

  0.4

  43.1

  Judges
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) whether the Department keeps centralised records for each serving Circuit Judge of the number of successful appeals on their(a) sentencing and (b) conviction; [145970]

  (2) what process is in place (a) to monitor how many times a judge is known to have been successfully appealed against and (b) to investigate the reasons for the appeals to find out whether they are (i) on the basis of circumstances beyond the knowledge of the judge at the time the sentence was passed and (ii) on the basis of inappropriate sentences given; [146016]

  (3) what action would be taken in the event that (a) a judge had been successfully appealed more than 50 times in six or seven years, (b) a judge had been found to have been unduly lenient in relation to the same kind of
  1448W
  offence on four separate occasions and (c) a judge had been criticised for pressurising counsel on more than one occasion; [146069]

  (4) what systems are in place to ensure that circuit judges are accountable for their professional performance. [146073]

  Mr. Leslie
  Judicial decisions are taken and explained in public (save where the circumstances of a case demand confidentiality) and any decision which a judge makes is liable to be scrutinised, and if necessary overturned, on appeal, which is also a public process. Judges are therefore fully accountable for their judicial decisions through the appeal system.

  Judges are not, however, accountable through a political process for the decisions they take, as this would not be consistent with judicial independence. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State therefore does not monitor appeals against decisions made by individual judges, and it is not his role to intervene in judicial decisions or consider complaints about judicial decisions.

  A successful appeal to a higher court does not of itself provide a basis for criticism of the trial judge. There are many reasons why an appeal may succeed. Where the Court of Appeal does record criticism of the trial judge, however, the judgment is given publicly and is available to representatives of the media as well as the public. It is always sent to the judge concerned, and where there is any reason for concern about the conduct of the judge it is sent to the relevant Presiding Judges. From time to time where it is thought that judges are not performing adequately they may be given advice and guidance, or training, or different workloads or types of workload by the responsible senior judiciary. Lord Justice Judge, the Deputy Chief Justice, is currently considering improvements to this procedure.

  In cases where a judge's personal conduct (as opposed to his decision) is seriously criticised in an appeal decision, the Presiding Judges may decide to refer the matter to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to consider. The Lord Chancellor is also able to consider complaints from the public about the personal conduct of judges.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what plans the Secretary of State has to introduce a system of formal appraisal and scrutiny of circuit judges' performances; [146057]

  (2) whether the plans to widen the scrutiny, formal appraisal and accountability of judges will include scrutiny by, and accountability to, a body or panel which includes non-judges. [146062]

  Mr. Leslie
  A system of formal appraisal has been introduced for holders of certain part-time judicial posts. Consideration is now being given to extending appraisal to the remaining part-time posts including recorders. Formal appraisal is also being introduced for certain full time tribunal judges.

  The aim of any appraisal scheme is not to question judicial decisions but to observe the conduct of the judicial process and to consider, positively and constructively with a judge, their approach to and

  1449W
  handling of cases. It is important, in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary and to ensure that appraisal is expert and informed, that it should be undertaken by judges. There are no plans to widen appraisal to include a body or panel which includes non-judges.

  The Lord Chancellor has no current plans to extend formal appraisal more widely. In relation to circuit judges, the presiding judges of each circuit are of course in a position to raise with them any concerns about their performance.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) whether a judge may be removed from office for inappropriate sentencing; [146058]

  (2) what criteria are used to define misconduct and inability in relation to the removal of judges from office; and whether either category includes a pattern of inappropriate sentencing by a judge; [146064]

  (3) what sanctions may be taken against circuit judges whose professional performance regularly falls below acceptable standards; [146065]

  (4) what disciplinary procedure is followed in the event that a judge continuously sentences inappropriately. [146074]

  Mr. Leslie
  In order to ensure their independence judges hold office during good behaviour. Judges of the High Court and above may only be removed by Her Majesty the Queen on an address from both Houses of Parliament. Circuit judges and below may be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor only for incapacity or misbehaviour.

  What constitutes incapacity or misbehaviour would be a matter for decision in a particular case. However, the mere fact of having made decisions which had been reversed on appeal could not be said to constitute incapacity or misbehaviour.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) whether the Lord Chancellor has received complaints in relation to the use by judges of wasted costs orders; [146059]

  (2) whether his Department keeps records of wasted costs orders imposed against barristers or solicitors. [146063]

  Mr. Leslie
  We have no record of receiving such complaints and keep no such records. A wasted costs order is an order of the court, and can only be challenged on appeal, not by complaining to the Lord Chancellor.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which circuit judges are authorised to hear child custody cases; and whether any have had authorisation withdrawn because of concerns over their ability to handle such cases. [146066]

  Mr. Leslie
  321 circuit judges hold 'private law authorisations' which enable them to deal with child contact and residence and other related matters. Authorisations are granted and withdrawn for a Variety of reasons—most commonly they are withdrawn when 1450W
  the judge concerned no longer hears family cases by virtue of a changing role—such as becoming a designated civil judge for a court.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how the attention of the Lord Chief Justice is drawn to the suitability of a circuit judge to try rape cases; [146067]

  (2) whether any circuit judges have had their rape case authorisation withdrawn because of concerns over their ability to handle such cases sensitively; [146068]

  (3) which circuit judges hold a rape case authorisation authorising them to hear cases involving rape and other class 2 crimes; [146071]

  (4) how many and which circuit judges and recorders have undergone additional specialist training that enables them to hear cases involving rape and other serious sexual offences; [146075]

  (5) how the (a) effectiveness and (b) suitability of specialist training given to circuit judges and recorders is monitored. [146077]

  Mr. Leslie
  471 circuit judges and recorders have undergone the additional specialist training that enables them to hear cases of rape and other serious sexual offences.

  The authorisation of individual circuit judges to try rape and other serious sexual offences is made by the senior presiding judge on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice. Such judges are identified by the presiding judges of each circuit. The judge must have wide and significant experience of the criminal justice system, and must have demonstrated the necessary sensitivity for these cases. Before dealing with these cases, specialist training is provided for them by the Judicial Studies Board.

  The withdrawal of a rape authorisation is decided by the Lord Chief Justice personally. The authorisation was withdrawn when the Court of Appeal criticised the way in which a trial judge had summed up a rape case to the jury. Such cases will no longer be listed before another judge who appears persistently to have ignored sentencing guideline decisions in such cases. For at least the last five years no authorisation has been withdrawn because of general concerns over any authorised circuit judge's ability to handle such sensitive cases. If there were evidence to suggest any lack of appropriate sensitivity it would be drawn to the attention of the Lord Chief Justice either by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or by presiding judges or through the media, or by way of complaint.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how many complaints against judges the Lord Chancellor has heard in each of the previous five years; and what details of these complaints and the outcome are publicly available; [146070]

  (2) what (a) complaints and (b) disciplinary procedures will be put in place after the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. [146076]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Lord Chancellor typically receives between 1,000 and 1,200 complaints about judges each year. The majority of these turn out to be complaints
  1451W
  against judicial decisions and the complainant is advised that the appropriate remedy is by way of appeal. Those complaints which appear to relate to judicial conduct are investigated and both the complainant and the judge concerned are informed of the outcome. However, the results of this disciplinary process are not normally publicised more widely. Since May 1997, 27 judges have been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor. These have included one High Court judge, 11 circuit judges, eight district judges, five recorders, and two deputy district judges.

  The Lord Chancellor is currently considering the future arrangements for judicial complaints and discipline and hopes to be in a position to announce these shortly.

  Public Defender Service
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what the set up costs were of each of the Public Defender Service's pilot offices; [149439]

  (2) what assessment (a) he and (b) the Legal Services Commission has made of the average cost per case arising from the Public Defender Service's handling of criminal defence work in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03; [149440]

  (3) what assessment (a) he and (b) the Legal Services Commission has made of the Public Defender Service's performance; and how this has informed decisions regarding the extension of those pilots. [149441]

  Mr. Lammy
  The set up costs of the Public Defender Service (PDS) were as follows: Birmingham £193,312; Cheltenham £221,054; Darlington £126,867; Chester £175,225; Liverpool £141,663; Middlesbrough £166,479; Pontypridd £108,754; Swansea £254,014; Central £419,346. Total £1,806,714. These costs were reported in the first two PDS Annual Reports. Individual office costs include refurbishment, furniture, some IT hardware, software, office equipment and security systems. Central costs include purchase of case management system, integration into the Legal Services Commission (LSC) IT network, recruitment and induction.

  Assessment of the average cost per case in the PDS is one element of an extensive Methodology (the Methodology Paper can be found at www.legalservices.gov.uk or available on request) developed by the independent research team. The researchers began to collect data at the beginning of the second year of the four-year pilot and are due to report in 2005. A full assessment of average case costs will not be possible until all the research has been completed. In part, this is because the offices need to develop foil caseloads in order for the assessment to be undertaken. All offices began with no clients and full case loads can only be developed over time.

  The Department monitors the PDS by way of monthly reports from the LSC on the PDS and regularly meets with the LSC and the researchers. In order to better assess the performance of (he PDS the LSC, with the agreement of Ministers, increased the number of PDS offices from six to eight in 2003. Ministers will make a decision on the future of the PDS in the light of
  1452W
  the research at the end of 2005. There are no current plans to open further offices but the Government and the LSC have always said that the PDS provides a flexible option to deliver criminal defence services where existing provision is low, or of poor quality.

  Sentencing Policy
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent action has been taken to ensure consistency in sentencing; and what further action is planned. [146072]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has issued sentencing guidelines in particular types of cases for over 20 years. They are widely publicised in legal journals and law reports. These decisions are also disseminated by the Judicial Studies Board during its regular seminars.

  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 establishes the Sentencing Guidelines Council which will take over the Court of Appeal's present responsibility for issuing sentencing guidelines. Parliament will have a role in considering and scrutinising the draft guidelines drawn up by the Council.

  The Council will be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. It will have seven judicial members, drawn from every tier of court that deals with sentencing in criminal cases, and four non-judicial members (with experience of policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defence and the interests of victims). The Home Secretary will also appoint as an observer a person with experience of sentencing policy and the administration of sentences.

  In every individual case, the judge or magistrate will continue to make his or her own decision as to sentence, but will be required to have regard to the Council's guidelines.

  Video Equipment
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what system is in place to assess the impact of the quality of video facilities on the relative quality of evidence given in a case. [147669]

  Mr. Leslie
  An ongoing evaluation of all aspects of Special Measures provisions, including TV links, is being conducted by the Home Office. A report is due to be published by September 2004. Following visits to a number of courts and interviews with witnesses, initial findings have indicated that the new arrangements have been positively received and the quality of equipment is not an issue.

  Voter Registration
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) asylum seekers and (b) illegal immigrants are registered to vote. [148734]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not collected. Such persons are not eligible to register to vote, with the exception that a person from a Commonwealth country
  1453W
  who has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and subsequently claims asylum may register to vote until that existing leave ceases.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Buckinghamshire he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149567]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Somerset he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149276]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Wiltshire he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149283]

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what research relating to Surrey he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service; [149354]

  (2) what research has led him to the conclusion that the optimum suprabrigade structure for the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service is one based on the existing Government Office South East Region. [149359]

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Essex he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149291]

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Dorset he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149458]

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Cambridgeshire he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149389]

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Surrey he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149394]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no plans at present to regionalise the Fire and Rescue service in the constituencies of the hon. Members. Their local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be responsible for the service. The White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808) made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service, but no referendum is currently planned for any region other than the North East, the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. All local Fire and Rescue Authorities are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, Regional 1454W
  Management. Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level.

  The Government's conclusions about the benefits of a regional approach to the delivery of services are set out in the White Paper, 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.

  Since then, further reports have been published which indicate the benefits of a regional approach. 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 matched to the areas of the Government Offices for the Regions. The Government broadly accepts the conclusions of 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 also concluded that local purchasing arrangements based on individual preferences are not the most efficient means of obtaining goods, services and equipment. A copy of this report is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with the Thames Valley Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149566]

  (2) what community consultation he has held in Buckinghamshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149568]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Buckinghamshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149569]

  (4) what discussions he has had with Buckinghamshire county council on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service in Buckinghamshire; [149571]

  (5) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Buckinghamshire's Fire and Rescue Service. [149573]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Somerset Fire Service; [149270]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Somerset county council on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149272]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Somerset on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149274]

  (4) what community consultation he has held in Somerset on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service [149275]
  1455W
  (5) what discussions he has had with the Avon and Somerset Police Authority on plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149277]

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with(a) Kent county council and (b) the Kent Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149300]

  (2) what community consultation he has held in Kent on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149301]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what community consultations he has held in Wiltshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149284]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Wiltshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149285]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) Wiltshire county council and (b) Wiltshire Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149287]

  (4) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Wiltshire's Fire and Rescue Service. [149289]

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with(a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Surrey on his plans to regionalise the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service; and what the conclusions of those discussions were; [149352]

  (2) what community consultation he has held in Surrey on his plans to regionalise the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service; [149353]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Surrey Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service; [149355]

  (4) what discussions he has had with Surrey county council on his plans to regionalise the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service; [149357]

  (5) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Surrey's Fire and Rescue Service. [149358]

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with Cambridgeshire county council on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149370]

  (2) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Cambridgeshire's Fire and Rescue Service; [149372]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Cambridgeshire Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149388]

  (4) what community consultation he has held in Cambridgeshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149390]

  (5) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Cambridgeshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was. [149391]
  1456W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what community consultation he has held in Essex on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149292]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time fire-fighters in Essex on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149293]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) Essex county council and (b) Essex Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149295]

  (4) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Essex Fire and Rescue Service. [149297]

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with the Dorset Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149457]

  (2) what public consultation he has held in Dorset on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149459]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Dorset on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149460]

  (4) what discussions he has had with local authorities in Dorset on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149461]

  (5) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Dorset Fire and Rescue Service. [149463]

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with the Surrey Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149374]

  (2) What discussions he has had with Surrey county council on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149375]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Surrey on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149376]

  (4) what community consultation he has held in Surrey on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149377]

  (5) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Surrey's Fire and Rescue Service. [149396]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no plans at present to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service in the constituencies of the hon. Members. Their local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be responsible for the service. The White Paper-"Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808) made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service, but no referendum is currently planned for any region other than the north east, the north west and Yorkshire and Humberside. All local Fire and Rescue Authorities are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, regional
  1457W
  management boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level

  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. Chief and assistant chief fire officers from nearly all the Fire and Rescue Authorities in Great Britain attended the 3 December 2003 Fire and Rescue Service seminar addressed by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby; and officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are engaged in a rolling programme of visits to local Fire and Rescue Services to discuss the draft National Framework

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what change in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Buckinghamshire; [149570]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the change in job numbers in Buckinghamshire's Fire and Rescue Service as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149574]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the number of job losses in the Somerset Fire Service which will result from the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service; [149269]

  (2) what reduction in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Somerset. [149273]

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what change in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Kent. [149299]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what change in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Wiltshire; [149286]

  (2)what estimate he has made of the change in job numbers in Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149290]

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the job losses in Surrey Fire and Rescue Service as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service; [149356]

  (2) what reduction in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service. [149361]
  1458W
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what reduction in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Cambridgeshire; [149369]

  (2)what estimate he has made of the job losses in Cambridgeshire as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149373]

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what change in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Essex; [149294]

  (2)what estimate he has made of the change in the number of jobs in Essex Fire and Rescue Service as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149298]

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the job losses in Dorset Fire and Rescue Service consequent upon the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149456]

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what reduction in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Surrey; [149393]

  (2) what estimate he has made of job losses in Surrey Fire and Rescue Service as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149397]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government has no plans at present to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service in the constituencies of the hon. Members. Their local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be responsible for the service. The White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808) made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service, but no referendum is currently planned for any region other than the North East, the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. All local Fire and Rescue Authorities are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, Regional Management Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level

  Under the Regional Management Board arrangements, staff numbers will continue to be a matter for the individual Fire and Rescue Authority employers concerned

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Buckinghamshire without the consent of Buckinghamshire County Council. [149572]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Somerset without the consent of Somerset Fire Service. [149271]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Wiltshire without the consent of Wiltshire County Council. [149288]
  1459W
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service without the consent of Surrey County Council. [149351]

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Cambridgeshire without the consent of Cambridgeshire County Council. [149371]

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Essex without the consent of Essex County Council. [149296]

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Dorset. [149462]

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Surrey without the consent of Surrey County Council. [149395]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no plans at present to regionalise the Fire and Rescue service in the constituencies of the hon. Members. Their local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be responsible for the service. The White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808) made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service, but no referendum is currently planned for any region other than the North East, the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. All local Fire and Rescue Authorities are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, Regional Management Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level

  I hope these voluntary arrangements will succeed. There are, however, provisions in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill currently before the House to strengthen and streamline the power that already exists, in section 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947, to combine Fire and Rescue Authorities following consultation with the existing authorities and other persons affected

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Humberside he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149587]

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Cheshire he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149415]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Humberside he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149401]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808) made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service. Until this occurs, local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be 1460W
  responsible for the service. They are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, Regional Management Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level

  The Government's conclusions about the benefits of a regional approach to the delivery of services are set out in the White Paper, 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

  Since then, further reports have been published which indicate the benefits of a regional approach. 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 matched to the areas of the Government Offices for the Regions. The government broadly accepts the conclusions of 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 also concluded that local purchasing arrangements based on individual preferences are not the most efficient means of obtaining goods, services and equipment. A copy of this report is available in the Library of the House

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what community consultation he has held in Humberside on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149588]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time fire-fighters in Humberside on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149589]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149591]

  (4) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise the Humberside Fire and Rescue Service; [149594]

  (5) what discussions he has had with the Humberside Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149600]

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Cheshire's Fire and Rescue Service; [149409]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Cheshire County Council on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149411]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Cheshire Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149416]

  (4) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time fire-fighters in Cheshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was; [149413]
  1461W
  (5) what community consultation he has held in Cheshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service.,[149414]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what community consultation he has held in Humberside and East Yorkshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149402]

  (2) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise the Humberside Fire and Rescue Service. [149403]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808), made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly, there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service. Until this occurs, local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be responsible for the service. They are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, Regional Management Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level. Our intention is that voters in the three northern regions should have an opportunity this autumn to vote in a referendum on whether they wish to establish an Elected Regional Assembly for their region

  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. Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers from nearly all the Fire and Rescue Authorities in Great Britain attended the 3 December 2003 Fire and Rescue Service seminar addressed by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby; and officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are engaged in a rolling prograrhme of visits to local Fire and Rescue Services to discuss the draft National Framework

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what change in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Humberside; [149590]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the change in job numbers in the Humberside Fire and Rescue Service as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149593]

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the job losses in Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service; [149408]

  (2) what reduction in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Cheshire. [149412]
  1462W
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the job losses in Humberside, including east Yorkshire, as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149400]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808) made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service. Until this occurs, local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be responsible for the service. They are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, Regional Management Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level

  Under the Regional Management Board arrangements, staff numbers will continue to be a matter for the individual Fire and Rescue Authority employers concerned. Where Regional Fire and Rescue Authorities are established, staff numbers will similarly be a matter for the new body. But a reduction in the number of individual Fire and Rescue Authorities is expected to lead to a reduction in the number of senior posts

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Humberside without the consent of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. [149592]

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Cheshire without the consent of Cheshire County Council. [149410]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808), made clear that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly, there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service. Until this occurs, local Fire and Rescue Authorities will continue to be responsible for the service. They are, however, expected to establish, by 1 April 2004, Regional Management Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level.

  I hope these voluntary arrangements will succeed. There are, however, provisions in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill currently before the House to strengthen and streamline the power that already exists, in section 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947, to combine Fire and Rescue Authorities following consultation with the existing authorities and other persons affected.

  Provision for the establishment of a Regional Fire and Rescue Authority following a 'yes' vote in a referendum will be included in the proposed English Regional Assemblies Bill, a draft of which we will do our best to publish before the referendums in autumn 2004.

  House Fire Deaths
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many deaths from house fires there were in the United Kingdom in 2003. [148841]
  1463W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest information available is for the calendar year 2002. The provisional UK figure for the number of deaths in dwelling fires in that period is 443. Of the 443 deaths in dwelling fires reported to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by Fire and Rescue Services in the UK in 2002, 364 were in accidental dwelling fires. This was 71 fewer than in 2001. Deaths in dwelling fires are now 21 per cent. below the level reported in 1997, and are the lowest on record

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  ADP

  LASHG

  ADP

  LASHG

  London

  341.5

  112.5

  423.9

  119.9

  South East

  93.5

  140.9

  113.1

  186.2

  South West

  51.1

  58.2

  62.4

  68.3

  East

  51.6

  58.7

  62.5

  15.2

  East Midlands

  34.4

  12.7

  39.5

  72.4

  West Midlands

  58.5

  15.2

  64.6

  19.6

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  47.7

  3.3

  49.2

  6.2

  North East

  23.2

  0.5

  22.4

  0.8

  North West

  51.6

  7.0

  57.5

  7.5

  Merseyside

  21.4

  1.4

  24.8

  3.0

  Total

  774.6

  410.4

  919.9

  499.2

  Source:

  Housing Corporation

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many social housing units were built with social housing grants by(a) the Housing Corporation, (b) local authorities and (c) registered social landlords without public subsidy, in each year since 1990. [149405]

  Financial year

  Number of social housing units built or otherwise acquired by RSLs with public subsidy Column A

  Number of social units built by Las with public subsidy Column B

  Number of units built by RSLs without public subsidy Column C

  1991–2

  29,525

  7,113

  N/a

  1992–3

  68,192

  2,579

  1,126

  1993–4

  64,834

  1,451

  1,137

  1994–5

  70,720

  853

  815

  1995–6

  69,397

  757

  1,964

  1996–7

  53,840

  451

  1,449

  1997–8

  49,258

  323

  2,434

  1998–9

  43,141

  194

  2,200

  1999–2000

  34,373

  102

  2,964

  2000–1

  31,339

  389

  3,495

  2001–2

  30,605

  80

  3,699

  2002–3

  31,074

  271

  2,995

  Notes:

  1. The figures in column A relate to the number of social dwellings acquired by RSLs with public subsidy—including new build. Separate figures on RSL new build are not available.

  2. The types of dwellings shown include self-contained dwellings and bedspaces.

  Data Sources:

  Column A: Housing Corporation Stewardship Reports, Approved Development Programme, Local Authority Sponsored Programme,

  Revenue Grants & Voted Expenditure

  Column B: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, P2 returns from Local Authorities

  Column C: Housing Corporation, Regulatory and Statistical Return

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to publish(a) Table S127 (A1.24) Difference from the Bedroom Standard by Tenure, (b) Table S132 (A1.29) Trends in Difference from the Bedroom Standard 1984 to 2001–02 and (c) Table S140 (A9.6) Difference from the Bedroom Standard by Government Office Region from the Survey of English Housing 2001–02. [149406]

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much social housing grant was spent by(a) the Housing Corporation and (b) local authorities in each region in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [149404]

  Keith Hill
  Social housing grant (SHG) spent through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme (ADP) and local authority social housing grant (LASHG) for each region in 2001–02 and 2002–03 is tabled as follows:

  Keith Hill
  Estimates of the number of new social housing dwellings provided each year since 1991–2 are tabled as follows:

  Yvette Cooper
  All of these tables have already been published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website and they are available in the Library of the House. It is not intended to publish them in a printed report,

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury of 3 November 2003,Official Report,

  1465W
  column 501W, on the tenancy deposit scheme, what the outcome was of the seminar held in December to discuss the case for linking legislation for compulsory measures to protect tenancy deposits to the Law Commission's findings. [149434]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is pleased to say that the seminar held on 19 December achieved a good attendance from those representing landlords, tenants, local authorities and housing professionals. It appeared to achieve a widespread understanding among those attending of the need to steer a course that considered the scope for linking legislation for compulsory measures to protect tenancy deposits to a need for written agreements for all tenants. A need for all tenants to have written agreements was proposed in the Law Commission's report 'Renting Homes' published in November.

  Ms Oona King:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of the papers presented at the seminar held in December to discuss the case for linking legislation for compulsory measures to protect tenancy deposits to the Law Commission's findings. [149435]

  Keith Hill:
  With the approval of their authors the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will do so.

  Ms Oona King:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce a statutory national tenancy deposit scheme. [149436]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering in the light of the seminar of 19 December a full response to our consultation a year ago with the results of our consideration of proposals for future measures to provide for tenancy deposit protection that could encompass a range of approved but mandatory schemes.

  Ms Oona King:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account his Department asked the Law Commission to take of the issue of protecting tenancy deposits as part of its project on tenure reform; and what evidence the Law Commission requested from consultees on this issue. [149437]

  Keith Hill:
  The Law Commission consultation paper 162 of May 2002 stated in paragraph 1.85 that:

  "The question of whether or not tenancy deposits should be regulated, and if so how—an issue covered in the legislation of many Commonwealth jurisdictions 38—is not considered here. It is currently the subject of pilot projects being run by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions."

  In the Law Commission's interim response to this consultation, their paper 284 of November 2003 stated in paragraph 2.27 that:

  "During the period of our consultation, we were aware that schemes relating to tenancy deposits were being tested and evaluated by ODPM. In 2003, the outcome of this evaluation was produced. It has become clear that policy makers see considerable potential for building contractual obligations relating to the taking and repayment of deposits into the scheme we are proposing, even though we did not consider the issue as part of our project."
  1466W
  Further on in that report, in a footnote to paragraph 8.14 on key terms it is stated:

  "We have considered whether we should recommend that the Secretary of State include in the secondary legislation a default term about whether fixtures and chattels are included in the agreement and whether an inventory must be provided. This issue ties in closely with work ODPM are doing on the regulation of deposits (as disputes are often about the existence or state of items which could have been listed in an inventory to avoid disputes). We do not wish to prejudge that work by proposing that there should be a compulsory minimum term on this issue in the Act."

  Following the seminar on 19 December we are considering with the Law Commission how proposals for future provisions on the safeguarding of tenancy deposits could mesh in with what the Law Commission are proposing with regard to compulsory written agreements for all tenants.

  Mr. Love:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment of the possible potential savings to health and social care budgets he has made from ensuring that a percentage of all new housing has wheelchair access; and if he will make a statement. [149609]

  Yvette Cooper:
  All newly built homes must meet the requirements of Tart M' of the building regulations, which the Government revised in 1999 to improve the visitibility and convenience of new housing. The revised regulations include requirements to ensure that entrances, lifts, corridors, doorways and WCs are accessible, including to wheelchair users. The provisions are expected to enable occupants to cope better with reducing mobility and to live longer in their own homes, although not necessarily to facilitate folly independent living for all disabled people.

  In addition, all new build schemes funded by the Government through the Housing Corporation must comply with the Corporation's scheme development standards, which adopt additional criteria for accessibility and internal environments.

  No assessment has been made of the potential costs and benefits of setting a target for a proportion of all new housing to have particular standards of wheelchair access.

  Mr. Love:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures the Department will take to increase the number of new houses suitable for those who are wheelchair users. [149610]

  Yvette Cooper:
  All newly built homes must currently meet the requirements of 'Part M' of the building regulations, which the Government revised in 1999 to improve the visitibility and convenience of new housing. The revised regulations include requirements to ensure that entrances, lifts, corridors, doorways and WCs are accessible, including to wheelchair users. The provisions are expected to enable occupants to cope better with reducing mobility and to live longer in their own homes, although not necessarily to facilitate fully independent living for all disabled people.

  In addition, all new build schemes funded by the Government through the Housing Corporation must comply with the Corporation's scheme development standards which adopt additional criteria for accessibility and internal environments.
  1467W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if' he will make a statement on his policy on the building of houses on flood plains. [149919]

  Keith Hill:
  Policy is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk, published in July 2001.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with planning inspectors about the building of houses in flood plains; and if he will make a statement. [149920]

  Keith Hill:
  Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have briefed Planning Inspectors on the policies dealing with housing and flooding out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes 3 (Housing) and 25 (Development and Flood Risk). They also provide on request advice to the Inspectorate centrally and to individual Inspectors on questions about the policy stated in these documents, but not on the interpretation of policy in cases.

  Mr. Hoyle:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether local planning authorities can refuse new housing applications in areas where (a) sewage and (b) flooding problems are known to exist. [150017]

  Keith Hill:
  Problems with sewage and flooding are material considerations in whether nor not to approve new housing applications, and local planning authorities should refuse permission where these cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Guidance on sewerage is given in paragraph 19 of Annex 3 to Planning Policy Guidance Note 23: Planning and Pollution Control. The fact that flood risk is a criterion in allocating land in plans for housing development is stated in paragraph 31 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, and the suitability of land at different levels of risk from flooding for residential development is set out in Table 1 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk.

  Local Government
  Mr. Andrew Turner:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the value of the formula spending share for (a) each older person and (b) each older person for deprivation is for each local authority in 2004–05. [150069]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Older people form part of the population figures used to calculate several of the formula spending shares (FSS) formula, the exceptions being the education formulae and the children and younger adults social service formulae. Specific provision for older people is made in the FSS formula for older peoples social services.

  The figures in the table detail the FSS and the deprivation top up per older person for the older peoples social services FSS for each social services/education authority, as announced in the 2004–05 provisional local government finance on 19 November 2003. The figures are taken from the 'Simple Presentation' guide to the funding formulae, which is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0405/ simppres/index.htm
  1468W

  Per person aged 64+

  Older peoples PSS FSS (£)

  Deprivation top-up(£)

  Greater London

  City of London

  1,250.33

  214.72

  Camden

  1,309.32

  401.91

  Greenwich

  1,127.70

  276.75

  Hackney

  1,605.50

  568.80

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,200.62

  323.00

  Islington

  1,477.87

  502.90

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,007.60

  225.88

  Lambeth

  1,247.17

  358.72

  Lewisham

  1,180.40

  310.73

  Southwark

  1,306.77

  385.16

  Tower Hamlets

  1,594.33

  580.19

  Wandsworth

  1,175.43

  310.23

  Westminster

  1,170.24

  315.31

  Barking and Dagenham

  995.35

  341.34

  Barnet

  814.64

  153.88

  Bexley

  637.91

  93.67

  Brent

  954.02

  250.31

  Bromley

  579.37

  58.49

  Croydon

  695.21

  124.45

  Baling

  918.08

  227.65

  Enfield

  777.32

  187.18

  Haringey

  1,045.02

  380.54

  Harrow

  818.21

  152.77

  Havering

  620.37

  107.36

  Hillingdon

  743.08

  128.17

  Hounslow

  899.35

  220.07

  Kingston upon Thames

  699.56

  70.87

  Merton

  747.16

  113.29

  Newham

  1,244.00

  509.94

  Redbridge

  783.44

  191.70

  Richmond upon Thames

  729.58

  91.37

  Sutton

  712.02

  104.05

  Waltham Forest

  975.41

  329.38

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  785.77

  299.72

  Bury

  701.35

  240.34

  Manchester

  1,036.28

  460.77

  Oldham

  783.95

  300.79

  Rochdale

  782.04

  305.01

  Salford

  943.00

  412.32

  Stockport

  626.41

  166.45

  Tameside

  812.00

  323.41

  Trafford

  678.37

  198.05

  Wigan

  817.59

  331.12

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  975.12

  451.14

  Liverpool

  1,038.01

  474.65

  Sefton

  711.71

  243.63

  St. Helens

  813.46

  333.77

  Wirral

  728.50

  256.05

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  805.21

  343.56

  Doncaster

  718.25

  272.37

  Rotherham

  806.30

  337.13

  Sheffield

  827.51

  328.44

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  809.58

  332.07

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  863.77

  360.07

  North Tyneside

  730.97

  270.63

  South Tyneside

  816.95

  339.55

  Sunderland

  865.88

  393.13

  1469W

  Per person aged 64+

  Older peoples PSS FSS(£)

  Deprivation top-up(£)

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  909.52

  358.32

  Coventry

  728.03

  234.96

  Dudley

  737.07

  249.57

  Sandwell

  923.57

  370.82

  Solihull

  572.60

  110.87

  Walsall

  836.37

  324.78

  Wolverhampton

  854.15

  313.93

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  707.96

  247.80

  Calderdale

  657.33

  202.06

  Kirklees

  674.62

  217.90

  Leeds

  707.10

  227.86

  Wakefield

  790.94

  312.02

  All purpose authorities

  Bath & North East Somerset

  589.70

  96.49

  Blackburn with Darwen

  781.94

  328.20

  Blackpool

  716.53

  260.00

  Bournemouth

  642.01

  157 92

  Bracknell Forest

  704.00

  124.22

  Brighton & Hove

  680.77

  187.47

  Bristol

  795.84

  263.46

  Darlington

  637.33

  203.91

  Derby

  692.93

  254.59

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  557.39

  125.02

  Halton

  856.64

  354.30

  Hartlepool

  765.48

  326.05

  Herefordshire

  566.21

  108.42

  Isle of Wight Council

  572.08

  81.67

  Kingston upon Hull

  867.79

  383.55

  Leicester

  841.05

  314.67

  Luton

  697.80

  191.20

  Medway

  588.58

  129.57

  Middlesbrough

  767.08

  318.07

  Milton Keynes

  775.45

  219.09

  North East Lincolnshire

  641.00

  203.41

  North Lincolnshire

  601.90

  163.52

  North Somerset

  589.65

  119.91

  Nottingham

  821.48

  333.59

  Peterborough

  711.65

  213.75

  Plymouth

  701.82

  230.03

  Poole

  526.16

  79.08

  Portsmouth

  667.97

  152.05

  Reading

  694.81

  102.05

  Redcar and Cleveland

  678.12

  246.01

  Rutland

  482.05

  48.40

  Slough

  829.50

  180.84

  South Gloucestershire

  562.02

  99.80

  Southampton

  696.02

  172.86

  Southend-on-Sea

  662.31

  175.38

  Stockton-on-Tees

  665.64

  230.24

  Stoke-on-Trent

  790.19

  322.14

  Swindon

  630.16

  161.57

  Telford and the Wrekin

  746.18

  272.90

  Thurrock

  728.42

  184.77

  Torbay

  651.80

  183.78

  Warrington

  697.92

  228.14

  West Berkshire

  608.91

  47.58

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  609.77

  46.08

  Wokingham

  505.45

  0.00

  York

  529.34

  97.87

  Isles of Scilly

  872.91

  43.62

  Shire counties

  Bedfordshire

  624.41

  127.35

  Buckinghamshire

  609.21

  70.88

  Cambridgeshire

  621.59

  119.84

  1470W

  Per person aged 64+

  Older peoples PSS FSS (£)

  Deprivation top-up(£)

  Cheshire

  606.21

  139.42

  Cornwall

  607.63

  149.60

  Cumbria

  637.52

  178.85

  Derbyshire

  698.16

  237.86

  Devon

  545.11

  89.94

  Dorset

  467.15

  27.82

  Durham

  801.57

  331.81

  East Sussex

  524.95

  58.11

  Essex

  599.47

  118.99

  Gloucestershire

  575.49

  102.39

  Hampshire

  522.13

  46.62

  Hertfordshire

  695.38

  137.97

  Kent

  579.19

  103.65

  Lancashire

  626.52

  190.49

  Leicestershire

  540.27

  98.80

  Lincolnshire

  549.66

  120.10

  Norfolk

  552.13

  106.54

  North Yorkshire

  541.03

  98.20

  Northamptonshire

  629.34

  155.17

  Northumberland

  667.33

  208.86

  Nottinghamshire

  617.79

  175.61

  Oxfordshire

  632.61

  90.29

  Shropshire

  624.37

  160.28

  Somerset

  554.02

  98.00

  Staffordshire

  625.36

  183.52

  Suffolk

  573.68

  120.69

  Surrey

  601.93

  33.40

  Warwickshire

  639.95

  155.15

  West Sussex

  531.18

  41.37

  Wiltshire

  564.68

  82.60

  Worcestershire

  600.19

  150.01

  Sustainable Communities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses have been built under plans for the development of the(a) Milton keynes, (b) Ashford and (c) Stansted Corridor Sustainable Communities; how many are social housing; how many houses will be built and how will be social housing. [148204]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Sustainable Communities plan was published in February 2003. The most recent annual housebuilding figures for the districts contained within the house growth areas are for the year to September 2003.

  Growth

  New build housing completions year to September 2003

  Milton Keynes south Midlands

  6,622

  London Stansted Cambridge

  4974

  Ashford

  678

  It should be noted that these figures are for new build only and do not include net additions to the housing stock derived from conversions and change of use less demolitions. Full net additions data for 2003–04 will be available in October 2004.

  Plans are at a different stage in each of the three growth areas. In Milton Keynes South Midlands, regional partners published a draft Sub Regional Strategy on 18 July 2003. This sets out plans for around 133,400 homes in the period 2001–16. These plans will be subject to examination in public and the

  1471W
  consideration of the Secretary of State before incorporation into Regional Planning Guidance. Similarly, in July 2003, the South East England Regional Assembly published their proposed alterations to Regional Planning Guidance for Ashford, including a total of 13,100 homes in the period 2001–16. An examination in public was held in December 2003, and the panel is due to report in February 2004.

  In London Stansted Cambridge, plans for the growth area are being considered as part of the development of RPG14 for the East of England, and the London Plan, and its Sub Regional Development Frameworks. A first draft of RPG14 is expected to be produced by the East of England Regional Assembly in February 2004.

  The Government does not set annual targets centrally for local authorities on either affordable or social housing. Planning policies for affordable housing are set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, "Housing", and in Circular 6/98, "Planning for Affordable Housing". They advise that where local planning authorities are able to demonstrate a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, based on up-to-date surveys and other data, they should indicate in their local plan how many affordable homes need to be provided throughout the plan area, and set indicative targets for specific suitable sites (expressed either as numbers of homes or a percentage of the homes on the site). Local planning authorities should be monitoring their performance against their local plan policies and targets, but this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Telecoms Companies
  Michael Fabricant:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of how much will be paid back to telecommunications companies in respect of appeals against business rates in England and Wales made since the conclusion of the administrative period for the 2000 list. [149195]

  Phil Hope:
  None. The 2000–05 rating lists are still open to appeals by ratepayers against their rateable values. It is for the National Assembly for Wales to comment on the position in Wales.

  Michael Fabricant:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appeals by telecommunications companies in respect of the (a) 1995 and (b) 2000 list valuations remain outstanding. [149205]

  Phil Hope:
  At the end of 2003, the numbers of outstanding appeals in England for telecommunication properties on a) the 1995–2000 lists and b) the 2000–05 lists were respectively a) 1,013 and b) 11,248. These figures include both telecommunication properties on the central rating list (in respect of which payments of rates are made direct to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister), and properties such as telecommunication masts, telephone kiosks, telephone exchanges on the local rating lists (where payments are made to local authorities, and then forwarded by them to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister).

  In the case of Wales, it is matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Justice Oversight Commissioner
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The Government has received and welcomed the first report from the Justice Oversight Commissioner, the right hon. the the Lord Clyde, on the progress achieved in implementing the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review in Northern Ireland. Consistent with his terms of reference, the report was submitted to the Attorney-General, Lord Filkin, Minister for the Northern Ireland Court Service, and myself in December.

  Lord Clyde concludes that the degree of progress achieved so far in the process of implementation has been significant and impressive. He also acknowledges the real commitment of the criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland to taking the recommendations forward. The Government warmly endorses these conclusions.

  Copies of the Commissioner's report have been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Medication Safety
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  The Department's document "Building a safer NHS for patients: improving medication safety" has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Power Failures (London and Birmingham)
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  On 10 September I announced that DTI's engineering inspectorate would be launching an investigation into the power cuts that affected large areas of south London and parts of Kent on 28 August, and the West Midlands on 5 September. In particular, investigators were to check for compliance with the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002. With the agreement of the Secretary of State for Transport, the investigation also 68WS
  looked into the security of electricity supplies to Network Rail (Southern and Midlands Regions) and London Underground.

  I also referred to the separate and independent Ofgem investigation, which is focusing on whether any of the companies involved have breached, are breaching or are likely to breach their statutory duties and/or licence conditions, and what if any enforcement action should be taken or penalty applied should a breach be found.

  The engineering inspectorate investigation has now been concluded, and it has highlighted a number of issues in connection with the power cuts. The inspectors' conclusions and recommendations are being passed to the electricity companies concerned, so that they can take the necessary action to enhance the robustness of their networks, and so make such occurrences less likely. The engineering inspectorate will be holding discussions with the companies concerned and monitoring the action they take. It has powers to ensure compliance with any recommendations made.

  The material the engineering inspectorate has gathered in connection with this investigation is commercially sensitive and its disclosure is restricted by the provisions of the Utilities Act 2000. Therefore the report will not be published. The recommendations and conclusions are being passed to the companies concerned on a confidential basis so that they can take the necessary action.

  Once the Ofgem investigation has been concluded, it will be for the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to make a decision as to whether there have been statutory or licence breaches, and what if any enforcement action should be taken or penalty should be imposed.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural White Paper
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  Following the publication of the review of the Rural White Paper, hard copies are now available in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. Further copies are available from DEFRA Publications, Admail 6000, London, SW1A 2XX Tel: 08459 556000 Email:defra@iforcegroup.com

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Scientific Response to Terrorism
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I am today publishing the Government's reply to the Eighth Report from the Science and Technology Select Committee, Session 2002–03, on the scientific response to terrorism. The Government thank the Committee for their report of 6 November 2003. We have considered in detail the recommendations put forward. Copies of the Government's response are available in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be viewed on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism

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

Major Ian Hill: Inquest
Lord Morris of Manchester: 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 honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to The Royal British Legion and a friend of Ian Hill.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the coroner's findings at the recent inquest into the death of Major Ian Hill, a veteran of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)My Lords, we are aware of the Cheshire coroner's conclusion of 24 November 2003 on 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 Coroners Rules 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, and we expect to receive the papers shortly.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, while I am grateful to my noble friend, as ever, is it not shaming that there was so much haggling over this good and courageous man's case, even while he was terminally ill, regardless of its doubly distressing effects on his disabled wife and daughter?
Now that the coroner has established that Ian died of Gulf War-related illness, who can doubt that his death was linked also, as Ian himself said, to the battery of 14 and more vaccines, one of them unlicensed, to which our troops were subjected; the appalling lack of medical records; and failure even to observe vaccine protocols? Does not this deeply worrying case shout the urgency of the need now for the public inquiry called for by The Royal British Legion?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I accept and acknowledge the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, brings to the Question, as he was extremely close to Mr Hill and is extremely close to his widow. So far as the coroner's findings are concerned, I shall read from what is described as a formal note headed:
"Inquisition—Conclusion of the Coroner as to the death".
1138
It should be put on record, particularly because of misleading reports in today's papers. It states:
"Edward Ian Hill died from Natural Causes to which service as part of the 1991 Gulf Campaign contributed".
Those are the words that the coroner used in his formal document.
I do not think that the way in which this case has been dealt with is shameful. As my noble friend will know, exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information prevents me, as it would any Minister, disclosing details of any actual pension paid to Mrs Avison, the widow, as that is of a private and personal nature. However, I can say that war widows' pensions are paid when death is deemed to be due to service, and that the widow has to raise only a reasonable doubt for claims to succeed. Mr Hill's death was regarded as due to service under the war pensions scheme. Armed Forces occupational pensions may also be paid regardless of whether the death is attributable.
My noble friend asked about a public inquiry. The Government's position is clear: we are not convinced that a public inquiry would help. The possibility that we may look again at the matter has not been ruled out but, in present circumstances, it is only through the programme of research initiated by this Government that we are ever likely to be able to establish the causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, what would the legal implications be if the Government finally recognised that Gulf War syndrome existed?
Lord Bach: My Lords, because we have discussed the matter in this House on many occasions, the noble Lord knows that we of course accept that some veterans of the first Gulf War have become ill, and that many believe that some of that ill health is unusual and related to their Gulf experience. A great number of pensions and compensations have been paid on the basis of those who became ill during the Gulf War. We do not accept that there is Gulf War syndrome at the moment, because all the medical research at present suggests that there is not. I very much doubt whether it would make very much difference to the generous amounts of pension and compensation that have already been paid.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, whether the block term "Gulf War syndrome" is accepted or not, any veteran of that war who incurs a neurological condition of which the symptoms started to occur soon after that war should now, in view of all the hard evidence coming to light, automatically be eligible for an attributable pension, and a widow be provided for accordingly?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord tempts me by sympathetic questioning into a response that I cannot make. Of course we have to be sympathetic, and I hope that my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, indicated that we have been.

1139
However, cases have to be decided on an individual basis, case by case. We are obliged to do that as the legislation stands.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my peripheral interest. Do scientists understand why Gulf War illness is not apparent among French veterans?
Lord Bach: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Earl has surprised me with a question. I am afraid that I do not know whether British scientists are surprised by what has happened to French veterans. It is a fair question, and I shall find out and write to him.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, what research is currently going on? What does the Minister anticipate will be its result?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall certainly not anticipate the result of any research. To do so would be somewhat foolish. We look forward to the research when it arrives. The portfolio of research into ill health reported by veterans includes two major epidemiological studies, a programme of clinical tests, research to investigate the possible adverse health effects of a combination of medical countermeasures used in the Gulf to protect British troops against the threat of biological and chemical warfare agents, and a systematic review of research literature on Gulf veterans' illnesses. We expect to spend at least £8.5 million on the research.

Euro: EC Enforcement of Budgetary Rules
11.9 a.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the legal action taken by the European Commission to enforce the budgetary rules underpinning the euro.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, it would be inappropriate to comment on either the Commission's decision or the possible or likely outcomes of the case.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that unsurprising Answer. I am sure that he will not want to comment on the results of the case. However, if the case were decided in the Commission's favour, would the Government then back the enforcement of fines against France and Germany?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is sensible to have rules providing for a balanced budget over the cycle; that it is counter-productive to apply those rules rigidly; and that the key to a sensible
1140
system would be to apply much stronger moral pressure on states that fail to run a healthy budget surplus at a time of boom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can respond to that best by citing the conclusion of the Economic and Finance Council of 25 November, which states:
"The Council…undertakes to strengthen the implementation of the Pact by reinforcing budgetary discipline over the cycle and fostering structural reforms aimed at increasing growth potential".
We agree with that conclusion.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, but is it not a fact that the Government, including the Chancellor, would prefer the stability and growth pact to be replaced by the Chancellor's golden rules?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor has always made it clear that we believe in a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact. Our prudent interpretation, like the golden rule, would allow for those matters to be considered over the economic cycle.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does not the Commission deserve our deepest sympathy, because either it enforces what Mr Prodi called a stupid law or it acquiesces in the breaking of the rule of law? What does one make of a pact which, once it is broken wide open, causes the euro to go through the roof? Could it possibly be that Mr Prodi was right?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I should express a view on why the euro should, as the noble Lord describes it, go through the roof. I am not even sure that that is an accurate representation of what happened after the ECOFIN meeting and the Commission's decision to undertake legal action.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the case being brought by the Commission is a bit of a sideshow? Far more important than addressing—or failing to address, as he has done—our views on that, ECOFIN should be concentrating on making the growth and stability pact more flexible and, above all, making it work during a period of upswing in the economies, which is just beginning to show signs of starting. Its failure to work during the previous upswing was the reason why, when the downswing came, it worked even worse.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I largely agree with that. I have indeed resisted answering questions about the legal action, partly because I do not think that it is the most important issue facing Europe. The Commission has published three pillars for reform of the stability and growth pact, as the noble Lord well knows. The member states will need time to reflect on them, but our first reaction is that

1141
some of them, at least, move in the direction of the prudent interpretation that the Chancellor has always supported.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Harrison: My Lords—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I think it is the turn of our side.
Does the Minister agree that when it comes to law-breaking, it is not just a question of the euro and the stability pact? France is far the biggest breaker of EU laws and far the biggest offender in failing to implement them. Indeed, the cases against it add up to more than those of all the other member states put together. Should we not be careful before siding with those who break EU law? Is it not in our interest to support a law-based European Union, instead of one run by bureaucratic whim or political considerations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that question is not only wide but very wide of the original Question. I must respond to the extent of saying that no one could accuse us of siding with those who break European laws.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is my noble friend as amused as I am that those on the Conservative Benches used to complain about the weakness of the euro and now complain about its strength? Can he clarify the basis of the European Commission's proposal? As I understand the Maastricht criteria and rules, where a country breaks either the budget debt or GDP debt of 3 per cent or 60 per cent respectively, it is wholly within the Council of Ministers' discretion to decide not to exact fines. That is playing by the rules as set down.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on my noble friend's first question, it is not for me to defend or attack the Opposition's ducking and weaving on those matters. On his second question, I refer him to Article 104 of the treaty, which sets out the progressive steps to be taken in circumstances where there is a risk or actuality of breach of the stability and growth pact. In particular, Article 104c.7, 104.8, 104.9, 104.10 and 104.11 sets out a progressive process that he summarised rather accurately.

Rural White Paper 2000
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on achieving targets set in the rural White Paper of 2000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, considerable progress has been made on the programme set out in the rural
1142
White Paper. The creation of Defra, with a clear remit for rural policy, and a Cabinet committee on rural regeneration significantly strengthen the rural agenda across government. The recent rural White Paper review, available on Defra's website, alongside new evidence from our rural research centre, shove s that the vision continues to command widespread support.
I must apologise that copies of the review were not placed in the Library on the day of release. They have been placed there this week, but that should happen automatically and I regret the failure of the system in this case.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, but he must be disappointed that of the aims and targets set, only 48 per cent have been achieved to date; that, according to the report, a further 35 per cent are in hand; and that 17 per cent have not even been commenced. Does that not reflect the Government's lack of priority on rural living and lack of understanding of the different needs of rural communities, especially with regard to distance and sparseness? Further, are not the Government now under an obligation at least to give the House government time to debate that important rural White Paper, which was produced back in 2000 and which the Government have given no time to debate?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, our figures in the rural White Paper review state that 83 per cent of all the commitments are either completed or on track. Of the remainder, there is some slippage in about 13 per cent. Those are our figures. Where there has been slippage, that clearly needs to be addressed. However, huge resources have been deployed for rural schools, policing, post offices, childcare and Sure Start, support for village enterprises and rural transport. There has been a substantial shift of resources to rural areas on all those matters. As I said, rural-proofing is now a significant part of assessment of government policy right across the board.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it is a pity, then, that even with all that increased funding, rural post offices are still closing at an even faster rate than when the Government entered office. However, to deliver part of the programme requires regional development agencies to have a strong rural programme. Is the Minister aware that in the very rural south-west region, the funding for rural areas that should be on stream from the regional development agency, far from being on stream, appears to be behind a dam? The rural renaissance funding is simply not getting through.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I also know that a significant programme for rural enterprise has been established by the South West Regional Development Agency. It is true that deployment of some of those resources has not been as quick as either we or the RDA would like; I regret that that is true in some other areas as well. Nevertheless, the commitment of the

1143
South West RDA and other RDAs is clearly to have a major rural stream as part of their regeneration programme. The Government strongly support that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I declare a direct financial interest as a woodland owner. Can the Minister hold out any prospect of prices for timber and up-take of forest products recovering to their level of 10 years ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is probably well beyond my powers. I am afraid that, by and large, the price of timber is set by international markets. Regrettably, even Defra does not have jurisdiction to determine the prices traded on world markets. But there has been strong support from Defra and the Forestry Commission for the development of all sorts of woodland enterprises.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, for rural areas to be sustained, we need a lot of imagination from councillors elected to represent those areas, who sometimes show undue parochialism in inappropriate attempts to keep open individual schools, whereas they might better be clustered for the future prosperity and strength of their area?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I must admit that short-sightedness by local councillors in rural areas has been known to exist. On occasion, councillors have turned down what seemed perfectly sensible planning proposals that might have generated jobs and prosperity in rural areas. More creative approaches to the loss of services in rural areas, both private and public sector, would have maintained those services had we clustered them in various ways. Greater creativity and a more flexible approach to at least part of the planning arrangements in certain difficult rural areas would help to recreate rural prosperity.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on what the Government are doing to provide affordable broadband access to the rural community?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is a very important issue. It is important that all citizens of this land have equal access to broadband, which is not the case at present. The Government strongly support BT's commitment that 100 per cent broadband coverage of every UK community should be achievable by 2005.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the current progress of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme? Many farmers appear to be taking advantage of it, and there is movement, but can Defra cope with the requests being made? What effect will it have on future incomes related to the reduction of subsidies through CAP?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, by and large, the Countryside Stewardship Scheme has been a success.
1144
Clearly, there have been problems at the margins, but, in general, the take-up and delivery of the scheme have made an important contribution to the improved environmental performance of agriculture and provided an income to those farmers taking part.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government are committed to creating an entry-level environment scheme, to which there would be relatively easy access, that would deliver both environmental benefits and income. Although there will be changes to the CAP, the exact details of which the Government will announce in several weeks' time, the total amount of money for agriculture remains by far the biggest support given to any industry. Although the nature of the subsidies may change, they represent a large element of support for the future of agriculture.

Middle East Road Map: Israeli Security Fence
11.23 a.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the road map for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians makes provision for limiting or demolishing the wall being built by Israel on Palestinian territory.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the quartet road map, while not including a specific provision on the construction of the fence by Israel, does call upon the Government of Israel to take no actions undermining trust, including the confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian property. It is important that, in implementing the road map, all parties refrain from actions that obstruct the search for peace. My noble friend Lady Symons is currently visiting the occupied territories to see the situation on the ground for herself.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I hope, as we all do, that the noble Baroness's visit is successful. Although one recognises Israel's need for security, is not the construction of the wall contrary to international law and to a recent resolution by the United Nations General Assembly? In addition, does it not make immeasurably more difficult the task of the Palestinian Prime Minister in securing agreement to a ceasefire from Hamas and similar organisations? What are the quartet countries doing to resolve the situation, and what is President Bush doing to fulfil his undertaking to use, in resolving the problem, energy similar to that which the Prime Minister has used on Northern Ireland?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his good wishes to my noble friend Lady Symons on her visit this week to the occupied territories. She felt that it was important to see for herself the situation and to meet key players, now that the new administration under Abu Ala has been established.

1145
I agree very much with the noble Lord that the UK has made clear its views on the fence. While always recognising Israel's legitimate security concerns, we consider the building of the fence in the occupied Palestinian territories to be unlawful. As the noble Lord has said, it threatens the prospect of a two-state solution and is very much an obstacle to peace.
The noble Lord asked about US engagement. The US. together with all other members of the quartet, continues to press both sides to implement their obligations under the road map.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will the forthcoming elections in the United States not detract from US engagement with the road map? Does my noble friend agree with me that it was noticeable that President Bush did not mention the road map in his State of the Union address? What are the implications of that for future work on the peace process?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that the United States and President Bush are very much engaged with the road map and its success. President Bush clearly reiterated his determination to move forward on the peace process following his state visit here in November. During that visit he said:
"Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel".
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, we were assured by many American policy-makers that, to quote Henry Kissinger, for example,
"the road to Jerusalem lies through Baghdad",
and that the replacement of Saddam Hussein would make implementation of the road map a great deal easier? What parts of the road map have yet to be implemented? Our understanding was that part of what our Prime Minister hoped to have got out of the Bush Administration in return for the public support that we gave them was a commitment to press ahead rapidly and determinedly with implementation of the road map. Sadly, there is very little evidence that that has been done.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's frustration and concern at the slow process of the road map. As he knows, the road map is in three phases. We are concentrating on phase one, which is still to be implemented. We are gravely concerned about prospects for peace. Failure matters more than ever now, because the clock is ticking on a two-state solution. The priority now is visible Palestinian efforts to stop violence and degrade terrorist capabilities. In parallel, Israel also needs to make an investment in peace, fulfilling its road map responsibilities to freeze all settlement activity, to remove settlement outposts
1146
and to improve the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories. I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, is not the situation even more serious than the noble Baroness indicated in her previous answer? Do not the daily pressures of the occupation, including the construction of the fence, have the effect of flaking away the authority of the Palestinian Authority, which was never very great, and making it almost impossible for it now to take effective measures to stop the suicide bombing, so that you get a complete stalemate?
Everyone understands the difficulties of American efforts between now and November—the noble Baroness would not wish to brush that aside. But can Her Majesty's Government continue to bring home to the Americans, and everyone else concerned, that if the present situation is allowed to continue—it is not just a stalemate; it is a steady, daily deterioration—something that is now tragic for all sides could become dangerous for peace, even disastrous?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords; I agree. We are constantly speaking with our friends in both Palestine and Israel about the urgency of this situation. My noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean is, at this moment, speaking with our Palestinian friends about the efforts that they must make. I agree that the drip, drip, drip of repression in the occupied territories makes it difficult to give impetus to the peace process.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
11.31 a.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [RPB: general functions]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 35, leave out "must" and insert "may"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to try to moderate the language of the Bill. As it stands, this subsection demands that regional planning bodies give out information to other bodies if they think that this would aid the fulfilment of the regional spatial strategy.
The main problem that we have with this subsection is that although we agree that the regional planning bodies should be more than willing to share information, give advice and be ready to offer their expertise in order to succeed with their spatial strategy, the wording of this subsection is too tight and far too demanding. The word "must" seems to put the onus on the regional planning body to second guess who would want or need advice. This would lead to the planning body having constantly to identify any new organisations to give advice to. That would add considerably to their workload, as they would also require some kind of protocol or process to determine what sort of advice should be given to what kind of organisation, should this advice be unsolicited.
Do they have any powers of enforcement if this advice is not taken up? That would surely detract from the work of the regional planning bodies and what they would do with the existing partners in the strategy process. We therefore suggest that it would be more desirable to permit regional planning bodies to tender advice, which would enable much better working relationships between all parties involved. We suggest that the word "must" be replaced with "may" in this context. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have put our names to the amendment, not just for the usual reasons of autonomy and discretion, but because it seems both hugely prescriptive and rather odd, as if in the circumstances that the subsection addresses, the regional planning body would not communicate, not be in touch with and not offer advice in a general sense if that seemed appropriate.
I am concerned what statutory obligations might be imposed on the regional planning body, which could open up claims that it is not giving advice when it thinks—and presumably reasonably thinks, or should reasonably think—that it would help to achieve the implementation of the regional spatial strategy. In a world where various parties are not working together effectively, having this expressed as a duty could cause more problems than it solves, because of the difficulties of interpretation of the clause and the possibility of some sort of claim.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No.31 amends Clause 3(6) to turn the requirement for the regional planning body to give advice to anyone, if it thinks that this will help to achieve the implementation of the regional spatial strategy, into an option to do so.
I suspect that this amendment is rooted in a concern that the regional planning body will be overwhelmed by requests for free advice. I reassure the noble Baroness that Clause 3(6) already safeguards against this. The regional planning body is required to give advice only if it thinks that to do so would help to achieve the implementation of the regional spatial strategy. Implementing that strategy is one of the key functions of the regional planning body.
1148
It is quite proper that it should be required to provide advice that will help to secure delivery of the policies of the regional spatial strategy. However, this is not a charter for the regional planning body becoming a free consultancy service. If it does not think providing advice will help to achieve the implementation of the regional spatial strategy, it is under no obligation to provide it. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: It was not the noble Baroness, but the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who moved the amendment. Is the Minister in a position to answer my question? Perhaps I did not put it clearly enough. Does the Minister think that a statutory duty—I am not talking about the burden of numbers of requests for advice; I can see that the Government might have thought that that was in my mind—with the difficulty of interpreting what is meant by "thinks" and what is meant by "advice", might not lead to trouble?
Lord Hanningfield: The Minister did not deal with my point. I wanted to put "may" instead of "must", to make the Bill more acceptable to people who read it and to the regional planning body, so that it has options, rather than having "must" all the time throughout the Bill. The Minister did not answer that either.
Lord Marlesford: I find it rather odd that the Government should have any difficulty with this. In purely syntax terms, the word "if" is a conditional word, and the word "may" goes much better with "if—than the word "must".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I know that it is a terrible thing to get into syntactic debates in the House. I always feel at a bit of a loss; probably it is a failing in my education. We have got the language right; I understand some of the sensitivities that have been expressed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, if I failed to answer his precise point. Obviously, we are happy at all times to continue to look at the language of our legislation, and we are wise to do so. I cannot go any further than that this morning.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that. There are several "musts" in the Bill, and we may come back to them at a later stage. However, this morning, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.32:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"STATUTORY PLANNING ROLE FOR COUNTY COUNCILS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
Each RPB shall be advised on the preparation, review and monitoring of the implementation of the RSS in relation to its region (or any part of it) by such authorities within the region as fall within section 4(2)."
The noble Baroness said: Government Amendments Nos.35, 37, 41, 42, 44 and 45 are grouped with my amendment. I left a message for the Minister late last night saying that I would be happy not to move my amendment, if he felt that it would make for a better debate if he led off on the matter. The message may not have got to him. I shall move my amendment, which, if I can put it that way, is concerned with where thinking and negotiations about the role of county councils had got to, before the Government announced their new clauses at the end of last week.
My new clause is the same as that proposed in Amendment No.34, which is in the next group, except for part of the heading. I will not press the amendment, as we have the Government's version, but, having started the debate, I ask the Minister to comment on Amendments Nos.35 and 37, which relate to the powers of county councils and, I suppose, unitary authorities in this context. It has been suggested to me that it is doubtful that the local authorities have a power to engage in commenting on general matters that arise from the regional spatial strategy. Their degree of involvement would be restricted to their ability to fulfil their own responsibilities. I believe that the Government are aware of that concern.
Even if it is not, in fact, a problem, and such authorities were intra vires in responding, concern about the situation might discourage the counties from becoming involved and offering their assistance. On the whole. local politicians are not discouraged from offering their views to the Government. Do the Government think that it would be appropriate to distinguish between a duty to advise on matters that affect their own functions and a power to advise on any of the subject matter of the regional spatial strategy, coupled with a requirement for the regional planning body to have regard to the advice tendered.
The amendments to Clause 4 talk about the exercise of a local authority's function, but that is not necessarily the same as a matter in which it is interested. It seems narrow. It might be helpful if the functions in question could somewhere be listed in writing, so that there is less confusion, either in Hansard or, perhaps, in guidance.
The Minister will explain his amendments. I am glad to see where they have got to, although it will be obvious from the amendment to which the Committee agreed on Monday, which we moved, that we do not think that they go far enough. So far as they go, they are welcome. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving Amendment No.32. That way, we can proceed with the Government's amendments; otherwise, we would have had to do the next group first, which would not have made sense. I shall not address Amendment No.32, if that is okay. I shall speak to the Government's amendments and move them in the appropriate place.
1150
I could, if need be, quote them verbatim, but, by way of introduction, I must say that the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network, which represent practitioners in local government— I pay due respect to the senior practitioner sitting opposite me and, for that matter, to the noble Baroness—have signed up to the Government's amendments. To the best of my knowledge—I have read their letters again—they have not raised any of the caveats that were raised by the noble Baroness. That is not to say that those questions are not legitimate, but I want to put it on record that those from the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network who expressed concern are fully signed up and appreciate the Government's movement on the issue.
I shall proceed through the amendments. Some are consequential, so I will not spend a lot of time on them. Amendment No.35 amends Clause 4 to require the regional planning body to seek the advice of county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities that fall in whole or in part within the regional planning body's region, when preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the implementation of a revision of the regional spatial strategy. The amendment places a corresponding duty on those authorities to give advice to the regional planning body in respect of such matters to the extent that they may affect directly or indirectly the exercise of any of the functions that they have.
Amendment No.37 provides for the regional planning body to enter into arrangements with authorities and district councils that fall in whole or in part into the planning body's region for the discharge of any of the functions of the regional planning body. The Government's amendments will replace the provision in Clause 4 that requires the regional planning body to consider whether it would be desirable for any such authorities to assist in carrying out any of its functions and, if so, to seek to enter into arrangements with them for the discharge of those functions.
The other government amendments—Amendments Nos.41, 42, 44 and 45—are minor consequential amendments to include the word "council" as well as "authority" and update the cross-referencing in the revised clause. I do not propose to spend any time on them; I shall devote my time to the substantive amendments, Amendments Nos.35 and 37.
As I said, our amendments address the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association, the County Councils Network and others, which were echoed in the House at Second Reading. I reported back to my colleagues the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Keith Hill, that the Bill had received a drubbing; in fact, I have a speaking note somewhere—the "drubbing" speaking note. Clearly, they had been considering the issue. We had been in discussion with representatives of local government and other parties, ever since the Bill appeared. It goes back to the time when the Bill was my ministerial responsibility. We have been trying to find a form of words that would satisfy the genuine

1151
points made by the county councils, without duplication and so that we could maintain that third tier.
I shall give a little more detail on Amendments Nos.35 and 37. I need not labour the point. By guaranteeing an advisory role for county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise, Amendment No.35 puts things right and satisfies the requirements. Those authorities will give advice on keeping the regional spatial strategy under review, the preparation of a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy and monitoring the regional spatial strategy implementation. We expect the asking for and provision of advice to be carried out constructively. The amendment is not a charter for obstruction and delay and does not require the regional planning body to seek advice before every decision, however small. All parties must be reasonable, and I fully accept that that is the spirit in which the discussions have taken place. The revision of the consultation draft of planning policy statement 11 on regional planning will set out how that will work in practice.
Government Amendment No.37 ensures that the regional planning body can enter into partnership arrangements, beyond the statutory requesting and giving of advice function, with county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise, and with district councils. The provision replaces a similar one in existing Clause 4. It gives the regional planning bodies the freedom that they need to obtain, for example, technical analysis to assist in the district level distribution for new housing. The detailed nature of those arrangements will be for the parties concerned to negotiate, depending on the particular circumstances. I am confident that we have here the basis of widespread and productive partnership working, which need cause no flight of planning expertise from county councils.
My amendments have the public support of the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network. I assume that Members of the Committee opposite have received copies of the correspondence, but, if not, I am happy to quote from the correspondence and put it on the record. Similarly, I hope that the Committee will welcome the guarantee of county council involvement in the regional planning process and the practical approach to the arrangements between the regional planning bodies and local authorities that the amendments provide.
There will always be those people who argue that the amendment does not go far enough. Some might claim that the regional planning bodies would be able to ignore county councils' advice. They would not. The regional planning bodies, as well as the authorities, would be under an overarching duty to act reasonably in all circumstances. That is an overarching duty. Therefore, if an RPB obtains advice, it cannot simply say, "No. We do not accept it". If a regional planning body fails to take proper account of the advice given by county councils and other authorities under this clause, that could ultimately be subject to legal challenge.
1152
However, our expectation is that RPBs and those authorities will work together and not operate in a state of mutual antagonism that will benefit no one. The final version of planning policy statement 11 will set out in more detail how we see the asking for and the giving of advice working out in practice. I feel that we have met the overall concerns of county councils in this respect. It has always been a substantial cause of concern that they have put to us quite vigorously, in many forms, on an all-party basis. There has been no distinction of a partisan approach. I am extremely grateful for the way in which they have conducted the final outcome of discussions with my right honourable friends in the other place. I am therefore happy to bring these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments, which have gone some way to relieve county councils about their future role in the planning process. But I shall be moving a set of amendments later because we do not think that these have gone far enough.
I should like to make a few comments about the process. There is one very important issue, already referred to when we discussed Part 1. At present, county councils get revenue support in the FSS for their planning departments. They have planning departments with considerable expertise—probably some of the best planning departments in the country. The Minister kindly referred to me as having some expertise in planning as leader of Essex County Council. Perhaps I should also declare an interest that until last year I was vice-chairman of the Local Government Association and that I am involved in the County Councils Network.
Obviously, we still have to finance those departments in county councils. One of the big issues that we have been concerned about is that this considerable expertise would be broken up. Certainly, in my own county where we still have considerable growth and the potential development of the largest airport in the world, we would have to retain a considerable planning department. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister whether it will still be part of revenue support or whether it will be totally discretionary support. That would mean that the whole cost would fall on the council tax payer rather than, as now, be paid partially by grant and partially by the council tax payer. I should like the Minister to respond to that very important point.
I have been aware of the negotiations that have taken place. I am concerned that the people negotiating were told that the Government would not budge on this point. The negotiators did not realise that there is a democratic process which involves this House too, and that there could be discussions on amendments here. Various people to whom I have spoken who were part of the negotiations, which I welcome as well, are very pleased, but they said that there was no chance of the Government going any further. Obviously, there is a chance of the Government going further because we must debate

1153
and, in due course, vote in this House on these amendments. I feel that we have a very important role and that we must continue to talk about the issues.
I should like to give an example that the Minister knows very well. As leader of Essex County Council, we are required to deliver many more houses because of the community strategy of the Government. We are also—I repeat—looking at the development of an airport. The county council can deliver those things for the Government. A regional spatial strategy and a regional planning committee will never deliver. These are cross-district, sub-regional issues. If the Government think that they will speed up the planning process and deliver in the east or the south-east—I repeat, a region the size of Austria—or in the south-west, which is a very diverse area, they are totally wrong. The planning process may be different in Yorkshire arid Humberside where there is a co-ordinated area, or in the north-east where Newcastle is in the middle.
Essex County Council can deliver for the Government, but the eastern region cannot. I cannot understand the Government's thinking on that at all. It will not work. I have been around local government long enough to know how we can deliver and how we can help the Government. Perhaps we shall learn as we go through the Bill how the Government expect to speed up the process or hope to attain more houses in the south-east or hope to build an airport. Giving planning permission or just making a decision that something is wanted does not achieve it; someone has to sit down, design it, do it and make it work.
I recently had a meeting with the Minister about Essex issues. I went straight back to Essex and we started work. We can deliver. The eastern region, which is meeting tomorrow, will never deliver. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that and how he thinks that these processes might help him to do what he wants to do. I have posed a series of questions that I would like the Minister to answer in this part of the debate because we will be putting further amendments later.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that my noble friend will forgive an intrusion from behind into an argument between the Front Benches. So far as I am concerned, I shall be very brief. I thought that the noble Lord was extremely accommodating and very helpful in the attitude that he took today. I thought that perhaps he was a little optimistic in assuming that after the Bill is passed everyone would sit down together cooing like doves in perfect amity and friendship. That would be too much to hope for. For myself, I accept that the Government have gone some way to ease the worries of county councils.
What bothers me is that this is a move that takes government further away from the people whereas they ought to be going in the opposite direction. My fear is that the new regional authorities will bully and oppress those beneath them and will expect to be sovereign over them to an intolerable extent. I may be wrong; I hope that I am. However, despite the very reasonable attitude that the noble Lord has taken
1154
today, I hope that he will realise that there still are some very considerable anxieties beyond those more detailed ones to which my noble friend referred and with which I agree.
Lord Bradshaw: I welcome what the Minister said. I also welcome the fact that the advice that was pressed upon Ministers and officials for a long time by the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network has been heeded. I am grateful for what he has said. I am sure that my colleagues in county councils will be too.
It is a much better solution than that alternative which I foresaw, that the regional planning authorities would use consultants to obtain the advice which is available within the county council. In so doing, probably consultants would cost a great deal of money and take staff away from county councils and make, as it were, yet another gap, another democratic deficit, which we have talked about before.
I reiterate that planning staff are an extremely scarce resource. They should be nurtured. There are adequate means of communication between the regional offices, wherever they are, and the county councils. It would make no sense in the communications chain to abolish the county councils and have someone else do the job. The county councils reinforce where there is two-tier government the relationship between themselves and the districts. That is a valuable link that would also need to be rebuilt if the county councils were removed.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in his concern about how the county councils are going to pay for planning if it is removed from the financial settlement. As the Minister knows, local government finance is a minefield, which I do not propose to enter today. He is aware of the problems that we all face. Otherwise I am grateful to him.
Noon
Lord Cobbold: I welcome the Government's amendments in this grouping, which I note have the approval of the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network. In requiring the regional planning boards to seek advice of each authority and its region, which is a council or authority falling within Clause 4(2), the Government are bringing the counties back into the loop and providing some much needed bottom-up input into the planning process at the regional level.
Government Amendment No.37 permits the regional planning board to make arrangements with an authority within subsection (2) for the discharge of any function of the regional planning board. Many Members of the Committee have expressed concern that the proposed arrangements would lead to a break-up of the highly experienced planning departments at county level.
Amendment No.37 would, it seems, allow for the planning departments to be contracted as agents of the regional planning boards to carry out the processing of planning applications in the areas of their jurisdiction. That could prevent the break-up of existing expertise

1155
and avoid the necessity of creating a new bureaucracy at the regional level, while it would not place at risk the two-tier process of planning approval.
I would like the Minister to tell us a little more specifically whether he sees this as a possible outcome of his Amendment No.37.
Lord Rooker: On the central issue about which I have been asked—money—I am pleased to announce that I have a first-class answer. It will remain part of the revenue support grant and we have no intention of taking away any money from the county councils as a result. I cannot make the matter more clear.
On the vires, my advice from a legal assessment is that it would be perfectly all right and there should not be any problems.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister and welcome that statement, which will be of considerable reassurance to many people.
Lord Rooker: I dare not get involved in a debate across the Dispatch Box with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about who will deliver given the ongoing discussions, particularly in view of the meetings that will take place tomorrow. I am grateful for his positive approach and I hope that there will be a similar positive approach at the meetings.
I appreciate that the noble Lord can operate as the leader of Essex County Council with executive action putting into place certain processes. By and large, because the district councils and the unitary authorities will operate in conformity with their development plans, which have to conform with the regional spatial strategy, they will carry out the delivery.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, referred to planning applications, which are dealt with by the district council planning authority. It is not an issue of being site-specific in respect of where we are at the moment. He asked how the Government envisage Amendment No.37 working in terms of co-operation. It is early days, but the kind of arrangements we would envisage the counties and other authorities entering into with the regional planning body could include matters in relation to the counties and the other authorities where they have strategic planning expertise, such as assisting or taking the lead in sub-regional work such as the technical analysis to assist in the district level distribution for new housing, for example; and providing assistance on general conformity issues including assisting the regional planning body in making representations to local planning authorities. That is an area in which they would have considerable expertise. They would also provide technical expertise for the regional spatial strategy reviews.
I understand that there has been a bit of a blight regarding staff because of uncertainty with legislation going through that changes people's careers and work patterns, which is bound to cause some difficulties. We
1156
have made it clear throughout that county councils would play a central role in the new arrangements, even more so after the amendments are passed. A duty to provide certain aspects of work is written in the Bill.
I accept that the county planning function will change in some ways, but it will not change overnight. This issue should not cause difficulties. Counties will need a capability in spatial planning at regional and local level in their capacity as service providers in any event. These are not just warm words; they are made much more secure by our amendments. I agree that warm words from the Dispatch Box would not satisfy Members of the Committee, irrespective of what we had agreed with the practitioners outside.
If anyone is given the impression that a deal done outside does not come with the caveat: "By the way, Parliament's in the way here; there is a hurdle to cross called the House of Lords, which has a role in debating and agreeing the Bill, " I apologise, because it would have been said when I was involved in the discussions. I add the mantra that the Government have only 28 per cent of the votes in the House of Lords. Since the demise of some of my colleagues in December it is probably only 27 per cent. The Government do not run the House of Lords. I repeatedly say that so that people cannot run away with the idea that, because they have done a deal with the Minister, the House of Lords is taken for granted. That is not the case and I am sorry if anyone, by omission, had that impression.
I hope that I have been unequivocal about money, which is a key factor. There is no intention to take any money away from the county councils as a result of the changes. They will be fully included in the normal revenue support arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has doubts. I am not saying that everything will be swimmingly friendly, but there is a good degree of good will. In the big picture framework of us trying to modernise and, I hope, speed up the planning process to make it fairer and more predictable for developers and others and to give the public a greater voice in many areas, people will operate with goodwill all round.
But as I have said, the amendments are not designed to allow people simply to frustrate the process. It requires co-operation and good will and they have been drafted with that in mind. I hope that things will be well, even down in the West Country.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not understand the suggestion that the Local Government Association, the county councils network or individual authorities have sought this kind of amendment in order to be obstructive. That is not the case, and I take entirely the point about good will. On these Benches, our point remains that we would like to see a much bigger role than that encapsulated in the amendments.
The Minister has been helpful, but I want to respond to one or two of his points. On the concerns about staff being lost over a period, I do not think that a planner will derive adequate job satisfaction when he or she is put in a position where all they are asked to do is give advice to another body. That is not the same as writing the county structure plan.

1157
The Minister gave assurances on the vires of this, but I should like to explore that a little further after our deliberations today. Having gone to so much effort to put together these amendments, it is important that they work adequately and that the term "its functions" can be interpreted widely enough not to frustrate the operation at a later date.
The Minister also said that the House of Lords is not to he taken for granted. None of us does that, either as individuals or as a body. That is why I end by saying that of course I shall neither press my amendment nor oppose the government amendments. But the overriding issue of the role of the counties and unitary authorities is one on which the Committee showed its view two days ago. No doubt this is something to which we shall have to return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.33:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"ROLE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING AUTHORITIES

(1) This section applies to any authority which is—

(a) a county council;

(b) a metropolitan district council;

(c) a district council for an area for which there is no county council;

(d)a National Park authority.

(2) An authority to which this section applies shall be responsible for advising the Secretary of State, the RPB and local planning authorities upon strategic planning matters in their areas.

(3) Such authorities shall be responsible for the formulation of sub-regional planning policy in their area and may enter into joint arrangements with other such authorities or the RPB for the formulation of such policy."

The noble Lord said: I thank the Government once again for the previous group of amendments, but I come now to a major group of amendments all concerned to ensure that counties and other strategic authorities play a statutory role in the planning process. These amendments should be taken as a package because their individual elements do not stand alone.
Perhaps it would be helpful if, at the outset, I run through the amendments tabled in my name. Amendment No.33 writes in the role of strategic planning for county councils and unitary authorities—below the regions and above the districts—and provides for them to take the lead on sub-regional planning policies. Amendments Nos.34 and 52 provide county councils and unitary authorities with a statutory role in the preparation and revision of regional spatial strategies. Amendments Nos.38 and 39 would require regional planning bodies to carry out functions jointly with the county councils or unitary authorities in their areas. Amendments Nos.40 and 43 ensure that authorities are reimbursed for functions they carry out on behalf of regional planning bodies. Amendment No.46 is a technical correction to make the drafting more precise. I shall comment on each of the amendments in turn.
First, however, I should stress that the involvement of county councils, metropolitan district councils and unitary authorities in the formation and implementation of sub-regional planning processes is crucial. We welcome the government concessions on the statutory role of these authorities in the planning process, but I do not believe that they have gone far enough. Amendment No.33 would put on the face of the Bill a statutory role for strategic planning authorities in the formulation of sub-regional strategies in their areas. This is important for one key and one subsidiary reason.
Throughout these deliberations, the approach of Members on these Benches has been to attempt to make the best of a bad job, and I have already indicated why I do not think that these proposals will either speed up or assist the planning process. We do not believe that the proposals set out in Parts 1 and 2 will improve the planning system.
An issue of concern, one that was raised by many noble Lords at Second Reading, is the gap that these proposals will open up between regional and local planning. Some areas will have a planning framework for a small district and for a region the size of Austria. A leader I quoted the other day said that their area accounted for 1 per cent of the south-east region, but that region is the size of Austria. Who would envisage one planning policy for the whole of Austria? This is a recipe for chaos. As one noble Lord put it during a seminar held last week, it means that, in effect, between a district and the Secretary of State there will be no intervening fully democratic level of planning in this country. The amendment passed earlier this week might rectify the position, but that is how the matter stands at present. Further, regional assemblies for the whole of England look extremely unlikely in the short term.
So, we shall have an enormous structural gap in the planning system between the districts and the regions. Ministers must recognise that that will not tend to lead to effective planning—a point that I have made repeatedly. Perhaps Ministers think that they will be able to continue to rely on the strategic authorities for sub-regional planning support, but that is not the case. However, without a statutory role for sub-regional planning, the reality is that many authorities will shed staff they can no longer afford and they no longer need to fulfil the Government's requirements. The Minister gave us a reassurance about money, but I still think that there will be problems, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the important point of job satisfaction in the work undertaken on the preparation of detailed plans.
This will be a disaster because current capacity in the planning system does not lie within the regional chambers or the regional government offices. I want to repeat that strategic expertise, technical know-how and the wealth of experience of strategic planning, are based, not surprisingly, at the strategic authority level. To disperse and get rid of that pool of expertise, as the Bill as it stands will do, would be a terrible waste of one of the most valuable resources in our planning system.
I hope the Minister will recognise that the success of sub-regional planning will play a large part in determining whether these proposals are successful. A statutory sub-regional dimension needs to be written into these provisions.
Amendments Nos.38 and 39 are designed to ensure that the regional planning bodies, however constituted, place on county councils, metropolitan, unitary and national park authorities a statutory duty actively to assist in regional planning functions by carrying out those functions for their areas on behalf of the regional planning body. At present the Bill envisages no formal role for these authorities beyond them being statutory consultees under the regional spatial strategy process. We believe that that will be inadequate and ultimately will lead to bad forward planning.
As I have said, county councils provide most of the expertise and capacity at the regional and local levels. The strategic planning function of county councils is a precious resource. We cannot risk passing legislation that would blithely consign the bulk of planning expertise in this country to the scrap-heap of another round of local government reorganisation. As a leader of a county council I constantly meet with staff. One of the first questions asked at any meeting is whether any form of reorganisation is envisaged. Staff do not like being continuously reorganised. We seem to have a passion for reorganising things in this country, whereas other nations just get on with the work.
Failure to establish a statutory mechanism by which these authorities can contribute to the plans affecting their regions will leave strategic planning for England in limbo. The Government have indicated that county councils will contribute to the new system as a middle tier, but they have not explained how county councils are expected to provide input when the Government redirect funding from county councils to regional planning bodies—even though we have heard assurances about money; perhaps the Minister would like to comment further.
These amendments address several of the problems raised by the legislation. They will strengthen the effective delivery of sub-regional planning. They will help to preserve a measure of accountability within the proposed new system. They will offer opportunities for public involvement. They will ensure that county councils are less handicapped when integrating their transport, waste and mineral plans, and they will ensure that capacity and expertise in the existing system are not lost.
Amendments Nos.40 and 43 are straightforward. The former seeks to ensure that where authorities undertake the functions of regional planning bodies and incur expenditure in so doing, they will be reimbursed. This must be a statutory requirement and it is only best practice to make it legally watertight. I assume that there must be an unwitting drafting error in the Bill, otherwise it sends out the unwelcome message that when it comes to paying local authorities for the work they do on behalf of regional planning bodies, such payment is optional or voluntary.
As to the funding arrangements for regional planning bodies, presumably they will receive funding to carry out their functions. Surely where these functions are performed by another authority on their behalf, the funding should be transferred to the relevant authority. Any other approach would be unsustainable. I assume that the Government did not intend to devalue the work of local authorities in this way.
Amendment No.43 seeks to delete subsection (5). This would remove the prohibition on a regional planning body arranging for an authority to carry out the functions in Clause 5(6) on its behalf. These functions relate to publishing a draft revision to the regional spatial strategy, preparing a report on the sustainability appraisal of the proposals in the draft revision, publishing any further documents relating to the draft revision required by regulations under Clause 5(5)(b) and submitting those documents to the Secretary of State.
The amendment seeks to create more flexibility in the system. It may be necessary for a regional planning body to delegate all or some of these functions to local authorities in order to match the right expertise to the right work. This would be pragmatic. It might be a helpful support mechanism in the transition period if regional planning bodies were to have this option available to them. It would still be for the regional planning bodies to choose whether or not they wished to delegate any part of these functions to other authorities. To leave them with no choice would demonstrate, once again, that central government interference stifles devolution.
Finally, I hope the Minister will be able to answer this more general question: why do subsections (1) to (4) seem to encourage local authorities to assist regional planning bodies only for subsection (5) to undermine the principle by banning any assistance in various functions? All assistance between authorities and regional planning bodies should be encouraged. If there is to be a regional planning system, regional planning bodies will need as much help as possible.
I have tried the patience of the Committee for long enough. I hope that noble Lords will understand that the grouping of the amendments was not of my devising. But they are very important and deserve to receive full consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said. The Government have consistently underestimated the distributional work that county officers carry out within the planning process. Whenever an allocation is made within the existing regional plan—in relation to housing, gravel, waste disposal and so on—a brokering job needs to be done among the districts which make up the county or the unitary authority. They are different bodies, but most counties have districts.
That brokering job constitutes a very delicate political process. Basically, people do not want houses built behind them or gravel pits, Gypsies and waste disposal facilities near them and a very delicate

1161
brokering job needs to be carried out. That job is largely done within the county planning function by sharing out the agony between various people. It is largely accepted because we try to give fair shares to all.
I understand and support the principle that the county must be seen to be important. I hope that within the concessions that the Minister has made in this area—which are very welcome—the county will have an absolutely cast iron role to play in a function which will, apparently, largely rest with it. It must be seen in law to be the body that really exercises the function.
Lord Rooker: As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield said, this is an important group of amendments. Notwithstanding the welcome he gave to the government amendments in the previous debate, obviously he wishes to take the matter further.
Let me make a couple of points on the issues he raised. First, we do not envisage a gap; the regional spatial strategy will have sub-regional policies where necessary. It may not be the overall case and affect everyone but, where necessary, certainly there will be sub-regional policies.
The local planning authority's core strategy will set out the strategic objectives and key elements of the planning framework for an area and will be the central document in providing a link with the strategic regional policy set out in the regional spatial strategy and the local planning policies. It is a requirement that the core strategy, along with the local development documents, should be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. In providing the key strategic link at local level with the regional spatial strategy, the core strategy will also need to take account of the needs and aspirations of local communities. This is one reason why the local planning authorities will have to have regard to community strategy in preparing their local development documents.
The local planning authorities can prepare work with counties as joint committees. This is allowed for under Clause 28. So there is a mechanism that institutionalises, if you like, an operation which will certainly ensure that there is not a gap but very close co-operation between the different levels of expertise. Obviously we shall come to Clause 28 in due course, but it is right that I should flag up that point at this time.
I accept that Amendment No.33 is more extensive and prescriptive than our proposals. It would place a duty on county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils and the national park authorities to advise not only the regional planning bodies but also the Secretary of State and local authorities about strategic planning matters.
The unitary authorities, metropolitan and district councils and the national park authorities are planning authorities under the Bill and may, in effect, end up being required to advise themselves. But that is a point I make in passing.
Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may make a point about the Thames Gateway. I know it may be somewhat different from the point the Minister is making, but the Thames Gateway covers three regions—the eastern region, the south-east region and London.
As he knows, my county council is very supportive of the Thames Gateway and is doing all it can to further its aims. Unfortunately, we are handicapped. The eastern region is ahead of the south-east region, which has not even established a regional planning committee and so on; it is a year or two behind. For some reason, we have started the process in the eastern region. This is probably because we were split into two regions before and Essex was included in the London SERPLAN.
It has been much easier for Kent because it can operate directly. My counterpart in Kent, Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, is as old as I am. I am trying to be helpful but we are handicapped because often we have to go through the eastern region. But the only part of the Thames Gateway in the eastern region is in Essex; it is not anywhere else in the eastern region. It would therefore be better if its dealings were with Essex rather than with the eastern region. More progress could be made because, as happens in Kent, it would be operating within one county.
The Government are building into the system hurdles which they do not understand. It would be much better in the Thames Gateway to deal only with Essex rather than with the eastern region. When the Minister refers to joint committees, it sounds awful. One has a vision of another joint committee of the eastern region and Essex trying to deliver the Thames Gateway.
We are trying to be helpful. I am sorry that I have to give these kinds of instances but it is important that people understand the complications that are being built into the legislation.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Unless I misunderstood the note that I received, I was referring to local planning authorities working in joint committees with the counties. I was not envisaging Essex having to work with the eastern region for the Gateway. Essex would work with Basildon and Southend, which I assume are district council planning authorities. However, I fully accept the point that as regards the Gateway, there is more in common between south Essex and north Kent, which are in different regions, than there is with the rest of their regions. The northern part of the eastern region is not at all interested in the Gateway. They may be interested in the infrastructure and related issues, but not in the commonality of interest in dealing with the Gateway. There is a third region, London, at the eastern end.
The Gateway is a long-term project and we are going to get cracking with it once we set up the delivery vehicle. A considerable amount of money has already been allocated amounting to over £300 million in the current spending round out of £440 million. I do not

1163
know what the future will be for delivery of the Gateway. It deals with many authorities and three regions. It is a very substantial infrastructure project. In the past 12 months a Cabinet committee has been created chaired by the Prime Minister for the Gateway delivery. It has now extended to other growth areas. Who can say what the future holds? I was envisaging Essex working with its district planning authorities rather than it having to turn to the eastern region as regards the Gateway.
Amendment No.33 would place a duty on these authorities to formulate sub-regional planning policy and provide for them to work jointly with other authorities or the regional planning body. Amendment No.34 is identical: Amendment No.52 is very similar to Amendment No.32, which was spoken to earlier. I spoke to the government amendments although we did not have large debates on the issues.
The next set of amendments in the group—Amendments Nos.38 and 39—deal with arrangements between the regional planning bodies and the authorities. Together, they would require the regional planning body to enter into arrangements with the authorities to exercise functions jointly instead of a power to make arrangements with all the categories of local authorities, if it chooses to do so.
Amendment No.40 would convert the power of the regional planning bodies to pay the authorities as part of an arrangement into a duty to do so. Amendment No.43 would remove the provision which prevents the regional planning body making arrangements for a local authority to publish a draft regional spatial strategy revision and submit it to the Secretary of State. Amendment No.46 would alter the way in which the Bill provides for Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 to bite on arrangements between the regional planning body and these authorities.
As drafted, the Bill states that these arrangements "must be taken" to be Section 101 arrangements. The amendment would provide that these arrangements "shall" be Section 101 arrangements. We do not agree that county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise should also have a statutory duty to advise the Secretary of State and local planning authorities. What purpose would there be in advising the Secretary of State? It is difficult to see what purpose it would serve. His role is to set the national planning policy and to take ultimate responsibility for the regional spatial strategies. In both cases the voices of these authorities will be heard. There is no question but that the Secretary of State has to be reasonable otherwise he will be subject to legal challenge. The voices of the authorities will be heard through the arrangements set out in the Bill and the regulations and guidance that go with it and when the Secretary of State consults on a change to national policy.
As regards advising local planning authorities, the draft guidance on local development frameworks, which is PPS 12 in the jargon, makes it quite clear that the county council should be consulted by the local
1164
planning authority. That is backed up by requirements in the draft regulations. There is also the option of the county council becoming a member of a joint committee to take on a role in preparing local development documents to which I referred in Clause 28.
Concerning sub-regional planning policies, I have made the position clear that where sub-regional elements are needed, which will not be everywhere, they will be in the regional spatial strategy. In the kind of regional partnership arrangement we want to work, there has to be voluntary co-operation and flexibility and not compulsion.
As regards reimbursement, if the regional planning body proposes arrangements that do not provide adequately for any extra cost that any authority would incur, I would expect the latter to tell the regional planning body to go away and return with a better offer. Money is an issue. The problem arises within government departments occasionally when one department approaches another and money is not offered to provide what is wanted. In those circumstances one is told to go away and find the money and then discussions can take place about a joint delivery. That is part and parcel of normal negotiations. We can provide the money where there is a duty and where the work has taken place. It has to be paid for.
There are two other issues to cover which are raised by Amendments Nos.44 and 46. The prohibition on a regional planning body arranging for an authority to carry out the functions under Clause 5(6) is vital to guarantee the true regional ownership of the key regional strategy. I believe that that was a point which I laboured considerably in the early stages after the publication of the Bill. We want clarity of ownership, which is absolutely crucial for stopping procrastination in future notwithstanding the good will and the amendments which the Government have brought forward. We must reserve certain key functions for the regional planning body. It must take final responsibility for draft revisions of the regional spatial strategy, the report of the sustainability appraisal and any other documents required by the regulations. Therefore, this amendment goes way beyond anything that I would be able to accept.
In Amendment No.46, the words "must be taken to" rather than "shall" are used because the regional planning body is not a local authority. The wording in Amendment No.46 would be right only for arrangements between local authorities, but not in this case. I probably did not set that matter out as clearly as I should. I did miss out some words in brackets.
As regards Amendment No.46, the words "must be taken" rather than "shall", namely, the arrangements under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, are used simply because a regional planning body is not a local authority. The wording would only be right for arrangements between local authorities. That is not the case here where we are dealing with a regional planning authority. I suspect that we shall return to

1165
this issue at a later stage, but in the mean time I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe. as many people do, that, if we are going down the road of regional spatial strategies, there should be a statutory role for lower tier authorities, involving not just counties but metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities and others, thus giving them a greater say in ownership; in other words, a more democratic process instead of this top-down approach with one planner in the whole country—namely, the Secretary of State. Giving people the feeling of being involved not only at the development control level but also in the development of plans would make the whole process work. I hope that we have a chance to change the Government's mind on these issues. Having looked at the matter and understanding that that kind of planning is to take place, it would be better to have a system that works, one in which people feel involved and which delivers some of the Government's and other people's objectives in the localities.
I am disappointed that the Government will not go further on these issues although I thank them for going this far. I hope that we are going to be able to persuade them, during the course of this Bill, to go a little further in creating a role for other people, rather than adopting this nationalisation approach from the Secretary of State with which people are not happy. We will return to the matter, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.34 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Assistance. from certain local authorities]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No.35:
Page 2, line 38, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

"( ) For the purpose of the exercise of its functions under sections 3(1) and (3)(a) and 5(1) the RPB must seek the advice of each authority in its region which is an authority falling within subsection (2).

( ) The authority must give the RPB advice as to the exercise of the function to the extent that the exercise of the function is capable of affecting (directly or indirectly) the exercise by the authority of any function it has.".

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges moved Amendment No.36:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
"(e) an area of outstanding natural beauty conservation board created under section 86 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37) (establishment of conservation boards)"
The noble Lord said: This amendment in my name is one of several amendments that I am putting forward to improve active collaboration between local authorities and the areas of outstanding natural beauty in their boundaries. The issue was discussed when we dealt with the CROW Act 2000, but the Act itself did not go as far as I had hoped. In terms of landscape quality, there is no distinction between the territory of a national park and that of an area of
1166
outstanding natural beauty. As has already been said, there is a formal difference in that a national park has its own planning authority, which is not the case with areas of outstanding natural beauty. We need much greater collaboration between local authorities and the AONB within their own territories.
I speak as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and a resident of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. The lack of protection enjoyed by our AONB was graphically evident in the controversy over the future of the Royal Air Force base at Bent waters, a redundant American Air Force base within the AONB. When the USAF gave up the base, the local planning authority was disposed to agree with the Ministry of Defence's proposal to sell the base to the highest bidder as a major commercial airport. The authority did not appear to heed the status of the AONB, although the proposal for the airport was not consistent with the local plan. Fortunately, the latter came up for review at the critical time and the county branch of the CPRE, of which my wife and I are active members, made forceful objections which were upheld by the inspector at a public inquiry.
None of that need have happened if the local authority had been an active participant in managing the AONB. That is the purpose of these amendments, about which I have been advised by the National Association of AONBs. They are not controversial but they are very necessary. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Plumb: I support the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for reasons that we have discussed at length in the debates so far. It is a matter of collaboration between various parties. As we said the other day, the AONBs bring together many such groups. I use the example of my own particular interest in the Cotswolds, as president of the AONB in that wonderful area. One of the challenges for us lies in the collaboration between parties. Three regions and six counties are represented on that body. However, much progress has been made in bringing everyone together and forming a conservation board in the Cotswolds. Conservation is a word that we removed some time ago in the interests of AONBs, but which is back again as a proposition.
A range of benefits that the board might bring have been discussed at both county and district council levels and by various organisations—the National Farmers' Union and the CLA, for example. The board would: raise the profile and status of an AONB and its communities; be used as a more effective lobbying body for the needs of those areas giving an improved voice for joint operations; influence and tailor grants so that they meet the needs of the AONB; and access grants direct from the Government or the charitable sector.
We have a partnership at the moment that is working but it would become more active and ambitious. It is envisaged that the partnership would have increasing reference back to the 17 local authorities in my AONB. I suggest that a conservation

1167
board of 40 members, operating with an executive committee of 12 and a staff around 12, would be more effective in its decision making.
Reference was made the other day to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in his review of rural delivery which highlighted some potentially good news for AONBs. They are designed to help with schemes and delegate grant-making decisions to the local level. It is therefore envisaged that a conservation board would be able to exploit more opportunities to greater effect than the existing partnership. I therefore hope that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, can be supported. It would strengthen the associations and create greater representation within areas in the interests of bringing further development and planning much closer to the people. Much was said earlier this morning about the bottom-up approach. I firmly believe in it because, if it is bottom up, it is coming from the people who are concerned and who represent the people who will be affected by these decisions.
Lord Marlesford: I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the simple reason that AONBs are every bit as important in this country as national parks. It is sometimes assumed that the quality of the landscape and the importance of its protection and preservation are greater in the national parks than in AONBs. That is not so. The history of the designations explains why they are separate. Essentially, national parks are, as the Minister knows, areas of natural wilderness. As part of our heritage, AONBs rate just as highly in landscape terms as national parks. That is why it is important that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, says, we should add AONBs. I cannot think of any reason why that should not be done.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for introducing this group of amendments this morning. I pay tribute to him for doing so. From my own practical political experience, the area in which I live—Brighton—is surrounded by areas of outstanding natural beauty. The designation of parts of the South Downs as AONBs has played an important role in ensuring that we have access to beautiful countryside and proper protection and consideration of the area's landscape needs.
That said, the objective underlying the amendments is in part already secure. I hope that my remarks will give some assurance to the noble Lord. It is important to deal with some general issues on AONBs.
I wish to make clear at the outset that the Government place great importance on AONBs and wish to ensure that they are protected through the planning system. The draft of the new Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) confirms that AONBs share the same high level of protection as national parks. Great weight should be given in planning policies and planning decisions to the conservation of the natural beauty of these areas and major developments should not take place in the areas except—I stress the
1168
importance of that—in exceptional circumstances. I am sure many of us will have come across those exceptional circumstances.
However, it is one thing to ensure proper protection for AONBs through our planning policies; it is another to change our plan-making structures by giving a statutory role in the process to AONBs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, we considered some of those issues during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. At that point the Government made clear that it was not our policy that AONBs should have their own planning powers. I understand that many noble Lords from all sides of the House were concerned that planning powers should not be removed from local authorities and passed to AONB boards. It would serve little point to transfer planning responsibilities to the AONB boards because where there are no conservation boards the relevant local authorities manage the AONB.
Even in the case of the conservation boards we consider they should not have planning powers for four important reasons. First, we have a strong policy framework to provide protection through PPS7, as I outlined earlier. Secondly, there is a general view that it is undesirable in principle to remove powers from democratically elected local authorities; and we have had much stress laid on the value and importance of democratically elected local authorities as planning authorities in these matters. Unless there are very good reasons, we cannot support giving them to another body. Thirdly, there is the problem of practicality in that it would introduce another set of plans into the system. Fourthly, there is the question of local ownership, given the size of the AONBs, some of which have 15 or more local authorities within their boundaries. Planning at the AONB level will start to become somewhat removed from the local level. That would be exacerbated if an AONB conservation board had local planning powers.
It may help Members of the Committee who are adding their weight to the proposition if I explain how AONBs will fit into the new arrangements in Parts I and 2 of the Bill. We have discussed consultation and stakeholder engagement in the revision of the regional spatial strategy and sub-regional planning. We expect the regional planning body to involve AONB management boards and conservation boards on issues that affect their areas both as preferred options are developed and when the draft RSS is issued. We shall make that clear in the guidance published.
AONBs, as areas with a distinct suite of issues and needs, are the sort of areas that we would expect our sub-regional approach to be applied to. An AONB may be treated as a sub-region, in the sense of an area with its own specific policies as well as, or instead of, some of those applicable across the whole region, even within the regional spatial strategy. Where that is the case, we would expect the management board or conservation board of the AONB to be a key partner in developing those sub-regional policies.

1169
At the local level, all local authorities will be required under our draft regulations to consult the local authorities in adjoining areas on their draft local development documents. This will allow consideration of cross-AONB issues. If a conservation board is established, we would expect that board to be consulted and we shall make that clear in our guidance.
I hope that I have said enough to offer assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I recognise the value of AON Bs as part of the planning process. It would make for a more complex and somewhat muddled set of arrangements if we depart from the important principles underlying the Bill. In terms of protecting the quality of landscapes, it is important that AONBs are brought in, worked with in partnership, and consulted on all those planning issues which fit into our overall structure for planning at the regional level.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bridges: I was grateful to the Minister for his kind words at the beginning of his remarks. However, my heart sank as he proceeded. He has not understood what I seek to do. I do not suggest that AONBs should have their own formal planning status but that the management of the AONB should include representatives of the local authority. That has been lacking in the past. I do not think that any particular constitutional innovations would require that. It is more an administrative measure which has the force of a statute.
I attempted to insert this provision into the CROW Bill. There had been a helpful side note stating, "AONB—importance for local communities". I sought to insert the measure into the Bill and was assured by the Government Front Bench at the time that it was a constitutional innovation which simply could not be contemplated. There seems to be a barrier somewhere inside the Minister's department which is keen to ensure that the AONBs are not enabled to proceed closely with the management in their hands in collaboration with the local authorities.
I found the Minister's remarks gravely disappointing. I shall indeed return to the matter at a later stage when I hope to hear him sing a different song.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No.37 is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos.38 and 39 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No.37:
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert
"(2A) The RPB may make arrangements with an authority falling within subsection (2) or with any district council the whole or part of whose area is in the region for the discharge by the authority or council of a function of the RPB."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.38 to 40 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos.41 and 42:
Page 3, line 10, after "authority" insert "or council"
Page 3, line 11, after "authority" insert "or council"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No.43 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos.44 and 45:
Page 3, line 12, leave out "(I)" and insert "(2A)"
Page 3, line 13, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No.46 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.47 and 48 not moved.]
1 p.m.
Clause 5 [RSS: revision]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.49:
Page 3, line 23, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: Grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos.50, 51 and 76. I had asked for the Question that Clause 9 shall stand part to be included in the group but it is not. Amendment No.49 makes no sense without that. I sent the Minister a note to that effect. I hope that if I deal with the issue now it will be for the convenience of the Committee and not too confusing.
Amendment No.49 is—I can think of no other word—pre-sequential. It follows from my objections to Clause 9. Its purpose is to take out the reference to the clause at an earlier stage. Clause 9 is not extraordinarily prescriptive—we are becoming used to prescriptions in the Bill—but it is highly prescriptive. The Secretary of State can tell the regional planning body what to do. He can tell it when to do it. He can do it himself. He can revoke what the regional planning body has done. I suppose he can revoke his own regional planning guidance in its new status as regional spatial strategy, although I would expect that to be covered by the revisions process. We object to Clause 9 standing part of the Bill because we need to hear at length from the Minister why the clause is as necessary as the Government obviously think it is. I beg to move.
1 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: Amendment No.49 is grouped with Amendments Nos.50, 51 and 76, to which I shall speak. The five-year long-stop that I am advocating in Amendment No.50 is designed to ensure that the revision of the RSS is put into effect expeditiously. It is vital that the regional spatial strategy is kept up to date. Local plans are currently required to be updated every five years and there is no reason why there should not be an equally rigorous requirement in relation to the updating of the RSS. The Government regard the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill as

1171
a key element in their agenda for speeding up the planning system and it is vital that planning decisions are taken against the backcloth of an up-to-date RSS.
Amendment No.51 aims to remove an unnecessary word that makes poor reading. Amendment No.76 would require the Secretary of State to give his reasons for directing a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy and to give his reasons why he revokes a part or all of the regional spatial strategy.
In moving these amendments I come back to the two principles outlined in my previous amendments: transparency and utility. On one hand, it is simply right that the Secretary of State should make clear and explicit why he thinks an RSS should be revised or withdrawn, either in whole or in part. Let us not forget that the regional spatial strategies will have been through a lengthy process of formulation, presumably involving a number of stakeholders. The process of formalising and agreeing the regional spatial strategy might take many months, even years. Surely, if the Secretary of State is minded to direct revision of the whole of a strategy, some indication should be given as to the reason why.
On the practical level, those responsible for drawing up the revised regional spatial strategy will surely benefit from knowing the Secretary of State's reasons for wanting a revised draft to be drawn up. That will aid them in preparing their revision. After all, the regional spatial strategy is the policy of the Secretary of State however expressed, as we have debated. He might as well give them as much help as possible, rather than relying on them to guess what is in the Secretary of State's mind. I hope that the reasoning behind the amendments is clear.
Lord Rooker: I have three paragraphs on Clause 9, so I shall put those on the record first before I reply to the amendments. I received the note from the noble Baroness, for which I am grateful.
Clause 9 enables the Secretary of State to direct a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. Such a direction may specify which aspects of the strategy are to be revised and within what time frame.
Where the regional planning body fails to act in accordance with such a direction made by the Secretary of State or relevant regulations, the clause also enables the Secretary of State to prepare the draft revision himself. I want to make it absolutely clear that these powers are intended only as a safeguard, to ensure that the regional spatial strategies are kept up to date. It is also important to note that where the Secretary of State himself prepares a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy, the clause requires that as far as possible exactly the same procedures must be followed as when the regional planning body prepares the draft revision.
The clause enables the Secretary of State to revoke a regional spatial strategy or parts of it. It also enables the Secretary of State to order that steps taken towards
1172
the preparation of any part of regional planning guidance may have effect as steps taken towards a revision of a regional spatial strategy. It is intended that, if appropriate, on-going reviews of regional planning guidance will continue as revisions to the regional spatial strategy. I realise that Clause 9 is drafted with overarching powers of the Secretary of State, but it is not quite like that. I shall add that the Secretary of State would, of course, tell a regional planning body why he was directing it to prepare a draft revision. He must act reasonably and therefore he must give reasons. I hope that covers some of the points.
As far as the details of the amendments are concerned, I hope that the Committee will find my response helpful. Amendment No.49 would amend Clause 5 to remove the requirement on the regional planning body to prepare the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy if it was directed by the Secretary of State, using his powers, to do so.
Let me say at the outset that we would not expect the Secretary of State ever to need to direct the regional planning body to prepare a draft revision. As I have said, it is included as a safeguard. Of course, what happens in practice now will continue to happen in the future. The regional planning body, in the light of monitoring information, changing circumstances in the region or a new national policy, will consider whether a revision of all or part of the regional spatial strategy is necessary. The regional planning body will discuss this with the Government Office of the Region. Together they will come up with a project plan for the scope and the timing of the review.
Revisions of regional spatial strategies are not something that will be governed by central diktat. That is such a good sentence, I shall read it again. Revisions of the regional spatial strategies are not something that will be governed by central diktat. But it is sensible that we have some safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the regional spatial strategy is kept up to date. This is something on which I believe that we are in agreement across the Floor. But let me explain why I believe that the reserve power is a better means of achieving this than Amendment No.50, which would amend Clause 5 to require the regional planning board to prepare a draft at least every five years.
The regional spatial strategy provides a broad development strategy for the region for at least a 15-year period and addresses a wide range of issues and policy areas. A comprehensive revision of the regional spatial strategy is, in consequence, a major exercise. Draft Planning Policy Statement 11 on regional planning sets out a timetable for a comprehensive revision of the whole of the regional spatial strategy in a little over two and a half years. We would not want, by prescribing the fixed five-yearly revision cycle, to compel the regional planning body to spend more than half its time revising the regional spatial strategy from start to finish, even when it is not necessary. A fixed review would reduce the flexibility. It certainly creates unnecessary work, that is for sure.

1173
Amendment No.76 would amend Clause 9 to require the Secretary of State to give reasons. As I have said, our approach throughout the Bill is to require the Secretary of State to give reasons when he is making changes to substantive documents and when he proposes changes in the draft revisions. I do not believe that directing the regional planning body to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy or revoking all or parts of the regional spatial strategy falls into this category. It is essentially about procedures.
The Secretary of State would use his powers to direct only in exceptional circumstances. He may want to use the power if, for example, for whatever reason, the regional spatial strategy or part of it became seriously out of date, such as when a change in national policy was not taken into account. As a matter of good practice the Government give reasons for their decisions. That is our policy.
Amendment No.51 simply removes the word "But" from the beginning of Clause 5(2). As it would appear to have no substantive effect, there seems to be no reason to amend the Bill in this way. Funnily enough, the removal from the Bill of a word that makes no difference would mean one less word in the legislation. I do not have a good reason why the Bill should be shortened by one word. I say that just in case anyone raises that point. I have no authority to accept such a major amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I think that a later clause starts with "But", and not necessarily "But" in received pronunciation.
I understand that these are very largely reserved powers. However, I cannot help but observe that the Secretary of State is the one who designates the regional planning body and also—this is a serious point—that public confidence in the new bodies requires letting them get on with doing the job. The Minister describes this as an overarching clause, but I think that I would describe it as overegging. It is not a point that I shall pursue now, but I am certain that we will continually refer to the issue, as it characterises the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.50:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert "; and
(d) in any event within five years of the publication of the RSS or a revision of it"
The noble Lord said: I simply want to add to the comments made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Minister said that he saw no reason to remove one word. In our proceedings on Tuesday we wanted to add one word to the Bill. Perhaps we can do a swap and keep the Bill at the same length. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Secretary of State would give reasons why he was requiring changes or revisions and why he was withdrawing something. However, I think that the Bill should state that. I echo and endorse the noble Baroness's comments that these
1174
reserve clauses seem draconian. The flavour of the Bill is all the worse for that. I hope that the Government will reflect on the possibility of adding words to the effect that, "The Secretary of State will give reasons", and so on. The Minister's answer just now was much better than the words that are in the Bill. It is a pity that the Bill cannot reflect his words. I hope that the Government will think again.
[Amendment No.50 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos.51 and 52 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.53:
Page 3, line 27, leave out "and advice contained in guidance"
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to give the Government an opportunity to clarify whether subsection (3)(a) implies that advice contained in guidance is not itself actually national policy. I am sure that the Minister will agree that if we are to make a distinction between national policy and advice contained in guidance, this could have very significant consequences for planning decisions up and down the country. However, if planning guidance is still best understood as national policy, there is no need for the words "and advice contained in guidance" to be in subsection (3)(a). As always, whenever additional language does not clarify any point of law, it is best to be as concise as possible. I beg to move.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord questions the need for the phrase "and advice contained in guidance". We have used that formulation for a simple reason. It is clear that the Government have planning policies which are set out in planning policy guidance notes or planning policy statements under our new approach. So as I said in our debate on Tuesday, there is a set of documents that are guidance. Although that guidance is not in the Bill and is not statutory, it is issued under legislation. Those documents have to be taken into account, certainly by planning inspectors, to show that the approach being taken is reasonable. It may be appropriate for us to issue guidance on procedural matters which we would expect a regional planning body to take into account.
Those who wish to argue semantics could say that this is not policy because it concerns a process. By using the phrase "advice issued in guidance" we avoid that sort of problem. It covers both kinds of guidance. My note says, and it is absolutely true, that there is nothing sinister in this. It does not mean that we will be sneaking out important policy statements or directing regional planning bodies by the back door. We would never dream of doing such an appalling thing. Where we bring forward new policies that may impact on the regional spatial strategy we will consult on them as we do now.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will recognise that this is not devious drafting. It is simply a sensible way of bringing clarity to those issues. As I say, although we have planning policy set out in guidance,

1175
we may use guidance for procedural matters. This form of words brings clarity to the issue and does not allow people to argue the toss about it.
Baroness Hanham: I am fascinated by the words used in legislation. In our previous debate on the Bill we had a gritty discussion about the words "have regard to". We wanted to insert those words in place, I think, of the words "the Secretary of State must". That rather tendentious argument was all about the regional spatial strategy and the regional planning guidance. I am now amused to note that the revision by the regional planning bodies need only "have regard to" national policies. National policies, of course, will be regional planning guidance. So is this going to be a mandatory inclusion? Will a regional spatial strategy—which as we understand it is as much or as little of the regional planning guidance as the Secretary of State directs—now be a mandatory part of the regional spatial strategy or will it be something to which the regional planning bodies can have regard? There needs to be consistency about this. At the moment there is none.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask a question before the Minister replies to that point. Would it not be best to say here, "advice on procedure", instead of, "advice contained in guidance"? The noble Lord said that advice on procedure, which is not policy, would be contained in guidance. However, there does not seem to be any statutory reason why that would necessarily be the form in which the procedures would be outlined; it could be in some other form of document issued by the Secretary of State. The point that the noble Lord was seeking to make was that if advice on procedure was given by the Secretary of State, that should be taken into consideration, just as the RPB should have regard to the policy guidance which is in guidance. At the moment the wording of Clause 5(3)(a) makes it appear that advice contained in guidance could be concerned with national policies. The noble Lord has explained that it is not and that the point of having these words in the Bill is simply the procedural one. So let us make that clear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: With all due respect, it is clear on the face of the Bill. I am not a lawyer, but it ought to be possible for the regional planning body—indeed it must be possible in terms of the conduct of public administration—to show in its own processes how it has had regard to those issues. In other words, it ought to be clear that it can make its own statements to show that it has taken into account and had regard to such matters. If, on the other hand, it did not have regard and ignored them, it ought to be clear that it has ignored them. Of course, then it would be acting outwith the requirements of the legislation. It would in any event be completely unreasonable for a public body simply to ignore the matter.
It ought to be possible to show that a body has had regard, because it will come up with its own solutions to regional issues. The solutions will not be the same
1176
for each regional body. There will be national policies, but the regional planning bodies deal with the regions, so their policies will not be the same. A body will therefore have regard to certain policies for its region to a greater or lesser extent than the planning body for the adjoining region. It ought to be quite easy for a public body to show that it has had regard to that and that it has taken it into account in coming to its proposals.
We use the phrase to avoid certain problems. It may be appropriate to issue guidance on procedural matters. We have not necessarily done that at the moment, but there are all kinds of procedures that planning inspectors and others have to follow. I will take further advice on this matter, because I need to be clear on it. I think that I have got it right and I do not think that a case can be made for this amendment. However, I will certainly have it looked at again just to make sure. If the words are needed, then we should keep them in the Bill to avoid doubt in the future.
Baroness Hamwee: I have been looking at the draft PPS 11. Annexe F deals with guidance on national core output indicators. I cannot say that I have read the whole document during this debate, but if this is the sort of guidance to which Clause 5(3)(a) refers, then perhaps I should put into the pot the fact that that guidance includes things such as,
"the proportion of new dwellings on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings by county, district and unitary planning authorities".
The guidance goes on to give density figures and mentions economic development and the proportion of floor space. It also mentions percentages of each type of development on previously developed land and the area of undeveloped flood plain lost to inappropriate development. The annexe goes on for two pages and what it sets out strikes me as being a little more than the sort of procedure to which the Minister referred. I accept that there are lists of items that need to be addressed, but those lists are very prescriptive as to the type of issues and as to the consideration that the regional planning body should he giving them. For example, the bodies must consider housing built at a density of fewer than 30 dwellings per hectare, between 30 and 50 per hectare and above 50. In any given region, the planning body might not want to use quite those thresholds. I suggest that the guidance is perhaps a little more complicated than the Committee has so far heard.
Lord Rooker: With respect, I do not accept that the guidance that I have considered is prescriptive. Also, I do not think that any of it is unreasonable. No regional planning body or its professional advisers would want to ignore it. It covers the very issues that need to be taken into account in terms of the national core output indicators. The guidance includes the regional services, minerals, waste and coastal management. None of the guidance is prescriptive. Hardly any of the sentences is longer than about eight or nine words. One cannot argue that there is a massive amount of detail for

1177
people to go through for all nine of the subjects listed. As I have said, I will double check that we genuinely need the words for the purposes that I have explained.
Lord Hanningfield: We have had an interesting debate in which several issues have been raised. I sought clarification of the issue and the Minister tried to give that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised more detailed matters and we can be grateful that the Minister will look at the matter again. Many of the amendments tabled are designed to clarify the Bill so that we understand it. The Minister has been helpful and I reiterate that I am pleased that he is considering the issues again. I hope that at the next stage we will have reached a better position on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) the desirability of sub-regional strategies consistent with the objectives of the RSS;"
The noble Baroness said: I have worded the amendment in such a way because I do not want to be too prescriptive. That is why I have used "desirability". However, I wanted to raise the issue of sub-regional and cross-regional strategies that would recognise that in practice the needs and opportunities of any area do not necessarily coincide conveniently with administrative boundaries. Perhaps that is rather trite but it is true. By this I am suggesting operating at a level that is more than local but less than regional—as that term is defined by the Government. Strategic work is necessary of a scale that would allow for detailed consideration of major proposals and a level of public involvement.
It occurred to me that this issue should be raised before the Council for the Protection of Rural England published earlier this month a report entitled Mind the Gap. No doubt it had occurred to me because I have had the benefit of the views of at least one of the authors over a period. I was struck by a number of the conclusions in the report. Among them was that there was a pressing need for metropolitan sub-regions to undertake a cross-regional approach. Coming from Manchester, I have been aware during recent years that Manchester and Liverpool, which have very different and distinct identities, seem to have a growing awareness of the benefits of joint working on some matters. That was not the case when I lived there.
Another conclusion was that there was a need to look sub-regionally at spacial matters without separating them from other emerging sub-regional arrangements and sectoral strategies. We have touched on that at a regional level already.
We have also talked about keeping strategic planners interested in their jobs and contributing. That is another area of work that I would foresee the bodies undertaking. I would also see some part of the work of the body as adding to accountability. I have galloped through a hugely important subject. I am mindful of the time—some noble Lords have come into the
1178
Chamber for the next item of business. I have probably not been able to do justice to the matter, but I would be glad of the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation, but we think that the amendment would represent a rather odd addition to the list of matters to which the regional planning body should have regard, as set out in Clause 5(3). Those matters are other key documents that the regional spatial strategy needs to be closely inter-linked or consistent with, such as national planning policies or the regional spatial strategy of neighbouring regions, not things that it thinks desirable.
What really matters with the amendment is not its proposed position in the Bill, but the approach that it assumes to the sub-regional planning structure and all that is implicit in it. Regional spatial strategies will contain a new emphasis on sub-regions. Where parts of the region have a particular and common set of needs—for example, those involving growth or regeneration—it may make sense for those sub-regions to have a specific set of policies beyond or instead of some of those applicable to the region as a whole. I want to make the issue clear on two counts. We expect sub-regional strategies, in the sense of parts of the region having a distinct set of policies, to be the exception not the rule, and that those sub-regional strategies will form an integral part of the RSS.
We cannot afford to see a proliferation of plans under the guise of sub-regional strategies that are poorly integrated and serve only to create confusion and uncertainty for local communities, local planning authorities and, importantly, the developers. That is one of the real problems with the existing system, as I am sure that most Members of the Committee familiar with planning will concur.
There may be occasions where sub-regional and cross-regional boundaries exist. The Milton Keynes south Midlands growth area may be an obvious example. In that case, it makes sense to have a separate sub-regional strategy document. However, it is worth remembering that that is prepared by the three regional planning bodies affected and will be adopted as alterations to their three regional spatial strategies.
If the amendment is simply intended to ensure that the regional planning body thinks about where it might need a sub-regional approach within the regional spatial strategy, I support it in principle. The Government would be entirely happy with that. However, in practice we regard it as unnecessary. Draft planning policy statement 11 is clear about what we expect in regard to sub-regions within the regional spatial strategy and the role that we expect county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise to play in undertaking any sub-regional work. Our concern, however, is that the amendment actually promotes a series of free-standing sub-regional strategies that will end up re-creating the very confusion and uncertainty that often arises with and

1179
through the current system of structure plans. That is something that we want to reduce—an overall objective that has been greatly welcomed.
The end of my brief states:
"I beg the noble lady to withdraw the amendment".
I hope that I do not have to beg the noble Baroness, but that she will feel very comfortable about withdrawing it.
Lord Greaves: Before my noble friend responds to the Minister, can he tell us what a sub-region is? I try to look at such matters in practical terms, to work out in my mind how new legislation will apply in the region that I know best, which is the north-west. It is a huge and very diverse region extending from the Scottish border to Mow Cop, and from the Irish Sea right into the heart of the Pennines where I live.
At the moment, we have five large counties—Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumbria, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, the last two of which are far more than just Liverpool and Manchester respectively. In such a region, how many sub-regional strategies would the Government expect to emerge as part of the regional spatial strategy? What sort of size are we talking about? Are the Government saying that the sub-regions should essentially be based on geographical size or the number of people who live there? Is it all a matter of difference? Cumbria, with the Lake District, is clearly a very different place from Salford in the heart of Greater Manchester.
Curiously, "sub-region" is quite commonly used in the part of the world where I live. It is used to refer to not even the whole of Lancashire, and not west Lancashire or north Lancashire round Lancaster, but east Lancashire, which is the area from Blackburn to Colne, the Ribble Valley and so on. Can we expect a sub-regional strategy for east Lancashire, the whole of Lancashire, or what? What will the provision mean for those of us who will care about the policies and strategies in the areas in which we live?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I would be rather reluctant to say that east Lancashire should have a sub-regional strategy, although it may be entirely relevant for it to have one. Is that not something best left to be determined in the locality? If we were to start dictating from the centre what a sub-region might look like, might we not be accused of taking even more authority to the centre? I am not sure that that is desirable, and the noble Lord probably does not see it as such. Different issues may well have a role in a sense, so that something might be a sub-region on economic matters but not in terms of geographical issues. I am very reluctant to start trying to define from the Dispatch Box what a sub-region might be. That is best left to the region as a whole to determine, perhaps based on the issues that arise in that region.
Baroness Hamwee: I expected various descriptions of the amendment, but "odd" was not one of them. Again, the Government seem to be afraid, or certainly
1180
to be avoiding, a bottom or middle-up approach. We have had discussions about one sub-region—the Thames Gateway—on a number of occasions already during our proceedings. The point that I particularly want to make is that such planning should have an evolution; it should evolve and perhaps be organic.
The Minister talks as though we would have one plodding stage of revising the RSS, and then perhaps have sub-regional strategies coming along. One would expect more than one revision to the RSS. By that time, sub-regional strategies may have been created, preceding a subsequent revision of the RSS.
I accept that the amendment may not have been the way to raise the subject but, on the substantive point, lunch precludes my complaining further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee begin again not before 2.38 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
1.39 p.m.
The Countess of Marrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they subscribe to the World Health Organisation international classification of diseases for myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) under ICD 10. G93.3—neurological disorders.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, first, I must declare my interest as patron of a number of charities that represent people with myalgic encephalomyelitis. ME is not a new disorder. There are many reports in medical literature dating from at least 1934. ME has been classified by the World Health Organisation in the international classification of diseases (ICD) as a neurological disorder since 1969.
In 1978, the Royal Society of Medicine accepted ME as a distinct entity with discrete signs and symptoms. In 1988, the Department of Health and Social Security and the British Medical Association accepted ME as a legitimate physical disorder. In 2002, the Chief Medical Officer stated that ME should be classed as a chronic medical condition alongside multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease.
Conversely, the WHO Guide to Mental Health in Primary Care, produced under the auspices of the Institute of Psychiatry, classifies ME as a mental disorder. I should explain that the Institute of Psychiatry is one of the World Health Organisation collaborating centres in the UK and, as such, is legitimately entitled to use the WHO logo. To the deliberately expedient or unwary, that can result—and, in the case of the classification of ME, has resulted—in confusion with the WHO in Geneva. Despite the fact that a senior civil servant in the

1181
Department of Health has confirmed that it works to the ICD 10. G93.3 definition of ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, Ministers are providing false information to MPs by advising that it is the WHO itself that has reclassified ME as a mental disorder.
That is untrue. The WHO has confirmed in writing that the WHO Guide to Mental Health in Primary Care does not carry WHO approval and that it is "at variance" with the WHO's position on ME/CFS. The WHO has never classified ME as a psychiatric disorder and has confirmed that it has no plans whatsoever to do so.
Since 1992, one of the terms listed in the ICD as an alternative for ME is chronic fatigue syndrome. It is that term that is now used by international researchers and which has given rise to the confusing terms of ME/CFS and CFS/ME, a confusion that has served well the aims of a group of psychiatrists who assert that, whatever term is used, ME/CFS is simply medically unexplained chronic fatigue and that it should be classified as a mental disorder over which they should exert control.
How has that situation arisen? A very small group of UK psychiatrists, known colloquially as the "Wessely school", led by Professor Simon Wessely of Kings College, claims to specialise in ME—a discrete term denoting a discrete disorder, but a term that it uses interchangeably with chronic fatigue or tiredness; with psychiatric states of ongoing fatigue; with its own interpretation of chronic fatigue syndrome; and even with neurasthenia—all different terms representing different conditions but which that group insists are synonymous. That is despite the fact that chronic fatigue has been shown time and again to be biologically different from ME.
The group has gained dominance in the thinking about ME/CFS. Wessely is politically astute and, in conjunction with his colleagues, has gained respectability in medical and political establishments by producing vast numbers of papers that purport to be about ME. I am glad to inform the House that the matter may soon be settled once and for all. A new paper from Jason et al from the US demonstrates that ME is clinically distinct from CFS and that the current criteria for CFS do not select those with ME.
Since his arrival on the scene in 1987, Wessely has repeatedly and persistently played down, dismissed, trivialised or ignored most of the significant international biomedical evidence of organic pathology found in ME because it does not fit his psychiatric model of the disorder, for which he claims to have developed a more intensive form of the psychiatric intervention known as cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). That consists of using intensive, mind-altering techniques to convince patients that they do not suffer from a physical illness. It also includes forced regimes of graded exercise to be supervised by a Wessely school-trained psychotherapist aimed at getting patients hack to fitness.
Wessely school psychiatrists are about to receive £11.1 million, including £2.6 million from the Medical Research Council, in an attempt to strengthen the
1182
weak evidence that his regime actually works for those with ME. Among his 53, largely undeclared, interests it should be noted that he is a member of the supervisory board of a company, PRISMA, that is supplying such rehabilitation programmes as CBT to the NHS for those with ME, even though such regimes have been widely shown, at their best, to be of limited and short-lasting benefit and, more importantly, at their worst, to be actively harmful to those with the disorder.
The constant theme running through the Wessely School's published papers is that ME does not exist, that CFS is a psychiatric disorder and that the factors that play an important role in the perpetuation of the disorder include female gender, too much focus on normal bodily sensations, discrete personality traits, avoidance behaviour, learned helplessness, faulty thought processes, lack of motivation, secondary gain, inadequate coping strategies, interpersonal conditioning and contagious sociological hysteria.
Wessely states that patients belong to,
"a cult recruited from the environmental subculture",
and that those with ME,
"feel no guilt about their condition: sufferers from mysterious illnesses that lie outside conventional medical practice no longer consider themselves to be oppressed by spirits and demons but by mystery gases, toxins and viruses".
Wessely has made numerous statements about the non-existence of the disorder that can only be described as savagely cruel to the ME community. For example, he refers to ME as a "myth". He believes that it,
"should not be dignified by [its] own formal case definition and body of research".
He asserts that symptoms found in M E,
"have no anatomical or physiological basis",
and that "muscle weakness is simulated". He advises that, to the majority of professionals, ME symptoms,
"are indeed all in the mind".
I can provide corroborative evidence of all those statements.
Neither the fact that they may be wrong nor the well documented errors of psychiatrists in the past who authoritatively misdiagnosed Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, diabetes and thyrotoxicosis as mental disorders before medical science revealed their true aetiology, seem to have occurred to the Wessely school. It is certain that it, and it alone, is right. As the world-renowned psychologist, Dr Dorothy Rowe, pointed out:
"People who know absolutely that they are right are very dangerous".
The group's activities have stifled access to research funding for any UK researchers who want to consider organic causes of the disorder. Crucially, researchers have shown that ME may be either virally or chemically induced. There is substantial and significant published evidence not only of neurological deficits, including cerebral hypo-fusion and hypo-metabolism, but also of endocrine dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, vascular disturbances and convincing laboratory evidence of serious

1183
abnormalities in muscle, including abnormal recovery after exercise—not the result of de-conditioning through voluntary lack of use, as Wessely claims.
There is evidence of pathology of both the central nervous and the immune systems. In particular, there is new evidence of changes in about 50 genes involved with the immune system. As long ago as 1994, Professor Paul Levine from the US National Cancer Centre stated that,
"the spectrum of illnesses associated with a dysregulated immune system must now include ME/CFS".
The recently published Canadian case definition, based on a study of more than 20, 000 ME/CFS patients, provides definitive evidence for clinicians to assess and diagnose patients accurately. Wessely, the self-proclaimed "world expert" in ME/CFS, does not accept that case definition. He has said that the authors, who are universally recognised world-class experts, are not "unbiased scientists" and that there is no need for any more "poor quality science".
Some of Wessely's studies and trials are known to be seriously flawed and his claims have been described in the British Medical Journal by Angela Kennedy, lecturer in social science, as,
"unfortunately incomprehensible, incoherent, and empirically inadequate".
Wessely's response is that those who disagree with him are "radicals" who are fighting for a "lost cause" with "lies and gross distortion". Such is that man's influence that, when faced with ME patients, clinicians now collude with each other to ensure that patients receive no investigations, support, treatment, benefits or care—in fact, nothing at all. Patients are effectively abandoned. They have been badly let down by their main charity, Action for M. E. It is now supporting the Wessely "management" programme and is, I see, to be actively involved in the development of the new treatment centres. I have serious reservations about the activities of that organisation, but now is not the time to air them.
Wessely has, rightly, been compared with Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who is currently in the news. He has stated that children do not get ME. When confronted by a child with ME, medical practitioners, social workers, teachers, policemen and lawyers have all been conditioned by Wessely and his like-minded colleagues to believe that the illness has been fabricated by the child's mother.
I need not elaborate on the consequences of the scenario. Press reports are currently full of heartbreaking histories—histories that I have been hearing and seeing for years, and which successive Ministers have refused to investigate properly.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Turnburg, has put his name down to speak. I wonder whether he can recall just how many times ME sufferers or their carers wrote to him while he was president of the Royal College of Physicians, asking him to withdraw the notorious document, the Joint Royal Colleges' report on CFS published in October 1996. That was internationally acknowledged to be biased and flawed.
1184
I wonder whether the noble Lord recalls some of his responses. Is it still the case that "We will have to agree to differ" and that "It is unhelpful continually to return to areas of disagreement which can only perpetuate polarised views"? Will the noble Lord explain why those with ME are banned for life from being blood donors, when those with psychiatric disorders are not?
Will the Minister ensure that the newly produced second edition of the WHO Guide to Mental Health in Primary Care is withdrawn from circulation until it can be reprinted without ME/CFS listed as a mental disorder, given that the Department of Health accepts that it is not? Will he also ask the Chief Medical Officer, as a matter of urgency, to circulate to all medical practitioners and the NHS information authority the correct classification for ME/CFS and to withdraw the current advice?
1.50 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for introducing this important topic. I am afraid that we must continue to disagree. I can answer directly her question about the response some years ago to the report by the Royal College of Physicians on CFS/ME. We had few, if any, adverse comments. In fact, as a result of the report, I was asked to write the foreword to a patients' advice booklet by a CFS/ME patient group, so the report received a favourable response in some quarters at least.
It is an unfortunate fact that, despite a lot of research and speculation, we do not yet know the cause or causes of chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis—I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I call it CFS/ME. But the important point is that, whatever the cause, there is no doubt that it is a serious and debilitating disorder, and patients suffer severely from it. I am sure that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will agree with that, at least.
CFS/ME is not alone in being baffling. We do not know the cause of most cancers and many inflammatory diseases, from arthritis to colitis, from asthma to Alzheimer's, but that lack of knowledge has not stopped us seeking the best forms of treatment that we can muster. Indeed, many of those diseases are treated well, and some are cured, although we do not know the cause. But we seem to have got ourselves into a semantic argument that, to all intents and purposes, is irrelevant to what patients need and want. They want treatment and cure, and need more research into potential causes so that more accurate diagnoses can be made and better treatments developed. Meanwhile, they want the best treatments currently available.
In the old days, when we did not know the cause of a disease, we named it after a doctor or patient—for example, Parkinson's disease or Crohn's disease. If noble Lords will forgive me, I am reminded of the story of the little boy who, when asked what his dog's name was, replied, "I do not know his name, but we call him Rover". Perhaps we would do better to call CFS/ME "Mar's disease" or even "Wessely's disease". As we do not know the cause, I prefer to refer to it as chronic

1185
fatigue syndrome, because at least the term describes how patients feel. Myalgic encephalomyelitis suggests that there is an inflammation of the brain, when there is no evidence that patients' brains are any more inflamed than anyone else's. I certainly would not focus any arguments on the issue. Indeed, most authorities now seem content with the term CFS/ME—sitting on the fence.
Be that as it may, most of those in the field who have studied the disease agree that, as with every other illness, there is likely to be a mixture of physical and psychological disturbances. To deny that patients may be depressed when they have a chronic long-term debilitating illness seems to fly in the face of experience. Just as it would be unwarranted to deny a depressed patient with cancer or rheumatoid arthritis an anti-depressant, so it would be unwarranted to deny an anti-depressant to a patient with CFS/ME who is also depressed. It is quite different from suggesting that depression is the cause, because it clearly is not.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for going on about the issue, but there is a tendency to believe that it is somehow a betrayal of patients even to admit a psychiatric component in the suffering of patients with CFS/ME. I cannot subscribe to that view because I know that there is always a psychological component in every illness, even if it is only a response to that illness. That is not to deny that there may he physical components in CFS/ME—almost certainly there is—but the problem is that, at present, we do not know what it is, or what they are. Efforts to uncover an inflammatory, infective or immunological cause have given tempting glimpses, but nothing clear has emerged. Clearly, more research is needed. Perhaps equally unfortunately, no new treatments based purely on those types of possible causes, and that make any difference, have emerged. Antibiotics, antivirals, vitamins, supplements, anti-inflammatory drugs and even steroids do nothing unless they are specifically indicated.
Despite anecdotes to the contrary, I am afraid that the only treatments that have shown any benefit in large-scale carefully controlled clinical trials are: cognitive behaviour therapy, which involves a careful, encouraging confidence-building effort with slowly increasing exercise based on what patients can achieve, without symptoms at the time; and antidepressants, if the patient is also depressed—it is no wonder that many are. Those are currently the only treatments shown to be effective. Many—but, unfortunately, not all—patients are helped by that approach.
It so happens that Professor Simon Wessely and his colleagues, whom the noble Countess denigrated so mercilessly, have led the field in that form of therapy. I have the greatest respect for the noble Countess, but on this matter I must disagree profoundly with her. Rather than doing a disservice to patients, Wessely is doing them an enormous service and has devoted much of his life to caring for them. That is why large numbers of patients flock to his clinic, probably the largest in the UK, from all over the country in the hope that he might be able to help them, and he often does. He is the first to admit, as he does in his many writings
1186
on the subject, that treatment for those unfortunate patients is difficult and imperfect, and that not everyone is helped, but enough are to make it worthwhile. Until something better comes along, that is the treatment of choice.
Wessely set up the first NHS clinic and service devoted solely to CFS/ME patients and has been active in service developments ever since. The NHS Centre for Previews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Centre have endorsed his approach as best current practice, as have American reviewers. Furthermore, the largest patients' charity, Action for ME, is working closely with Wessely and his colleagues on new research initiatives funded by the MRC and the NHS. He has been given a research medal by the Royal College of Physicians for his work on the disease and a commendation in the last research assessment exercise. He published the first evidence of neuroendocrine abnormalities that clearly differentiate CFS/ME patients from those with straightforward depression. He is busily engaged in a research programme into the biochemistry. immunology and neuro-imaging of those patients. That does not sound to me like someone who either denies the existence of the disease or believes that: it is all in the mind—surprisingly, it is something of which he is accused. Wessely's articles in prestigious journals such as the Lancet strongly attest to his view that both the physical and psychological components of the illness are important. This is a man absolutely committed to caring for those patients, and if anyone came up with new or better treatment I am sure that he would grab it with both hands.
The noble Countess's Question focuses on how the condition should be described. I hope that I have said enough to suggest that it is rather more important to be concerned that more research is carried out into the cause of this distressing condition, whatever it is called, and that meanwhile we should treat it as best we can.
1.58 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Countess for introducing this subject. I hope that I will not waste the House's time. Having listened to the debate so far, I have an awful feeling that perhaps I will be a little controversial. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, may speak in the gap—no doubt, he will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that. I do not know the answer to the question that the noble Countess asks. Perhaps the Minister could pre-empt the debate by saying "Yes", but I do not know what he will say. I wish briefly to support the concept that ME is a neurological disease and should be classed as such.
We have heard that ME is a chronic, disabling illness, which affects 100, 000 or more people in the UK. The noble Countess said that it was recognised by the World Health Organisation in 1969. I thought that it was more recently than that that the WHO classified it and recognised it as a disease of the nervous system.

1187
While victims of the illness are slowly winning the battle for recognition of ME as a genuine illness, there is still disagreement about the best way to treat it.
In 1948, a polio-like illness in New York State resulted in the identification of a new virus that was called Coxsackie, after the town on the Hudson River. The disease was called atypical polio because its symptoms identified it as a kind of polio, despite the virus being different. This kind of polio has since been renamed ME and more recently chronic fatigue syndrome. It remains a type of polio, despite the change of name. Technology has shown the generic similarities of the most frequent agent that causes it. These techniques place Coxsackie, the virus most often implicated in ME, into the polio family tree, along with so-called echo viruses. Coxsackie has been further subdivided into types A and B. In total, there are at least 72 enteroviruses. Maybe there are more viruses now, if the research has moved on. Some of the points that I am making are based on research by Jane Colby, who wrote a book called ME—The New Plague
True ME, as opposed to fatigue symptoms, is clinically polio-like, and has often been diagnosed as non-paralytic polio. Patients have weakness, back pain and they are systemically ill. It has been unfortunate that some of these patients have been labelled as having chronic fatigue, as true ME is a neurological condition that usually originates with a gut virus infection such as Coxsackie, which in some cases can be demonstrated. The requirement to put off diagnosing ME for six months after the patient falls ill has made this difficult. If the tests are not done quickly, it is too late to identify the virus. Research now supports the view that ME is probably a persistent viral infection causing inflammation throughout the central nervous system and disturbance of hypothalamic function.
If ME is a type of polio, why does everyone exposed to the viruses not develop ME, just as they did with polio? In fact, only a small number of those with the polio virus became paralysed. About 90 per cent did not realise that they were suffering from anything more than a cold or flu. With both polio and ME, the state of the immune system governs susceptibility.
By altering the population's resistance to particular organisms, we alter the balance of infectious agents in the environment. Polio has declined through vaccination, but this has left us open to other polio-related viruses. It is therefore not surprising that since the late 1950s the incidence of ME has risen. Many experts have predicted that it will be the neurological disease of the 21st century. By suppressing the spread of a few enteroviruses, we have opened the door to the rest.
Papers investigating the epidemiological aspects of ME/CFSS have revealed further convincing parallels between the behaviour of this disease and polio. ME is described as being ushered in by a minor, flu-like illness which is identical to and has all the features of the minor illness of abortive poliomyelitis. In comparisons with epidemic polio, we see similar
1188
features, including the incidence of the disease decreasing between January and the summer, and peaking between August and October.
ME, or atypical polio, is a serious and debilitating multi-system malfunction leading to such profound weakness in some children that they are unable to speak and must be tube-fed—but they can breathe. Enteroviruses have an affinity for certain tissues, and many do not attack the respiratory centre causing its paralysis, as in polio itself.
What are we doing to our teenage ME sufferers when we force them back to school, deny home tuition and tell them to exercise as a form of therapy? What will happen in 30 years to children now getting ME in a climate where they are disbelieved and told to pull themselves together? The condition post-ME, which we are now seeing in adults, may occur many years after infection, like post-polio.
This is far too complex a subject to be debated in one hour. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that ME is now classified as a neurological disease. I was delighted to read in the Times a couple of days ago that new centres are being put in place to undertake new research. I hope that he can confirm that they will be for research and treatment. If polio victims had been able to breathe, would we have ever taken that disease seriously?
2.5 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the fact that it was not until late yesterday evening that I felt able to contribute briefly to this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so at this stage. I declare an interest as a practising neurologist until 12 years ago. During my career, I saw many patients diagnosed with ME. Also, when I was president of the World Federation of Neurology, I consulted on behalf of that organisation with the World Health Organisation on the revised international classification of diseases, ICD-10.
Medical diagnosis is not an exact science. One of the problems with ME is that attitudes and views about its nature, causation and treatment have continued to change profoundly over the years. As the noble Countess said, diseases that were so diagnosed began to emerge in the 1930s, and then many more occurred in the 1950s. There were a number of notable epidemics in various countries across the world, so that in certain circumstances the condition became known as Icelandic disease. There was the notable epidemic in the Royal Free Hospital in London among the nurses, and subsequently the medical staff, in the 1950s.
I and my colleagues in Newcastle-upon-Tyne studied an outbreak which was believed to be "the Royal Free disease", in a closed community of trainee teachers in a convent in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. We subsequently published an article in the Lancet, "An Epidemic of Benign Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in Newcastle-upon-Tyne": "benign" because patients ultimately recovered, but they were left with considerable fatigue; "myalgic" because many of them

1189
complained of muscle pain; and "encephalomyelitis" was based on a much less secure foundation. There was no evidence in these cases, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, of any consistent abnormality in the cerebral spinal fluid. Variable abnormalities were seen in the blood, but no consistent viral aetiology was ever demonstrated in these cases in the way that had been demonstrated in patients suffering from Coxsackie A and Coxsackie B infections to which he referred.
Unlike pre-paralytic or non-paralytic poliomyelitis, in which there were always abnormalities in the cerebral spinal fluid, abnormal cells and so on, none of these patients showed that kind of condition. Apart from finding certain curious electromyographic abnormalities, meaning abnormalities on electrical examination of the voluntary muscles, no consistent neurological signs were ever clearly demonstrated in these patients. My experience over the years convinced me that there was often an organic component, commonly post-viral, so that the condition later became known as post-viral chronic fatigue syndrome. "Post-viral" was subsequently dropped, so that it is now called chronic fatigue syndrome.
In many cases, there was a profound psychiatric disturbance. Looking back, I am satisfied that much of what I saw in that closed community in Newcastle was based on a chronic hysterical reaction, preliminary to an early viral infection. In the many other patients whom I subsequently saw, I found that a number, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, responded effectively to anti-depressant medication. That is not to say that the condition was caused by depression.
I share with the noble Lord my admiration for the work of Simon Wessely, because it is the most solidly based and well-founded research that has been done on this condition. That there is an organic component I am in no doubt, but equally, in many cases, there is a profound overlay of psychiatric manifestations. The greatest hope lies in the kind of treatment to which the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, refers.
2.10 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must admit to feeling as if I have put my head in a noose. We have medical disagreement raging across the Chamber and the use of words that I will not even attempt to understand. One thing is clear: the noble Countess's historical basis for complaint is solid. There is a tremendous tradition, when we do not know the medical or physical causes of something, of bringing in the quacks, to put it bluntly. That has happened on numerous occasions.
I shall give the House an example to add to the one that the noble Countess gave. Dyslexia is the one that I know most about. I can remember being told in the mid-1970s that my inability to read and write at the same rate as others was due to the fact that I came from a single-parent family. There are others examples, so I suggest that we take a sceptical look at things. With regard to the noble Countess's speech, I suspect that there are many libel lawyers who, on hearing our
1190
debate, will react in the same way as someone on a diet looking at a cake shop window. It is a lovely feast that they cannot get at.
We must face facts. There have undoubtedly been occasions on which mental health problems have been suggested for things that turned out to be physical conditions. That has occurred. The fact that ME has a physical component—an initial physical component, at least—has been agreed by, I think, everybody here. If the noble Lord wants to correct me, he can.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I wanted only to say that I am in entire agreement, and so is Dr Wessely. There is a physical component, and it would be nice to get a grip on it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it is nice to know that I was not as lost as I thought.
The fact remains that, if treatment is going on, we should be very sure that we do not say to people that we are just dealing with a perceived or psychological disturbance. I believe that this is at the heart of the noble Countess's criticism. It is a perfectly normal side-effect for someone to have depression because he cannot move or function in his job. That is all that it is: a side-effect. Those with disabilities and debilitating illnesses probably have more to get depressed about than others. It is natural. It is in that secondary light—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that treatment should be offered, not as the primary mover. That is a key consideration.
Will the Minister give us some assurance that children who are faced with the condition will be given guidance that means that they are not placed under extra stress? From the limited reading and research that I have done on the subject, stressful situations and the inability to handle them seems to make the condition worse. Every effort must be made to reduce that risk. If that means that children must be taught at home, that must be done. If it means that they must be taught by distance learning or with a reduced syllabus, it must be done.
I do not care what Doctor X says to Doctor Y; I do not mind how they rage and tear at each other. The fact is that children who are placed in stressful situations will fail, if they are placed in an educational situation that they cannot handle. It would be better for someone to pass a few subjects and develop core skills so that they can pick up their education later than for them to be told, "You can do it" and receive extra work. I come back to the example of dyslexia. People are told, "Work harder and you will achieve". I am sure that that is a way of bringing on a stress-related illness for people who, in fact, have a different learning pattern. It happens. The Minister should make sure that people are given learning patterns which they can actually achieve. That should be done, and the Minister can give us some assurances on it.
Other than that, when can we expect to have a definitive—I hope—study programme in place? When can we expect the reports, at least? I say that because generally in such arguments, one side is eventually

1191
battered into submission but will still have a few adherents who go on until their dying day. That is the usual pattern. What emphasis has been given to finding definitive answers? It strikes me that labels are getting in the way of effective treatment. If people are told that this is a predominantly psychological condition, when it is a secondary one, as seems to be the consensus—I am surprised that there is consensus, but there seems to be—that will get in the way of effective treatment. If that can be established and made plain to everybody involved, we will probably achieve a way of living with the condition, even if we go on researching it for a long time. I call for that assurance from the Government. They may not be able to change the progress of scientific knowledge, but they can certainly establish a pattern for dealing with the by-products and effects of a condition that we have identified as a real one.
2.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this is an unusually difficult debate for non-medical parliamentarians such as myself, who come cold or nearly cold to what is, by any standards, a highly technical subject. However much background reading I may do on the clinical character of ME—I have done a good deal—I am aware that it does not qualify me in any way to pontificate on those matters and certainly not to pronounce on the essentially aetiological issues underlying the noble Countess's Question. The noble Countess, on the other hand, is in a quite different position, as she is of course steeped in the subject. She deserves to be listened to with particular care; and it is not surprising that I should find myself impressed by what she has said today.
In trying to summarise her concerns, I hope that it is not too colourful to say that we are looking at a doctors' battleground; for it is apparent that, for some years, there has been a sharp division of opinion in the world medical community about what ME actually is. Since 1969, as the noble Countess said, ME has been formally classified by the WHO in its international classification of diseases as a neurological disorder—in other words, an organically based condition, albeit with psychiatric components. To others, it is first and foremost a psychiatric or behavioural diagnosis, albeit with a range of physical symptoms that are psychosomatic in origin. I hope that that is not too simple a way of describing the essential difference of view.
It is a difference, as we have heard, that has profound implications. For legal and medico-administrative purposes, the formal classification of a disease determines who treats the patient and how—in other words, whether one is referred to a psychiatrist or to another specialist such as a neurologist. If ME is an organic, physical illness, a psychiatrically oriented response, particularly one focusing on cognitive behavioural therapy, might not, to a layman, appear to get to the root of the difficulty, although I take note of everything that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said in that context.
1192
The WHO guide to primary care is one of the key sources of guidance for English-speaking doctors in general practice. That is why it was with surprise that patient groups noted a couple of years ago that the guide and its associated web guide appeared to take a stance completely opposite to the official WHO line, classifying ME under the heading of "Mental and Behavioural Disorders". The diagnostic criteria for ME as listed in the guide were totally inconsistent with the internationally accepted criteria, omitting to mention numerous biological abnormalities and placing undue emphasis on lifestyle factors. How were such inconsistencies to be explained? It turned out that that part of the WHO guide had been compiled by the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College Hospital, London, and the Department of Psychiatry at Oxford University, where a number of the proponents of the "psychiatric abnormality" school of ME are based. In September 2001, the WHO issued a statement effectively repudiating the classification of ME in the WHO guide and on the website.
When I was in the Ministry of Defence, I heard nothing but good about Professor Simon Wessely, and it is no purpose of mine to make his position difficult. I take no pleasure in, and set no store by, the suggestion that Professor Wessely effectively hijacked the WHO logo to give credence to his own view of ME as a mental illness. Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable that the professor does not appear to be doing his utmost to clear the air on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, was kind enough to give me some papers that defend Professor Wessely's position, the tenor of which he reflected in his speech. I have to say that I did not find those papers as useful as I had hoped. While making clear that the professor does indeed regard ME as a real condition—I accept, of course, that he does—they not only gloss over many of his numerous published pronouncements but also skirt around the key issue of what he regards the nature of ME as being. That is important because of the very considerable influence exercised over government policymaking by those who believe that ME is an inherently mental illness.
If in the UK not enough emphasis is being placed on the WHO definition, it is likely that research on ME, which everyone agrees is vitally necessary, may be wrongly balanced. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how much research is being directed to the possible neurological and physical causes of ME as opposed to other possible causes.
There are other consequences too. If the UK, for some reason, departs from the long established WHO line, there is an obvious potential impact on disability benefits. I understand that, at present, the mobility component of DLA is not available to physically incapacitated individuals diagnosed with ME. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister why that is.
I am concerned, too, that if the definition of ME as a mental disability gains further ground, there will be profound implications in the context of the reform of the Mental Health Act. The Government's original proposals included a power to enable doctors to

1193
impose compulsory treatment orders on adults and children. I have considerable difficulty with the concept of compulsory treatment orders in any case, without the thought that they might capture those who should not be classified as being mentally ill in the first place.
Reputable doctors of my acquaintance will say that in treating a patient with ME, the best approach by far is a holistic one, involving mind and body, in which the patient feels that the doctor has a real empathy for him and that all his concerns are being taken seriously. But that is far from being the universal experience. There is a risk of my being too anecdotal, but I have read numerous accounts of patients who have presented to their doctor with the debilitating and distressing physical symptoms that are ascribed to ME, and who have been told, in essence, that the symptoms are psychosomatic and that they should stop making a fuss and go home. Once we get onto that kind of territory we are on a dangerously slippery slope.
I have a particular concern for children with ME. A child presents with symptoms consistent with ME and is classified not as having an illness with an organic cause, but as being mentally disturbed. So the question is asked: what is making him mentally disturbed? All too often, the answer is that it is the parents; that is, that a parent is in some way inducing the symptoms in the child. If a parent is inducing them, the cause is clear. What is behind it is Munchausen syndrome by proxy—that ill-founded diagnosis which is so flimsy yet so powerful and which, as recent criminal cases have shown, has been instrumental in bringing about desperate travesties of justice for mothers and families. So instead of asking how the child should be treated, the question becomes: is the child safe to be left with the parent? Should care proceedings be considered? That is a train of thought that in general practice and social services is far from uncommon; and all because children who are genuinely physically ill are classified as though they are not.
Those are the issues that we have to confront. I hope that the Minister will do so head on and that in his characteristically thorough way he will take away with him the many important questions raised in this debate and ensure that they are followed up with a proper reappraisal of this distressing and complex condition, and the guidance that is given on it. What matters is that patients with ME are treated appropriately and well. In turn, that depends on clarity from academics and evidence-based treatment guidelines. It is clear from this debate that we have some way to go before that point is reached.
2.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Countess for initiating this debate, primarily because it provides me with an opportunity to state the Government's position on CFSS/M E. I know well the noble Countess's particular interest in ME and her commitment to improving the experience of people with this condition. I share the same predicament as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, of
1194
not being an expert in this subject. However, I shall pluck up my courage and nervously tiptoe into what he called the medical background. As regards his point about disability living allowance, I do not know the answer, but I will make enquiries and write to the noble Earl.
I begin by recognising how distressing and debilitating this condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. I will go on to outline the actions that we are taking to improve services for this patient group. I am sure that we all agree that the most important thing is to ensure that patients receive the treatment and care that they need. It is certainly difficult to disagree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that, in these circumstances, a holistic approach probably is the right way forward.
I must emphasise again that my primary concern is the treatment of patients and the research associated with the condition, and not a semantic argument, as my noble friend Lord Turnberg eloquently explained. I certainly defer to the scientific and historical knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in what I thought was a very helpful and clear set of remarks. We should all have regard to his background and knowledge in this area.
I understand that there are a wide range of views about the most appropriate ways of providing care and treatment for patients with CFSS/ME. We want to gain a better understanding of this condition and the best ways of treating it. I hope that we can all acknowledge that, in general, doctors and of her professionals working in this field are highly committed to providing the best possible care for their patients. It is worth putting clearly on the record that therapies such as graded exercise, cognitive behaviour and pacing came from an independent working party. They were not all invented in the head of Professor Wessely.
I turn now to Professor Wessely who has featured rather prominently in our debate, and on whom the noble Countess launched a rather unfair personal attack. He has a very good reputation for the work that he has done over many years, which my noble friend Lord Turnberg explained and, rightly, defended Professor Wessely's reputation. His research has taken forward our understanding of CFS/ME in many respects and has widespread respect from the medical/scientific profession. He has received a research medal from the Royal College of Physicians—not, I hasten to add, the Royal College of Psychiatrists; he has been elected to the Academy of Medical Sciences; and he has received a commendation in the last research assessment exercise, all for his CFS/ME research.
I must tell the noble Countess that I met Professor Wessely after her last attack on him and tried to understand what might have upset her about his approach. I came away impressed by his responses, arguments and deep concern for the welfare of patients. I think that noble Lords should also be aware that Professor Wessely started the very first NHS service solely for CFS/ME patients, and has been active in service development and NHS care for CFS/

1195
ME ever since. I understand that he has also worked closely with Action for ME, also attacked—again, I thought, unkindly—by the noble Countess. I believe that we should focus on the best ways to assist and support patients with CFS/ME and not on attacking individual clinicians.
I turn now to the issue of classification and stress that it is not the Government's role to endorse or otherwise the classification of individual diseases. That is something that is best decided by the WHO following consultation with interested parties. Of course, the UK plays a full part in the work of the WHO through its membership on its executive board where the UK's representative is Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer.
The WHO's internationally recognised international classification of diseases—ICD—is a system that enables deaths, injuries and diseases to be identified and monitored in a consistent and comparable way over time and across geographical boundaries. It is not diagnostic criteria and it is not used by clinicians as such. The current version, ICD-10, classifies CFS in two places: as neurasthenia in the mental health chapter, F48.0; and as myalgic encephalomyelitis in the neurology chapter, G93.3. The diagnostic criteria used in ICD shows that the WHO has essentially put the same condition in both places, apart from an explicit mention of viral causation in G93.3. That is the WHO's formal position.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I have it in writing from the World Health Organisation in Geneva that ME/CFS is under neurological diseases and cannot be categorised in two places. The WHO does not categorise one disease in two different places.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I was involved in the revision of the international classification of diseases. The international neurological community had no doubts about putting ME in the neurological chapter. It was a specialist in infectious disease who insisted on having a chronic fatigue syndrome of a post-viral nature in the section on infectious disease. So they were put there by two separate groups of scientists.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Countess. If she sends me her letter I shall certainly look into the matter. As a poor layman I am giving her the medical advice I have been given, and I will stand by it until I receive some evidence to the contrary.
Following the publication of the WHO guide in 1996 an extensive programme of adaptation and updating took place in preparation for the next edition. Consensus multidisciplinary groups adapted each individual guideline for the UK, added the evidence base, made the guidelines more multi-disciplinary and added information about relevant charities and resource materials, as well as good general practice based material.
1196
Around 30, 000 copies of the guide have been sold. It has generally been found to be useful and helpful. The noble Countess made some serious allegations that the department has misled people in this area. If she will provide me with the corroborative evidence I will investigate.
I turn to improving services for patients with ME. The independent CFS/ME working group in its report to the Chief Medical Officer in January 2002 made it clear that there was no simple cure, but that many patients had found it difficult to receive the treatment and care they needed to help them manage and to alleviate their illness. The Government welcomed publication of its report as the start of a process for improving awareness and understanding of CFS/ME.
We now want to move to a situation where everyone with this condition obtains the treatment and care they need, when they need it and where they need it. I want to make it absolutely clear that we fully endorse the view of that working party that this is a chronic illness. Health and social care professionals should recognise it as such. Only this Tuesday, 20 January, the Government demonstrated our drive towards improving CFS/ME services when my honourable friend Stephen Ladyman announced 12 new centres and 28 local support teams for people with CFS/ME.
Funded by the £8.5 million cash injection announced by my right honourable friend Jacqui Smith last year, the 12 centres will be based in Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham/West Midlands, East Midlands, East Anglia, North London, Surrey, Bath/Bristol and Cornwall/Devon. The centres and local teams will champion and support the development of local services to improve the care and treatment of the many people with CFS/ME.
The centres will be led by clinical champions who are local CFS/ME specialists and will provide access to specialist assessment, diagnosis and advice on treating the condition; develop education and training resources for health professionals to improve the knowledge and skills of staff; and support clinical research into the causes and treatment of CFS/ME.
In addition, the 28 local support teams are spread throughout the country and will provide services and support to those individual patients who need their care, including a network of local domiciliary services that will help people who are house-bound or bedridden. There will be full support for children's services in the arrangements.
These new centres and local teams are an important step in the development of NHS services and will bring real benefits to patients. I will send more details of the announcement to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about research. I reassure them that we fully support the need for more research into this condition on a wide range of aspects. We have asked the Medical Research Council to develop a strategy for advancing research on CFS/ME. I think that all noble Lords will accept the independent nature of the MRC, whatever its views on this condition.

1197
The MRC published its research strategy for CFS/ME in May 2003. it will enable researchers and funders to develop research proposals on all aspects of this illness. In response to the strategy the MRC announced two initiatives. One was a notice to the research community welcoming high quality proposals across the entire spectrum of CFS/ME research. The other was a scientific meeting to discuss the potential to use existing UK resources and infrastructures to undertake epidemiological studies in this country.
I am sure that noble Lords are aware that it is a longstanding and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe to individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is something which researchers and research users best decide.
The MRC also announced, in May 2003, funding for two trials that will look at the effectiveness of various treatments for CFS/ME. These will assess a variety of treatments and the results will help patients and their doctors to choose the best treatment. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government are committed to independent research of this condition and to obtaining the best possible evidence base for the way in which it is treated. We are determined to put in place, as I have outlined, treatment services and diagnostic services that meet the needs of patients with this condition wherever they may be.
In conclusion, I hope that the noble Countess will agree that we are sympathetic to the needs of patients with CFS/ME. I appreciate her concerns over the classification issue, but I disagree strongly with her personal attack on Professor Wessley. The most important message is that we are investing in improved services for CFS/ME patients and in research and this should make a difference to the lives of the many people affected by this condition. That is the Government's priority.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
2.39 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.55:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) the integration of land use planning with sustainable resource management and transport;"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No.55 covers much of the ground debated on Tuesday, which was perhaps not the happiest of debates. However, I raise the subject again in the context of the revision of the regional spatial strategy. I wondered whether to withdraw the amendment, but since I have included a reference to "sustainable resource management", I thought it worth leaving on the Marshalled List. While I understand that the Minister will not want to repeat all he said about transport integration issues and so forth, he may have something to say about resources and resource management. I am sorry that it has taken me over a minute to say those few words. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment would add to the list of matters to which the regional planning body must have regard in preparing a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to include the integration of land use planning with sustain able resource management and transport.
It is axiomatic that we all agree with the sentiment here, but I do not agree that either we need or should add to the list of matters to which the regional planning body must have regard in this way. The need for integration of land use and transport planning and consideration of sustainable resource management are set out in national policies and guidance which the Secretary of State has issued. Therefore, regional planning bodies are already required to have regard to these considerations under Clause 5(3)(a).
Under Clause 5(4), a regional planning body is required to carry out a sustainability appraisal in preparing a draft revision to a regional spatial strategy. A key consideration in such an appraisal is the prudent use of natural resources. Detailed advice on how this should be assessed is set out in the Good Practice Guide on Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Planning Guidance published in October 2000 by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Policy and guidance on how to achieve better integration between regional land use and transport planning through the regional transport strategy, which will be part and parcel of the regional spatial strategy, is set out in draft PPS11. I would refer the noble Baroness in particular to Annex B. Associated research has been commissioned to look at the processes by which transport and land use planning policies have been and are being developed at the regional and sub-regional level, to provide guidance on options for achieving closer integration.
While I applaud the spirit of the amendment, it is our firm belief that it is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the noble Lord for that response. I shall not labour our concerns about this issue now, although I am sure that we will return to them. Clause 5(3) seems to amount to a statement along the lines of, "I am the Secretary of State, so trust me. What I say on national policies and in my advice will cover issues on integration with other areas of concern, including regional policies. I am so good at the job of being Secretary of State that I shall ensure that they are all covered in my 'advice contained in guidance'".
Without adding a whole new chapter to the Bill, some matters are important enough to be spelt out and given their proper status. However, I am sure that we shall return to these matters, both in the context of this clause and earlier provisions. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.56:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) the need to take account of access for those with a disability;"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.56 aims to ensure that, when preparing a draft revision to the regional spatial strategy, regional planning bodies take into account the access needs of people with disabilities. It is important to put this provision on the face of the Bill rather than to leave access for the disabled as a matter to be dealt with in guidance. Only a clear statutory duty will ensure a consistent and robust approach to disability access and inclusive design.
Briefing notes from the Disability Rights Commission cite several examples where the courts have contradicted government planning guidance. This should seriously concern the Government. In order to take forward properly their agenda for equality of opportunity for all, the Government must demonstrate their commitment to access for the disabled. This Bill represents a golden opportunity to enshrine in planning law a clear mechanism through which regional government can play its part in delivering inclusive environments.
At Second Reading the Minister that he would give full consideration to the needs of those with disabilities throughout the planning system. If he is not minded to support this amendment, I hope that he will be able to explain how the needs of disabled people will be taken into account if there is no statutory duty on the regional planning bodies. While I support the Government's provisions to increase support for planning aid, there is simply not enough on the face of the Bill to demonstrate to disabled groups that their needs are genuinely being considered from the outset of the decision-making process in regional planning. Further, there is not enough to inspire them more generally to believe that the planning system will become fairer and more inclusive as a result of this legislation. I beg to move.
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: I support Amendment No.56 and wish to speak to Amendments Nos.57, 93, 130 and 131 grouped with it. These amendments are supported by the Disability Rights Commission, RADAR, RNIB, the Town and Country Planning Association, Habinteg Housing Association and the JMU Access Partnership.
The purpose of Amendments Nos.57 and 130 is to ensure that, in revising regional spatial strategies, regional planning bodies outside London and the National Assembly for Wales have a positive duty to have regard to promoting inclusive and accessible environments for disabled people and other excluded groups.
Physical exclusion from the built environment is one of the greatest barriers disabled people face when gaining access to employment, housing, education,
1200
healthcare, leisure and other services. The only way to tackle this and build inclusive communities is to plan for them.
The Government have stated time and again that a key policy goal is to ensure that the needs of disabled people are properly considered as an integral part of the planning process. This is no less important at the regional level than it is at the local level. Now is the time to give legislative effect to those intentions, as recommended by the Disability Rights Commission in its first legislative review last year.
Regional spatial strategies are of great importance to disabled people since they will determine whether we have easy access to well-located, inclusively designed health, educational, employment, shopping and leisure facilities with integrated, accessible transport links. They can also make provision for increasing the supply of accessible housing and the availability of "shopmobility" schemes. The draft London Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on access and inclusion is an excellent example of such a purposeful, positive approach.
It is not clear to me what guarantees there are that the new system will prioritise these kinds of objectives since the Bill makes no mention of them. Too often, planning authorities, planning inspectors and the Government Offices for the Regions make the wrong assumptions that access for disabled people is a matter for building regulations—not for land use planning and spatial development strategies—which is precisely where attention is needed at an early stage to deliver inclusion in practice. Correcting that will, I believe, require more than government guidance.
The purpose of Amendments Nos.93 and 131 is to ensure that local development plan documents and development plans in Wales include appropriate policies on inclusive access for disabled people and other excluded groups. These local documents and plans will have a major impact on development control decisions and it is therefore essential that they adequately cover disability issues.
The good practice guidance published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister urges local authorities to,
"include appropriate inclusive access plan policies at all levels of the development plan supported by a specific strategic policy".
It also highlights the importance of having such policies in place to avoid situations where planning permission is granted for buildings that do not achieve inclusive design:
"Many development plans contain few or no requirements relating to inclusive design. As a result, both planning officers and applicants tend to overlook the need to achieve inclusive environments. In some instances where development plans have not included a requirement for inclusive design, applicants have claimed that access is not a material consideration, and have successfully appealed against a local authority's demands".
At Second Reading, the Minister stated,
"accession and inclusion must be addressed in the plan".—[Official Report, 6/1/04; col.162.]
But I understand that at present there is no basis for this in statute. If we recognise access to the built environment and services without discrimination as a

1201
basic civil and human right, the proposal to include inclusive access policies in development plans cannot simply remain a good practice recommendation. Nor will enhanced planning policy guidance do. It needs to be the law. We need a key overarching policy to require all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion for disabled people and other excluded groups.
This should then be augmented by specific policies on increasing the proportion of new homes built to "lifetime homes" standards and increasing the proportion designed to be accessible to wheelchair users, prioritising the needs of disabled and older people in transport policies, highway improvement schemes, traffic management schemes and improvements to the pedestrian environment.
If we do not make explicit, positive provision in the Bill in support of inclusive, accessible environments we will have missed a huge opportunity and disabled people will simply not believe that the brave new planning system has anything to offer them. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend Lord Addington and I have added our names to Amendment No.93. We support all that has been said.
At Second Reading I said that I should like to see these issues addressed as part of the question of what is "sustainability". We do not act in a sustainable way unless we ensure "access" in the widest sense of the word, not only for those who are disabled—the terms are quite difficult—but also for the elderly who are unable as well as disabled. It is a very wide issue.
The noble Baroness referred to the draft London plan and the way in which it addresses such issues. I acknowledge that a great deal of it is contained in supplementary planning guidance—or draft guidance, as I suppose it still is—but it was important that the draft London plan took on these issues. I am happy to admit that the current Mayor is not all bad; it is a good piece of work.
As the noble Baroness said, we are referring not only to buildings but to access in its widest sense and to developments in areas such as integration with transport and so on. I hope that the Minister will not only help to advance the debate on this issue and give assurances on how guidance and other subsidiary documents will deal with it, but that he will help to advance the whole culture of access and stress the importance of addressing these problems as headline issues, not as subsidiary ones.
Lord Best: Perhaps I may support noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments with some comments on the difficulties of achieving better accessibility to housing other than via the planning system. In company with organisations such as RADAR and the Habinteg Housing Association, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, of which I am the chief executive, pressed for some years for Part M of the building regulations to be amended. We were very pleased with the changes brought in by the Government in 1999, thanks to the then Minister for construction, Nick Raynsford.
1202
As a result, all new house building must now comply with a set of accessible standards—level thresholds for the front door, wider doorways and corridors, a downstairs WC and so on—to comply with these building regulations. The arrangements do not go as far as the "lifetime homes" standards adopted by a number of housing associations and endorsed by the Greater London Authority, the Welsh Assembly and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, but the revised Part M of the building regulations remains a breakthrough none the less.
However, research published by my foundation last year shows that some house builders have not been complying with these regulations and that sometimes building control inspectors, under pressure from the builders, have given approval to homes which do not comply. So the system is not working brilliantly even though it remains a vast improvement over the previous position when very little new housing was suitable for people with any kinds of disabilities.
In answer to a question that I asked in the Chamber, the Minister explained that a review will be undertaken to establish what can be done to ensure compliance with these building regulations and to consider whether standards might now be extended toward the full "lifetime homes" provisions with which a number of us have become familiar. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that important undertaking.
We have learnt from experience of the use of Part M building regulations that there are serious difficulties in trying to impose accessible standards on house builders—and, indeed, on those constructing other than residential buildings—through the inspectors. They look at nearly completed buildings and it is difficult at that stage to enforce proper accessibility. Changing the building late in the day can be costly for the builders. It is much better to ensure that everyone gets their heads around the question of accessibility at a much earlier stage—that is, when the development comes in for planning permission.
This experience leads me strongly to support the amendments to the Bill, which should lead to scrutiny at the planning stage through the opportunity for planners to look at an access statement showing how good accessibility will be achieved.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to an anomaly in the consultation paper on the new planning policy guidance note 11 which contains a reference to accessibility in relation to the regional transport strategy. Consultees are invited to express an opinion on, among other matters, whether the main aims of the regional transport strategy set out in Annex B are right and, if not, what changes or additions should be made.
So there is an opportunity in the consultation process to comment on the question of accessibility with regard to the regional transport strategy—which of course forms part of the RSS—but there is not an invitation to consultees to comment on accessibility with regard to any of the other issues dealt with in the RSS.

1203
I feel that this is an omission and that the consultation process is flawed in that no one has been invited to express an opinion on the matters raised by the amendments except in relation to the regional transport strategy.
3 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I realise that this is not the only time we shall debate this issue. I say that because of certain things I shall be unable to go into. I accept that it is of fundamental importance and I am fully aware that we shall discuss the issues surrounding the provision for access statements at the appropriate place in the Bill. I shall confine my response at this point to today's debate, the thrust of the amendments and their relationship to the planning process. I hope that I shall be able to give some reassurances.
The Government want the new system to ensure that local authorities promote an inclusive environment and give full consideration to the needs of those with disabilities throughout the planning system. We have to build that in from scratch so that every part of the planning system covers the needs of disabled people. Singling them out for special attention by planning authorities would create a long tick list. The system has to be able to take account of their needs and those of other groups as an integral part of the development process, not as an addition to it. We are seeking to ensure that that happens by what we are attempting to do in, and outside, the Bill. We certainly want to put sustainable development at the heart of the new planning system and to ensure proper, effective and wide consultation before anything is built.
It is well known that Clause 38 places a statutory requirement on those preparing regional spatial strategies and local development documents in England, and the Wales spatial plan and local development plans, to undertake these functions with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Clause 38(3) makes clear that in fulfilling this duty the regional planning body and the local planning authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. That guidance will explain what we mean by sustainable development in that context. That guidance will be in Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1) for England, and for Wales, it is in Planning Policy Wales.
For England, planning policy statements are important because local planning authorities must take their content into account in preparing their development plans and in determining planning applications, that is to say, before anything is built. This guidance may be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals.
Although planning policy guidance notes are not law, as I have already said in previous debates, it is a well established administrative law principle that a local authority should, when making its decisions, have regard to any material guidance in them. A decision which ignored an important material consideration might be open to challenge in the courts.
1204
The approach to the planning framework has always been to put the outline in legislation while many of the most important issues are dealt with in planning policy guidance and planning policy statements or other guidance and subsidiary regulations.
For example, issues relating to renewable energy, planning out crime, design, brownfield rather than greenfield sites, and retail development, which is fundamental to where it is and access to it, are set out in guidance rather than in legislation. I do not believe that anyone would argue, and certainly not the people who would like to fill the green fields with supermarkets, that the PP6 does not carry substantial weight in administrative law. Greenfield policy itself is in Planning Policy Guidance 2, and all these issues have to be taken into account in the planning process.
The Government are committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities in urban and rural areas. Regeneration of the built environment alone cannot deal with some of the issues relating to poverty, inequality and social exclusion. These will be addressed through the better integration of all the strategies and programmes, partnership working and community involvement. This integration is at the heart of spatial planning.
The forthcoming draft of PPS1 will make clear that planning policies should promote sustainable development that builds socially inclusive communities. Policies should ensure that the impact of development on the social fabric of communities is taken into account. The planning policy should address accessibility for all to jobs, healthcare, education, shops, leisure and community facilities.
Planning policy should also take into account the needs of disabled people, black and minority ethnic groups and other disadvantaged groups. Planning Policy Statement 1 will make it crystal clear that development plans should contain clear and comprehensive access policies. It will make clear that such policies should consider people's diverse needs and aim to break down the unnecessary barriers and exclusions in a manner which benefits the entire community.
Our proposals for community involvement are also important. Local authorities must seek to involve the whole community in the preparation and review of all local development documents and significant control decisions.
Planning Policy Guidance 11 and 12 also make clear the importance of access to documents and processes. The community cannot be fully involved if they cannot fully participate. This includes not only the accessibility of material in terms of clarity, but also in terms of different formats and, in the case of examinations in public, in terms of access both by public transport and the venue itself.
Disabled people and the wider community will have an early opportunity to influence the content of regional spatial strategies and local development documents and therefore the development plan. Not only must the plans address the issue of sustainable

1205
development, the community can actually seek to ensure that this happens in reality and that the system builds in some future safeguards to ensure that it will happen.
Local planning authorities must comply with the statement of community involvement when preparing the local development documents. We are legislating for a new system. Unlike the present one, the purpose of the examination of such documents will be to consider the soundness of the plan, which includes whether local planning authorities have complied with their statement of community involvement. If it does not, the inspector can recommend that it be withdrawn.
In the case of the regional spatial strategy, the Secretary of State may withdraw a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy and can revoke it in whole or in part if he believes that it is necessary to do so.
For Wales, Planning Policy Wales 2002 provides policy guidance on sustainable development and seeks to ensure accessibility for all in policy-making and planning decisions. The supporting Technical Advice Note on Design 2002 promotes good practice in inclusive design.
As in England, current development plan guidance makes clear the importance of access to documents and processes. The proposed local development plan system within the national planning policy framework for Wales will be wholly consistent with the Government's aims which I stated earlier.
Let us be clear: we want the new system to ensure that local authorities promote an inclusive environment and give full consideration to the needs of all people throughout the whole of the planning system. Everyone has to be able to share in the benefits which development can bring. Nobody should be treated unfairly. To that extent we want the new planning system to be inclusive. We remain concerned to ensure that the system fully reflects the needs of disabled people.
As I have said, my officials are continuing to work with the Disability Rights Commission and others. People may comment on anything they want in responding to the draft PPS 11. There is no barrier to the level of response. It is not a question of what is included, but what may have been excluded.
The draft regulations require that the regional planning board should consult those general consultation bodies it considers appropriate in preparing its draft regional spatial strategy. That includes, under Regulation 2, bodies that represent the interests of disabled persons. I must tell colleagues on all sides of the House who have spoken that there is no ambiguity about the matter. However, I cannot give chapter and verse at the moment because a lot of material ancillary to this Bill is in draft form. Furthermore, we will debate other wider issues in more depth than we can today when we reach Clause 38. I realise that this is a key part of the Bill but these issues
1206
will be explored—I want to explore them—in greater depth at that time.
Lord Avebury: The point that I was seeking to make was not that people could not comment if they wished to on any aspect of the RSS, but that they were specifically invited to comment on the RTS ancl, in particular, on its proposals for the improvement of accessibility. The replies received from the consultation may well be skewed because people will look at the list of questions asked in the document and respond in terms of accessibility to the RTS question. They might think that, because there is no parallel question on the RSS as a whole, the Government are not seeking their views on that matter.
Lord Rooker: I would put things the other way round. Given that people were invited to comment specifically on the transport strategy, that would invite people to offer their comments on the rest of the document. As the noble Lord said, they have been invited to comment on one aspect, therefore, they would take the opportunity to comment on all the other aspects regarding accessibility and people with disabilities. There has been no attempt to rule that out, and I make a positive invitation. The consultation is meant to be positive, not dismissive, just because that specific issue is not raised.
It is true that transport is raised specifically and realise that there is a list of questions as a guide, but as the matter is raised in one part of the document, people have every legitimate right—and I invite them to do so—to comment on the rest of the document even though there is no specific mention. The rest of the document makes it implicit that we want people's comments. I cannot be more specific.
I certainly take note of what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Avebury, who have all given me a foretaste of the issues to which the Government must respond. We will have to define what we mean by sustainability in Clause 38 and other clauses. There are two other stages after Committee in which noble Lords can offer up amendments. That is the reality. This is a preliminary run around the course following Second Reading in which points were made robustly.
We will come to other parts of the Bill that relate to disability. Believe you me, there is no attempt whatever to marginalise the issue, make it an add-on or regard it as an afterthought. The whole thrust of the way we intend to approach this issue is that nothing gets built unless these issues have been considered. Planning permission is not given unless the issues have been considered, because they will be built into the development of the regional spatial strategy. The documents and plans will have to follow that guidance or come to a full stop—people would be able to bring plans to a halt.
We want to be wholly positive about this matter. I hope that I have given some reassurance about the way we intend to go forward. Quite clearly however, I will

1207
need to give further reassurances and provide further details on different aspects of the same issue when we come to later clauses of the Bill. It would be quite wrong for me to deviate today, but I wished to respond to comments about these initial amendments.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive reply. Today is probably not the time to debate this issue further. We will read carefully what he said. However, as he mentioned, there will be other opportunities to debate this matter during the course of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.57 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.58:
Page 3, line 36, after "sustainability" insert "and contribution to economic regeneration"
The noble Lord said: We have mentioned several times the word " sustainability" during the course of the Bill and I think that we will mention it a lot more. The amendment is to tempt the Minister to define "sustainability" in some way. Economic regeneration is at the forefront of the planning system. PPG 4 states in paragraph 1 that:
"One of the Government's key aims is to encourage continued economic development in a way which is compatible with its stated environmental objectives. Economic growth and a high quality environment have to be pursued together".
It follows that a statutory obligation to consider sustainability should be twinned with an obligation to consider economic regeneration. As I said, I am trying to tempt the Minister to provide a definition of sustainability, which I am sure will occur several times during the passage of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As the noble Lord said, Amendment No.38 would require the regional planning body, when preparing a draft revision of its regional spatial strategy, to undertake an appraisal of the proposals for the "contribution to economic regeneration". I can only agree. I could sit down, but I would not have given a proper response. Nobody would argue against economic regeneration. It is a key element of the Government's plan to deliver sustainable communities. The amendment is unnecessary, however, and I hope that I can explain why.
The recently published draft of Planning Policy Statement 11, to which we have referred several times, sets out the Government's policies and guidance for regional planning, draws attention to the importance of the regional spatial strategy promoting sustainable economic development. Paragraph 1.3 of the document makes clear that a RSS should provide a broad development strategy for a region, and explicitly states that this should identify priorities for economic development.
As I have made clear in relation to earlier amendments, Planning Policy Statement 11 also makes it clear that those bodies responsible for
1208
drawing up the regional spatial strategy, the regional economic strategy, the regional housing strategy and so on, should work together to develop a shared understanding of issues, objectives and opportunities, so that the RSS will clearly take account of economic development issues, including economic regeneration.
The Government have four broad objectives for sustainable development, as I am sure I have already said. They will be set out in the forthcoming consultation draft of PPS1. They are: economic development; social inclusion; protection of the environment; and the prudent use of resources. That is not a menu. We cannot have points one and four or two and three. The policies optimise the delivery across all of the objectives. It is not a question of picking and choosing. I am sure that, later on in the Bill, I will be asked to tease out my definitions of "sustainable development", which will be a hot topic. I know that the amendment is well intentioned—I am not arguing about that—but it is unnecessary, bearing in mind what I have said. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not pursue it today.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his response. As he said, there will be other opportunities to debate the issue. I suspect that at a later stage of the Bill we shall want a clearer reference to sustainability on the face of the Bill However, I hear his remarks today and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.59 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.60:
Page 3, line 40, leave out "the subject matter of" and insert "subjects which (without limitation) must be addressed by"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 5(5) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to …the subject matter of a draft revision",
of the regional spatial strategy —I share the Minister's dislike of acronyms— and provides that the regulations can make provision as to subjects which, without limitation, must be addressed by the revision. It would be inappropriate for the regional planning body designated by the Secretary of State not to be able to determine the scope of the revision. We see the matter as being far too prescriptive. As a sop, and for the purposes of the amendment, I am prepared to acknowledge that the Secretary of State can properly have a say as to the subject matter but not to the exclusion of the regional planning body.
If the regional planning body is to revise the regional spatial strategy when it appears to the regional planning body that it is necessary or expedient to do so —I refer to Clause 5(1)(a)—it is a little odd if, having come to that decision, it may be unable through the limitation to address in the revision the matters which led to the decision to revise them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As currently drafted, Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State, if he requires through regulations the regional spatial strategy to be revised

1209
at a particular time, also to make regulations setting out the subject matter of that revision. The amendment would alter this to change the Secretary of State's ability to set the subject matter of a revision to an ability to set a list of subjects for the revision that was not exclusive.
I appreciate the suspicion about Clause 5. I shall give the longer answer because it is important. I hope that it will knock this issue on the head because of the stark drafting of the Bill. Perhaps I may explain why the powers for the Secretary of State to require a regional planning board to prepare a draft revision at a particular time and prescribe the subject matter of that revision are needed.
First, these provisions are a safeguard. We do not expect that the Secretary of State will need to prescribe when an regional spatial strategy revision should take place or that, should he need to do so, he would wish to restrict the subject matter of that revision against the wishes of the regional planning body. We do not expect the Secretary of State to decide the content and timing of regional spatial strategy revisions. They will develop from the regional planning body's own analysis of what needs to be revised and their discussions with the government office about the timetabling.
It is true that there may be occasions where, for example, it would be necessary to revise the regional transport strategy—an integral part of the regional spatial strategy—to a particular timetable in order that this could inform the revision of local transport plans to their own fixed cycle. That is why Clause 5(1)(b) and 5(5)(a) are in the Bill. But even in this instance we would expect the revision to be agreed through negotiations between the regional planning body and the government office. The Secretary of State's powers would be exercised only in the exceptional circumstances of no negotiated agreement being reached.
Even if the Secretary of State were to prescribe the subject matter of a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy, this does not mean he would prescribe the content of that revision. The Secretary of State might determine that the revision should cover transport but he could not and would not determine what the regional objectives and priorities for transport investment and management should be. How could he do so from Whitehall? It is self-evident. The purpose of the process is as a safeguard. The policies in the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy are for the regional planning body to determine in consultation with stakeholders.
Finally, if the intention is that the regional planning body should be able to look at other subjects as well as any prescribed by the Secretary of State, the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 5(1)(a) reads:
"The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS…when it appears to it necessary or expedient to do so".
It can have what it wants if it thinks it expedient to do so. The amendment is unnecessary because that allows the regional planning body to add other subjects
1210
beyond those prescribed by the Secretary of State to any revision undertaken. That form of words is there as a safeguard.
I hope that that longer explanation, bearing in mind the tremendous progress we are making, satisfies the noble Baroness and may avoid a return to the issue at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall not bring everything back. Indeed, I may help with progress because I think that the Minister was probably prepared to give the same answer to my next amendment on content of the draft revision. They are on the same point.
I am not wholly convinced. The Minister prayed in aid Clause 5(5)(a). I prayed it in aid of my argument. It clearly needs further thought. I shall read what he said and seek to relate Clause 5(5) not only to Clause 5(1)(a) but also to Clause 5(3) which must also be pertinent to issues of scope and content. I think that I thank the Minister for the explanation.
In case any noble Lord had wished to speak on Amendment No.61, I indicate that I shall not move it. As no one leaps to speak, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No.60.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.61 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [RSS: Secretary of State's functions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): I am informed that Amendments Nos.62 and 63 have been incorrectly marshalled. Therefore, I have to call Amendment No.63 before Amendment No.62.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.63:
Page 4, line 14, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
"(3) Before publishing the revision of the RSS, the Secretary of State shall cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as he considers ought to be examined, unless the draft revision is minor and inconsequential."
The noble Lord said: The Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion as to whether to hold an examination in public into revisions of a regional spatial strategy. The discretion is put in fairly general terms. He could decline to hold an examination in public in a wide variety of circumstances. This examination is an important part of the process. It enables local authorities and interested groups to argue the merits of a draft RSS before an independent person and to seek recommendation that changes be made. It should be only in respect of minor uncontentious changes—effectively tidying up—that an examination might be unnecessary. This seems, in practice, to be the Secretary of State's view. The consultation draft policy statement 11 says at paragraph 2.30:
"There is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held and it is only in the exceptional circumstances of a minor revision, and subject to the criteria set out in Clause 6(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Secretary of State might decide that the examination is unnecessary".

1211
Our amendment better reflects the Secretary of State's intention, if that is the intention, than the present Clause 6(3) and (4). The Bill could be used to deny examinations in public on significant or contentious issues. Our amendment writes into the statute the important public protection that examinations will be held except for minor revisions. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I imagine it is expected that Amendments Nos.62, 64, 65, 66 and 71 will remain grouped with Amendment No.63. The last four amendments are ours and are consequential on our Amendment No.62. They raise very much the same point as the noble Lord has just addressed. The Secretary of State is able to determine not just whether what the revised regional spatial strategy says is okay, but also what weight is to be put on representations. Our amendment would transfer the decision on this to the inspector. I do not know whether the Government are concerned about the expense and time of an examination, but it is not necessary for an examination in public to be very long and expensive. It could be quite short and limited. It depends on the circumstances, no doubt. However, if the regional spatial strategy is to be as important as we are all agreed that it is, it is not appropriate to curtail the procedure in any way.
I am anxious about Clause 6(4)(c), which requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the level of interest shown in the draft before deciding whether there is to be an examination in public. As a matter of practicality, I can see that. However, all of this gives him or her a great deal of discretion where it would perhaps be better to have these matters out on the table.
Lord Rooker: I shall take the group of amendments together, although I appreciate the technical hitch we had. I say at the outset that our policies are absolutely clear. There is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances of a minor revision and subject to the criteria set out in Clause 6(4) that the Secretary of State may decide that an examination is unnecessary. In some ways, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Since examinations in public were introduced, the Secretary of State has never decided that a public examination is not warranted. Our track record is 100 per cent. Since the procedure was introduced there has been no example where, for whatever reason, it has been said that we would not hold an examination in public.
Nevertheless, the amendments deserve a response because I am not in a position to accept them. Not all draft revisions to regional spatial strategies will warrant an examination and it would not make sense for one to be held in all cases. Clause 6(4) sets out the criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard when deciding what these cases are. Obviously, one of the criteria—the third—is treated with great suspicion by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
1212
However, these four criteria are the extent of the revision proposed by the draft: the extent and nature of the consultation on the draft before it is published, the level of interest shown in the draft—here I have warning bells from the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act about measuring levels of interest. I am making the speech that the noble Baroness could have made, but did not, because of the suspicion of the words. I understand that and, of course, I refer to the catch-all phrase, "other such matters as the Secretary of State may think appropriate".
Our presumption is that examinations will he held in public. The criteria are sensible and appropriate as a basis for making the decision because nothing would be gained by holding examinations into minor changes that generated no interest in the consultation process, or where any responses to consultation did not raise any important issues and, what is more, where they could be taken on board without the need for a further consultation.
Amendment No.63 recognises this situation by allowing for there not to be an examination where changes were minor and inconsequential. I argue strongly that the other criteria are also appropriate. Amendment No.66 seems to assume that there is a risk that, because the reference to examination is not qualified by the phrase "in public", such an examination could be held in private. I assure noble Lords that there is absolutely no risk. It is quite clear in the way the rest of the clause is drafted that the examination is in public. Indeed, the title of the next clause, Clause 7, is "RSS: Examination in public". The examination could not be held behind close doors. We are always prepared to look at our drafting again to avoid any doubt whatever. If anyone thinks that we are trying to pull a fast one, we are certainly not. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The examinations will be in public.
Amendment No.71 seems to say that, even if there is no examination, the Secretary of State has to consider a report from a person appointed to hold an examination. The intent is presumably that there should be an independent report into the regional spatial strategy, even if there has not been an examination. As I have already said, it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that there would not be an examination in public. There is no need for that safeguard to be put in the Bill. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords.
I appreciate that the wording of Clause 6(4)(c) probably sends shivers down the spine and I am more than happy, in relation to all parts of the Bill, to look at any form of wording that could be more precise and which could to lessen suspicion to any degree. We are always happy to have a look at that. That is not in my brief. One has to do things in response to what is said. That makes more work, but I am as interested as anyone else in getting this right. At the end of the day, I do not want to be hauled over the coals for a bit of slipshod legislation, or for a provision that could be misused. We have had debates in the past on other legislation, which has now been enacted, where we were desperately trying to define what was meant by

1213
"levels of interest". I had considerable difficulty, as did the House, with that but we came to a solution in the end. I am more than happy to have Clause 6(4)(c) looked at, just to make sure that it is as precise as possible and that it meets the purpose for which it is intended in this part of the Bill.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments, I think they were very helpful. Obviously, the concerns I expressed are real and are felt not just on these Benches but among outside interests who have approached us on it. I thank the Minister. We shall certainly look at the words to see whether we can come up with a further improvement. Perhaps the Government will too, before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.62 and 64 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [RSS: examination in public]:
[Amendments Nos.65 and 66 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 4, line 26, after "person" insert "or persons"
The noble Lord said: This is simply a technical amendment on which I need not detain the Committee for long. As I am sure Members of the Committee are aware, in practice, at any big planning inquiry the Secretary of State has the discretion to appoint more than one person to aid him with the inquiry. Indeed, under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, that provision exists in relation to structure plans. If it is in place for structure plans, I can see no reason why the Government should wish to remove it for regional spatial strategies. This amendment is simply directed towards enabling the Secretary of State to ensure that inquiries are held as efficiently as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that this is an easy amendment to deal with. If I heard the noble Lord right, he is seeking clarification on terminology. The amendment is unnecessary. As I understand it, it is a point of standard legal interpretation that the term "person" encompasses both "person" singular and "persons" plural. So the word means not only what it says but something else as well. I hope the noble Lord will be happy with that and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: As that will be reported in Hansard and the Minister has made it clear that "person" means both person and persons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) The following may take part in an examination in public—

(a) the RPB;

1214

(b)the authorities falling within section 4(2): and

(c)in any case, any person invited to do so by the person holding the examination or by the Secretary of State."

The noble Lord said: I find this part of the clause in its present form most worrying. As currently drafted, Clause 7 means that no one has a right to be heard at an examination in public. We do not dispute that basic provision; indeed we recognise why the Government may wish to have it in place. However, we believe that it would be helpful to add to the Bill a provision that the regional planning body, the sub-regional authorities as they are defined in Clause 4 of the Bill and any other person invited by the Secretary of State should be allowed to give evidence.
This amendment would bring the Bill's provisions into line with the current arrangements for the county structure plans under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act. In that Act, the examination in public of a county structure plan includes a wide range of interested parties taking part. Given the scope and impact of the regional spatial strategy versus, say, a county structure plan, I should have thought that there is surely a need for more public scrutiny, not less.
Let us not forget that in many instances the regional spatial strategy might have been formulated by a body with very little democratic accountability. We simply do not yet know who or what will be recognised by the Secretary of State as a regional planning body in any particular region. Surely it is right that strategic authorities whose functions will be directly affected by the regional spatial strategy should have the opportunity on behalf of their communities to put forward their arguments.
I turn to Amendment No.70. We have heard time and again from Ministers that one of the Bill's key objectives is to speed up the planning process. Sometimes that seems to he the Bill's only objective. However, leaving that to one side, the aim of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to publish the inspector's report within two weeks of its receipt. At the moment, as I understand the Bill, there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to publish the report at all. I am not a lawyer; so unless subsection (7) means that the report has to be published, my understanding is that it does not.
That seems incredible. How can something purport to be a transparent process without the publication of an independent inspector's report? Under current legislation pertaining to development plans, there is a requirement that the inspector's report should be published. Why should not the same measure of transparency be applied to inspectors' reports in this case? Furthermore, in a Bill whose purpose is to speed up planning process, I can see no justification for the Secretary of State sitting on such reports. Publication within two weeks of receipt seems a perfectly acceptable time scale and also one that might help the overall objective of speeding up the process.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is in favour of open government. With that principle in mind, I look forward to his support on the amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Our Amendment No.69 is in this group. It seeks to substitute for the provision that no one has a right to be heard at an examination in public a provision giving the inspector the discretion to determine who will appear in person before him. Some hold the view that everyone who makes an objection should have a right to be heard. I do not subscribe to that view. I think that the examination should operate perfectly well if the inspector applies similar energy to that which I have seen applied to the London plan where the inspector can determine the issues and then identify objectors who not only articulate those issues but enter into a debate on them as part of the examination. However, I think that it should be made clear that the inspector has that right.
The Law Society is concerned that there may even be a possibility of a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act if an individual does not have the opportunity for a fair hearing of his or her objections. Perhaps it is right to raise that point now. To my mind, the important point is for the objections to be taken into account and for the process to pick up the issues. Perhaps that is more important than how the point is made. We need to explore these important issues.
Lord Cobbold: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her amendment. However, I wonder whether it is strong enough. It seems strange to have something called an examination in public where the public are not allowed to participate. I wonder whether the Minister can explain why no person should have a right to be heard at an examination in public.
Lord King of Bridgwater: Perhaps I may add my tuppenny-worth on this issue. Anyone who has been involved in the planning process and seen the problems with structure plans will be familiar with the problem of the democratic deficit and know the problems caused by these examinations. They can take a considerable amount of time and tend to be conducted between professionals. It is extremely difficult for the public to have any input to them at all. I therefore strongly support my noble friend in his proposal to remove the prohibition that no one has a right to appear. The prohibition seems exceptionally negative. Of course I understand the other point that has been made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, one simply cannot conduct a regional spatial strategy examination in public—or a revision, or whatever it may be—on the basis that anyone in that huge area who has an objection also has the right to appear.
After I became an ordinary Back-Bencher I was refused permission to appear at an examination in public for the Somerset structure plan. I thought that that was so outrageous that I put a certain amount of pressure on one or two of the Minister's colleagues. In the end wiser counsels prevailed and I did appear at the examination in public. I thought that some of the issues were relevant to my constituency, which was one of the five Somerset constituencies and should have been considered.
1216
The structure of an examination in public involves a number of public bodies. In the case of the county council, it involves the county council planning officers and the neighbouring counties, to ensure that the county in question—in my case it was Somerset and to do with housing provision which would have loaded more on to Devon or Wiltshire—is not trying to get away with something. It also involves agencies such as English Nature and the various statutory agencies that might be involved. If one is lucky it will also include the CPRE. That is about it, except for an occasional watching brief by bodies such as the RSPB. How does one get past that to achieve democratic involvement? My timid attempt to voice the voice of the people was greeted with absolute horror by the Department of the Environment, which said that under no circumstances could I possibly appear, otherwise MPs all over the place would try to make their views known. It was regarded as simply outrageous.
I make that point because there is a real problem. It is almost impossible for the public to plug into the process. The length and complexity of the procedures work against that. People find themselves asked questions such as: "Are you referring to document 7(1)(b)? Were you here three weeks ago when we discussed this issue and why are you raising it now?". Such demands are made on some poor, hard-pressed person who turns up and tries to make a perfectly valid planning point.
If it is difficult at a county level it is even worse at a regional level. I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of securing flexibility. There is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to show some imagination, so that if people wish to be represented they have an opportunity to be heard. I hope that the officials—God bless them—do not say to the Secretary of State that Clause 3 protects him and that no one has the right to appear.
Baroness Hamwee: One of the contributors at the examination in public of the draft London plan was an organisation called the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies—an umbrella organisation for many amenity and residents' associations across London. It did a sterling job, but there was such a lot of work for one organisation representing so many local organisations. The strain on a particular individual was apparent—in saying that I do not mean to suggest that they did not do their job well. I was full of admiration for how somebody without technical support was able to take part in that long process.
The involvement of that organisation provided a vivid example of the balances that need to be struck. The organisation put in a lot of evidence on behalf of its members. There should perhaps have been more latitude. The decisions on the London plan were in part driven by the size of the chamber and how many people could be accommodated. One wonders whether it could have been organised differently and made a bit easier for people to cope with.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If I had been in the position of the noble Lord, Lord King, and I had been

1217
deprived of the opportunity of making some comments or representations to an examination in public into a draft regional spatial strategy I, too, would have got rather uppity. I understand and appreciate where noble Lords are coming from on this issue. However, we have to understand what we are looking at. We are not looking at a planning appeal or an adversarial forum. The process is like a round-table discussion about revision.
The amendment is prescriptive in that it establishes that the authorities falling within section 4(2) and a number of other bodies should have hearing rights at the examination in public. It goes on to refer to "any other relevant body" or some such phrase. Currently, it is up to the panel—those conducting the examination—to decide who is invited and who it is considered relevant to invite. That will be subject to any representation and there is a duty for the panel to act reasonably in those circumstances.
Clearly, in the situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord King—his personal request to make representations as a constituency MP—it was considered right and proper that he should have the opportunity to do that. That seems to me to be entirely appropriate.
Lord King of Bridgwater: It was not considered right and proper. I was refused permission twice and it was only subsequently that it was thought right and proper that I should be admitted.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate the noble Lord's clarification. I respect that, but the noble Lord was in a position to make such representations and we should perhaps be getting to the root of that rather than being overly prescriptive. The current Town and Country Planning Act has flexibility. As it is, it appears that there is a presumption that there should be no right to appear, whereas in fact and in practice there is scope for representation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said. Amenity organisations have the opportunity, when invited, to make representations and they do a very effective job. No doubt they are assisted in that through the grant that the Government make available to organisations such as Planning Aid so that those representations can be made.
It is worth reminding the House that we are putting in place extensive arrangements for county councils and other authorities to advise, influence and have their say on the contents of the draft regional spatial strategy revisions. We have had an extensive debate on that issue. The main purpose of an examination in public of a draft revision is to discuss and to test in public before the panel selected matters arising from the draft revision. It also provides the main basis for the Secretary of State to decide whether he needs to make any changes to the draft before publishing it as a revision to the regional spatial strategy.
In common with the arrangements for current non-statutory regional planning guidance and structure plans, an examination in public into draft revisions to the regional spatial strategy will not be an examination
1218
of all the submitted proposals nor will it be a hearing. That is the difference in so far as the oral representations mentioned by some noble Lords are concerned.
That approach is appropriate because the purpose of the regional spatial strategy is to provide a broad development strategy for the region rather than identify specific sites for development. It does not consist of a range of site-specific arguments. That is why we do not think it necessary for there to be a right to be heard at the examination either for particular bodies or authorities as proposed in Amendment No.68 or generally. The Bill should be clear on that point.
Lord Cobbold: Is not the fact that that is called an examination in public a problem of nomenclature? Would it not be better if it were called an independent review or something anodyne like that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is an interesting point in the context of the debate. Is it a review or an examination in public? I have not had the benefit of making representations to an examination in public, but I understand that what happens is that it identifies the main issues. In that case, I am not sure that it could be described as a review. "Review" suggests something broader in scope. What an examination seeks to do is to identify the main issues in the revision process.
It is now and will continue to be for the person appointed by the Secretary of State to select the participants at the examination in public. That is made clear in draft PPS 11. The Government do not think that it is necessary to specify that on the face of the Bill. Everyone will have the right to have their representations heard on the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, but the chair and other members of the panel should properly be able to determine who should be able to speak to it. We have been given an example of an overly restrictive approach. Generally, the current arrangements in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 appear to have worked well and we see no necessity to amend that piece of legislation as suggested.
Amendment No.70 would require the Secretary of State to publish the report of the examination in public within two weeks of receipt of that report. We are concerned here with a detailed procedural issue, which is more appropriately contained in regulations. The publication of the report is to be covered in the regulations which will amplify Part 1 of the Bill. In the draft regulations that we published for consultation, there is a requirement that a copy of the report must be available at the time that the Secretary of State's proposed changes are published. That does not prevent earlier publication but has been read to mean that, which was not intended.
Amendment No.70 provides me with the opportunity to clarify our policy on the issue. I want to make it quite clear that it is our intention to publish the panel report into the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy as soon as possible. I would indeed expect that to be done within two weeks. I shall repeat that: in most normal circumstances, we would expect

1219
that to be done in the two-week period, as I think is the purpose and intent of the amendment. I am happy to put that on record so that it is plainly understood. I hope Members of the Committee who have contributed to the discussion will appreciate that the logistics of printing what might be a long report and sending it out, in addition to putting a copy on the office's website, may mean that we cannot guarantee in absolutely every set of circumstances that that will happen.
I can assure the Committee, however, that the regulations will be amended to make it clear that the panel report will be published in hard-copy form and made available on the office website as soon as possible after receipt.
4 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that. I seek clarification. Did he say that every report would be published within two weeks? Part of my amendment is a misunderstanding and suggests that the Secretary of State could withhold some reports.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I said that, but let me say it in terms. We would expect every report to be published and, as a general rubric, that will be within two weeks.
Having heard what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his comments on the first part of what we have proposed, as they were quite helpful. I was a little concerned that he thinks that some of the hearings might be cosy round-table chats. If we were revising the eastern regional spatial strategy at the moment, talking about airports and 500, 000 houses, the hearings would be not cosy round-table chats but rather difficult discussions. We will reflect on the answers that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.69 and 70 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [RSS: further procedure]:
[Amendment No.71 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 5, line I I, at end insert—
"(3A) If after proceeding under subsection (2) the Secretary of State proposes not to accept any recommendations of the person appointed to hold the examination, he must publish—

(a) a list of the recommendations not accepted; and

(b) his reasons for not accepting the recommendations. "

The noble Lord said: As previous amendments have demonstrated, we believe that the reports of an inspector appointed by the Government to carry out examinations in public should be published, and we have just been assured by the Minister that they will be. Currently under the Bill that would not be the case, but it is to be clarified in regulations later. Any
1220
recommendations made by the inspector that the Secretary of State does not intend to accept should also be published. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must be obliged to give reasons for his rejection of an inspector's recommendations.
There are a number of reasons why we believe that the amendment should be agreed to. First, there is a point about transparency. Under the arrangements currently proposed in the Bill, there will he a lack of clarity about the outcome of the examination in public. No one will know the conclusion reached by the examination or the reasons for reaching those conclusions. It will be up to the Secretary of State to disclose as much information as he thinks fit in providing reasons for revision that he makes to a draft RSS.
In some circumstances, representations will be made in the course of an examination in public to have a draft RSS altered. The Secretary of State might determine, from the report of the examination, not to alter the RSS. The provisions in the Bill do not require him to provide any reasons for his decision under those circumstances. In fact, even if he goes against an explicit recommendation of an inspector, that need never be put into the public domain.
Secondly, there is a point about utility. If a planning matter such as a spatial strategy were under public examination, it would seem helpful to know what conclusions had been reached by that examination and whether they found favour with the Secretary of State.
There might be very good reasons why the Secretary of State had rejected a recommendation of the inspector. It would surely be helpful to know those reasons. That would undoubtedly help everyone involved in the process of understanding the parameters in which they operate. Under current planning arrangements, local authorities are obliged to give reasons for rejecting an inspector's recommendations. I cannot see why the same duty should not be applied to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No.73 shows that we are not solely concerned with restricting the powers of the Secretary of State. That amendment actually broadens his powers, enabling him to hold a second examination in public if, in his opinion, the changes to the originally proposed draft are so significant as to merit a second examination. We believe that it is right that there be scope for a second examination if the Secretary of State believes that to be necessary.
Of course, in a Bill that is to a large extent concerned with speeding up the planning process, the Government may not be inclined to accept the amendment. That is why we have left it to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to go down that line. I hope that that meets any concerns that the Government have on the matter, and that Members of the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord, as I do not think that there is much between us on the matter. It might help if I explain what will

1221
happen with the report of the person holding the examination and any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the draft revision of a regional spatial strategy prepared by the regional planning board.
People and bodies that make representations on the regional planning board's draft revision are likely to propose a wide variety of changes. The examination will consider the most important issues raised. Clause 8(2) requires the Secretary of State to consider not only the report of the person appointed but also those representations that that person has not considered. In practice, the Secretary of State will need to consider all representations in order to be able to reach an informed decision on the recommendations of the panel report. So his proposed changes will be influenced by more than just the recommendations in the report.
The report of the examination will certainly be published. Draft regulations under Part 1—draft Regulation 13—require the Secretary of State and the regional planning body to make available the report of the panel at the same time as the Secretary of State's proposed changes to the draft revision are published. We would expect publication of the proposed changes to be two to three months after the end of the examination. I have already undertaken that we will change our approach in regulations so that the report itself will be published as soon as possible.
Clause 8(3) requires the Secretary of State to publish his proposed changes and reasons. Under the proposed regulations, the Secretary of State and the regional planning body are required to publish an explanation of the changes made. Draft planning policy statement 11—I draw the Committee's attention to annexe C, paragraph 51—makes it clear that the Secretary of State should also explain decisions not to make any substantive changes recommended by the panel. The regulations do not include a requirement to publish an explanation for every change proposed by the panel that has not been made, simply because that would be impractical. It would be unduly time-consuming for the Secretary of State to justify every small grammatical change that he decided not to follow.
The Secretary of State will also send his proposed changes and reasons to statutory consultees and others who made representations on the regional planning body's draft revision. The regulations also provide for comments to be made on the Secretary of State's proposed changes. Following the consultation on the proposed changes, the Secretary of State will issue the final revision of' the regional spatial strategy.
The approach that we have adopted throughout Parts 1 and 2 is that for the more significant, substantive powers of the Secretary of State it is right to place in the Bill a duty to give reasons. So, for example, when the Secretary of State proposes any changes to a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, he must, under Clause 8(3), give his reasons. That is important because the final published version will form part of the development plan.
1222
In our view, given the significant, substantive nature of those powers, it is appropriate for the giving of reasons to be required in the Bill. We think that a requirement in the Bill for changes that are not to be made is a step too far. As a matter of policy, the Government give reasons for decisions, and that policy will apply here. In addition, if anyone is aggrieved by the policies in a regional spatial strategy revision, or the reasons given with respect to that revision, he can challenge the validity of the revision under Clause 109.
The Bill, regulations and draft planning policy statement 11 on regional planning provide robust and transparent arrangements for the process. We do not agree that the Bill should require the Secretary of State to publish, with reasons, changes that he determines should not be made. It should already be clear why Amendment No.72 is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No.73 would provide a further examination in public to consider representations about the Secretary of State's proposed changes. Most of the changes that the Secretary of State will propose will flow from the appointed person's report. The presumption is that the Secretary of State will amend the draft regional spatial strategy revision in accordance with that report, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. Other, more minor changes may arise from representations not considered in the report. If the changes arise from the report, the issue will already have been considered at the examination.
Therefore, representations on proposed changes will normally be in relation to matters already considered at the examination and, therefore, will not need a further examination. Or, if they arise in relation to the other, more minor changes, the representations themselves are likely to be of a more minor nature riot warranting an examination.
A further examination into the same proposed changes may not be the most sensible way to proceed in the unlikely event that a major new issue arises after the Secretary of State's proposed changes have been published. An example might be the emergence or a radically different regional economic strategy produced by the regional development agency. If that happens, the Secretary of State will need to consider whether a further round of consultation can accommodate that or whether the change is so fundamental that a new draft revision needs to be produced by the regional planning body. If it is the latter, Clause 8(7) provides for the Secretary of State to withdraw the draft revision. The regional planning body would be able to consider its proposals in the light of the new information and prepare a new draft revision, which could then undergo the examination process afresh.
If the intention behind the amendment is to clarify that the Secretary of State could hold a further examination in public, that is not how we envisage the process working—I hope that I have explained that. Amendment No.73 is unnecessary. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.

1223
I wish to make it abundantly clear that the presumption is that we will give reasons. We are conscious of the need to avoid the appearance that decisions by the Secretary of State have been made on a whim or hunch because no reasons have been given. It is axiomatic that we must give reasons at virtually every step. I cannot envisage circumstances, other than the minor grammatical issues that I raised, where the Secretary of State would not, and should not, give reasons for his decisions.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive reply. We will have to look at it in detail. It answers quite a few of the points contained in my amendments. We may still wish to see some of our amendments made to the Bill, but I shall study the Minister's replies.
The idea of giving the Secretary of State power to hold a second examination without going through the RSS process was suggested to us as desirable by outside legal representatives in the planning sector. In that regard, we are trying to help the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that we may have a Conservative Secretary of State, who may have to implement some of the Bill. I will reconsider the matter and read in Hansard what the Minister has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.73 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.74:
Page 5, line 16, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: The amendment looks like a minor change to the Bill; in fact, it encapsulates some of the reasons why so many of us are so opposed to the legislation. In a nutshell, the issue is: who owns the regional spatial strategy? Clause 1 makes it clear that the policy in the strategy is the Secretary of State's. The provision implies that the document itself is the Secretary of State's; that cannot be the case. Regional spatial strategies are developed and prepared by regional planning bodies. The strategy is owned by them, not the Secretary of State. How can the Secretary of State withdraw a document that is not his to withdraw? The whole tone of the clause, and subsection (7) in particular, is of central control. With all its talk of the importance of regional government, it is strange that central government continues to operate in such a highly centralised manner. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: When I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, I put a very large tick against it. That is an indication of my wholehearted support for the noble Lord.
Lord Rooker: I would say that those views arise from the same misapprehension about the drafting of the Bill. The amendment is very unhelpful, for reasons that
1224
I shall explain. There seems to be a natural born suspicion about my Secretary of State that is wholly unjustified. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to withdraw a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy at any time before he publishes the final version. I must make it absolutely clear that Clause 8(7) is not about enabling the Secretary of State to toss aside a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy on a whim. It cannot happen. I know it is written that people may have that natural suspicion, but it would not be allowed to happen. The purpose of Clause 8(7) is to prevent the revision process grinding on when circumstances have changed so fundamentally that it needs to go back several stages.
For exactly the same reasons, Clause 5(7) gives similar powers to allow the regional planning body to withdraw a draft revision at any stage before it submits it to the Secretary of State. A draft revision of the regional spatial strategy may be prepared, representations made, an examination in public held on the basis of certain assumptions and then before the final strategy is published, important changes may occur. Examples of such changes include a significant change to a regional economic strategy or the publication of a major new policy on waste. Rather than trying to pick those up in future revisions or making later alterations through the proposed changes process, the most sensible approach may be to rethink the existing draft revision, give the public another chance to make representations and subject the revised draft to another examination in public. That seems wholly reasonable. When one reads subsection (7) in line with all the other "nasty" provisions to which noble Lords have drawn attention, it looks as though the Secretary of State could operate on a whim. Government is not like that in my experience. I know that I am young compared to some. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, was in government for many years—I have not clocked up seven years yet. Government cannot operate on a whim. You might want to drive some policy through on your own hunches, experiences and qualifications. That is a different issue. Operating on a whim, or a hunch, without reasonable cause does not happen. The machine is there to stop it happening. At the end of the day, there is always recourse to judicial review, if it looks as though the Secretary of State is acting unreasonably, has not given reasons, gone behind closed doors, it simply cannot happen.
In the circumstances that I have given as to how or why this clause might operate, I challenge any noble Lord to say that the examples that I have given would not justify calling a halt to the process, going back a few stages, and re-examining it. That would be the sensible thing to do. Any government would be strongly advised to do that, and I am sure that any government would accept such advice. It would be sensible to take that advice, rather than tinkering around with late alterations without giving the public another chance to have a consultation and another examination in public. That is why it is there, and that is why the amendment is extremely unhelpful.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister has made a splendid argument for the integration that we have been discussing on other amendments. I cannot resist asking him whether he can think of the person who he would least like to be Secretary of State, either in his experience in opposition, or some time in the future, and would he still give the same answer?
Lord Avebury: The Minister referred back to Clause 5(7), where the RPB is given power to withdraw a draft provision before it sends off this document to the Secretary of State. Is it the intention that up until the point when the RPB has submitted the document to the Secretary of State, the power should exclusively rest in the hands of the RPB, and that the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 8(7) should be exercisable only after the document has been presented to him? In other words, could he not intervene at an earlier stage, when the RPB still has the opportunity of withdrawing the document?
In the example that he has given, where there is a substantial change in the strategy for dealing with waste, one can understand that that would require looking again at the provisions in the RSS that apply to waste. Is it necessary for the whole document to be withdrawn? Why could the Bill not be drafted in such a form as to allow the publication of the document as a whole, even if one section of it, which deals with an issue that has changed radically—as the noble Lord explained—has been referred back. If we are to go round the course again, it should be confined to the one issue that has caused the Secretary of State to be minded to withdraw the document.
Lord Rooker: I am really surprised by that question from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If his position is that there would be an opportunity to revisit—let us say for waste—the whole regional spatial strategy, but he does not want that to happen, I am surprised. I do not know if it is as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, envisages, although the way my notes are, and the way I read the Bill, the draft strategy would he withdrawn. It could he that the examination in public would be made subject to one part of the policy; that is, the reason why it had been withdrawn.
Clause 8(7) is there to stop the process grinding on in circumstances that have changed fundamentally. In some ways, if there has been a fundamental change in the national policy, the regional planning body would probably be the first to say, "Hang on a minute, we have not done this yet; it makes sense, we have just done this". If for some reason it chooses not to do that, and it is of such importance, then Clause 8(7) is a back up. It could be done only in those circumstances. I would assume that it would be put back to examination in public to deal with the reasons why it had been withdrawn.
It would be unwise of a campaigning person or organisation to curtail themselves, when they can have a second go at it. I am not offering hostages to fortune, but I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would want to curtail it. Why would he want to curtail the opportunity to have a second chance to look at
1226
something that might be thought contentious? Obviously, if someone agrees with the strategy and does not want other people to have the opportunity, the boot is on the other foot. That is the difficulty.
The kinds of reasons for which the provision would be used are as I have given. It would be used to stop the process grinding on when a change had occurred that was so fundamental that we should stop, have a look at it again and maybe go back one or two more stages, rather than trying to stick in a late addition or wait for the next revision, which might not, in the circumstances, be appropriate, as it could be some time away.
Lord Avebury: I was not trying to limit the opportunities that interested parties had for representation. I was postulating a situation in which everybody in the region had agreed on everything that went into the RSS, with the one exception that the noble Lord gave as an example—a totally new national strategy for waste that made what was in the existing RSS inappropriate and needful of change. Why should there be a postponement of the publication of the RSS, which, in all other respects, is acceptable to everybody in the region?
Lord Rooker: It would not be the original spatial strategy; it would be incomplete.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that exchange of views and those answers. I was intrigued and pleased to hear him admit that there are nasty bits in the Bill. Those were his very words in the debate on the amendments.
We hear the Minister's answer. Much of it was what we wanted to hear. Still, we would like to see some of it in the Bill. I hope that the Government can still reconsider some of the centralising themes in the Bill. One can accept the answers that they give, so, perhaps, the Bill ought not to appear to be such a centralising Bill.
We will read carefully in Hansard what has been said and decide whether we want to take the issues further at the next stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Secretary of State: additional powers]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 5, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
The noble Lord said: The amendment would clarify the role of regional planning guidance after the commencement of the provisions in Part 1. Although, as previous amendments have shown, we oppose the process, we can follow the logic of the provision in Clause 1 with regard to the adoption of parts of the regional planning guidance as the regional planning strategy.
We are not clear about the process that is described. Am I right in thinking that, if some piece of process with regard to regional planning guidance has been

1227
gone through and that piece of process corresponds to something that needs to be done with regard to a regional spatial strategy, the Secretary of State can, by order, provide for that part of the regional planning guidance to have effect as a revision of the regional spatial strategy? Is that what the provisions mean? If it is, we are concerned on two counts.
First, what is the status of the regional planning guidance, once the regional spatial strategy is in place? The provisions relate to the revision of the regional spatial strategy. That means that they come into effect only once a regional spatial strategy exists. One would have thought that, once the regional spatial strategy existed, the regional planning guidance would cease to have any standing, unless the Government plan on updating regional planning guidance, even after we have regional spatial strategies. That would be an unwise and backward-looking step.
Secondly, why should going down this route make it safe for the Secretary of State to bypass the procedures in place for regional planning bodies, including examinations in public? If that is the effect of these provisions, we are very uncomfortable about agreeing to them. I shall be grateful for clarification on those points. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No.75 would delete the provisions from Clause 9 that allow the Secretary of State to make an order providing for any step towards the preparation of a draft revision of regional planning guidance to take effect as a step towards the preparation of a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy where he believes that the two steps correspond.
It is our contention that those provisions are essential if we are to have a smooth transition from the old arrangements to the new ones under the Bill. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord why that is. In every region outside London work is going on to revise all or part of the regional planning guidance. In some regions, such as the south-west, that work is at an early stage. In others, the revision is nearly complete. In the West Midlands, for example, the Secretary of State's proposed changes to the draft revision of the regional planning guidance have been published. The final document is due to be published this summer.
The amendment would mean that where a final regional planning guidance had not been published prior to Royal Assent, the whole revision process would need to begin from scratch. So, in the case of the West Midlands, there would need to be another process of consulting stakeholders as the draft revision was developed, another draft revision document, another consultation on the draft revision, another examination in public, another report from the independent panel, another proposed changes publication and another consultation on top: all on the same issues. We do not believe that that is a sensible use of time.
1228
Perhaps the noble Lord is concerned that any revision of the regional planning guidance under the old arrangements will have failed sufficiently to involve the community or, perhaps, to have undergone sufficiently rigorous testing. On the latter point, I reassure the noble Lord that the procedures of the revision of a regional planning guidance, although on a non-statutory basis, are very similar to those that we are proposing for regional spatial strategy revisions under the Bill.
Strengthening community involvement, particularly at the front end of the plan-making process is one of our key aims. Perhaps the noble Lord should not conclude from that that communities have been excluded up to this point. That would be quite wrong. There are good examples of involvement prior to the publication of the draft revision of regional planning guidance and consulting on the draft has become standard practice, as I am sure that the noble Lord would agree. We need to do more, but for communities to find that their earlier involvement had been wasted and that they had to go through the whole procedure again—I think that the noble Lord would agree—probably would be a very undesirable outcome for them, and perhaps they would disengage, which would be very unfortunate.
In short, these are sensible, pragmatic provisions that will mean that good work will not go to waste. To prevent the conversion of stages undertaken in the regional planning guidance revision process to stages in the regional spatial strategy process would mean a delay in getting up to date regional spatial strategies in place. Our contention is that that would help no one. Having heard that explanation, and having understood our intent and the reasons for it, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: If I understood the Minister right, he is saying that these provisions in subsections (7) and (8) apply only at the stage when the Act comes into force. There are steps that already have been taken in connection with the preparation of the RPG which would continue until the process has been completed and the RSS for that region is published. But thereafter the process is taken over by the earlier clauses that deal with revisions of the RSS. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has in the back of his mind that somehow these provisions continue in operation after the first revision of the RSS. Of course, it would be entirely inappropriate that the two issues should continue in parallel.
My suggestion is that after the initial words, "Subsection (8) applies if", the words,
"at the time that this Act comes into force",
be inserted. That would make it clear that these two provisions are not for permanent application but for only the transitional situation that occurs immediately after the Act comes into force.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is right that the arrangements are transitional. I argued that

1229
point earlier. I shall reflect on the words he suggests—I am not going to say "yea" or "nay" now—but I think that we have the situation covered without them.
Lord Hanningfield: That last exchange was very sensible. The Minister had explained the arrangements as transitional to my hearing. If the Government could reconsider the way in which they present them there might be a way forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.76 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Regulations]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 6, line 8, leave out "by regulations make provision" and insert "give guidance"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No.78. The amendments suggest that the provisions that are to go into regulations under Clause 10 should instead be the subject of guidance; a less prescriptive and heavy-handed approach. For example, Clause 10(2)(j) refers to,
"monitoring the exercise by RPBs of their functions".
Is it really necessary to have regulations about monitoring what the Secretary of State's own designees are going to do? That seems as over the top as many of the other prescriptive provisions that we have discussed. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, prefers guidance to regulations. She will no doubt be aware that we have recently finished a consultation on the draft planning policy statement 11, which provides guidance on all aspects of the new regional planning process. It will be published in its final form once we have taken into consideration all the consultation responses and the Bill has received Royal Assent. It will be out well before commencement of the parts of the future Act, so that everyone involved in regional planning will have a first point of reference for what they should do and when.
But there is a place for regulations. There are matters that are too detailed to clutter up the Bill or which may change over time, but for which we need statutory provision to make absolutely sure that they are adhered to. The approach we have taken here, as the noble Baroness is aware, has a long history. The draft regulations, like policy planning statement 11, have been out for public consultation for three months. We are not doing anything by stealth. I will remind the Committee of the issues covered by the regulations: who the regional planning body must consult before the submission of the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to the Secretary of State; and, once it has been published, who the Secretary of State must consult on his proposed changes; the documents that the regional planning board must submit to the Secretary of State along with the draft revision; the period for making representations on the
1230
draft revision and the proposed changes; the publicity requirements for the various stages of the revision process; the requirements for making documents available; the criteria for the recognition of a body as a regional planning body; the minimum requirements for the content of an annual monitoring report and a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy; and further matters to which the regional planning board must have regard when preparing a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy.
The list is not exhaustive and I know that it does not cover subsection (2)(j) which has upset the noble Baroness—
"monitoring the exercise by RPBs of their functions under this Part—
and which is equally important. However, we think that regulations and not guidance are the right place for these provisions. They are not suitable to put on the face of the Bill, but there are certain matters on which we need the guarantee of performance that a statutory requirement brings. There would be no equivocation: Parliament has approved this and Parliament requires it to happen. I do not apologise for that because we have a range of weapons in the armoury ranging from the Bill to regulations and guidance. So far a substantive case has not been made for shifting a provision from one area to another.
There is a role for regulations and a role for guidance. It is our view that the subject matter set out in Clause 10 is more suitable for regulations made under Parliament's statutory processes than it would be for guidance. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I agree with one point made by the Minister: I certainly do not suggest that there has been any stealthiness here. It did not enter my mind. I believe that we face a big philosophical difference here, but it is one which has been rehearsed fairly thoroughly. We should move on because we are almost at the end of Part 1. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.78 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supplementary]:
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.79:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert "or area of outstanding natural beauty"
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier and I do not intend to move it now. However, the Government Front Bench may be interested to know that I intend to bring forward for discussion a fresh amendment on this subject to meet some of the evident misunderstandings the noble Lord has about my intentions.
[Amendment No.79 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.80:
Page 6, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I am reaching the end of my group of amendments, so I shall be able to have a rest.
This is a technical amendment and I shall not detain the Committee for long. The first reason why I tabled the amendment is because I understand that it is unusual to define the Secretary of State in this way in legislation. Secondly, why is no mention made of the regions in the definition of the Secretary of State?
Clause 11(4) defines the Secretary of State as:
"The Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for the time being having general responsibility for policy in relation to the development and use of land".
The present Secretary of State also happens to have responsibility for the regions, but what if that situation were to change? It is far from obvious that the relevant Secretary of State should be the one who is in charge of the general policy on planning rather than the one responsible for the regions.
Part 1 of this Bill deals solely with regional spatial strategies; that is, it deals with land use planning, housing and infrastructure for particular regions. It does not deal with general planning policy. Those provisions come later in the Bill, on compulsory purchase, major infrastructure projects or simplified planning zones. Surely there is a good argument for putting regional spatial strategies firmly in the orbit of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in charge of the regions.
Can the Minister tell us why the Government have chosen not to do that? Is the explanation simply that under the current circumstances it would make no difference and so we need not worry about it? Given that, why are not the regions added to the existing definition of responsibilities for the Secretary of State? Should we ever enter the brave new world of elected regional assemblies, we shall see considerable turf wars in Whitehall over who should lead on what. Is this an example of the planners in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister putting down a marker to say that planning shall remain with them whatever governance arrangements are on the ground? I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I sometimes think that the noble Lord opposite is a conspiracy theorist. He is looking around all the time to see exactly what is going on over his shoulder. I am sure that I am being uncharitable in making that observation.
Let me put the noble Lord's mind at ease. The amendment would reverse an amendment made in another place. When I have given my explanation I am confident that the noble Lord will find his way clear to withdrawing his amendment.
Clause 1(2) requires the regional spatial strategy to set out the Secretary of State's policies, however expressed, in relation to the development and use of land in the region. Clause 11(4) ensures that Clause 1(2) cannot be interpreted as requiring policies
1232
prepared by any other Secretary of State to be included in the regional spatial strategy if those policies relate to the development and use of land in the region.
It has always been the intention that the regional spatial strategy should set out the policies of the Secretary of State with general policy responsibility for planning and not, for example, the policies of the Secretaries of State for Health, Education, Social Security and so on that relate to but are not primarily about land use. Clause 11(4) ensures that there is no confusion.
If the regional spatial strategy had to contain all the policies of Secretaries of State in all departments that related to the development and use of land in the region, preparing it would become something of an impossibility. Without Clause 11(4) there could also be confusion about what was the regional spatial strategy and whether or not policies with a spatial impact issued by other Secretaries of State constituted part of it.
But Clause 11(4) does not in any way prevent the regional spatial strategy setting out policies that look beyond the development of land in a narrow sense or impact on much wider areas of policy. Indeed, making the regional spatial strategy into a truly spatial document that integrates policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function is central to our objectives.
I hope that having heard that explanation the noble Lord is happier and does not now see the conspiracy that I was beginning to believe he was conjuring up.
Lord Hanningfield: I am a little happier. I am not sure that the noble Lord's response will lead to joined-up government. I shall read his answer in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
"LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

(1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as their local development plan ("the plan") which will contain a number of local development documents ("the documents"), each of which will cover a different subject matter as specified in the plan.

(2) The plan must specify—

(a)(the documents;

(b)the subject matter and geographical area to which each of the documents is to relate;

(c)which documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it;

(d)any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28;

(e)such other matters as are prescribed.

1233

(3) When preparing the plan or the documents under subsections (1) and (2) above, the local planning authority must have regard to

(a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

(b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated if the area is outside Greater London;

(c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;

(d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;

(e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;

(f) the plan of any adjoining local planning authority together with any of its documents which may be relevant:

(g) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

(h) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

(i) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority;

(j) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the documents.

(4) The documents must include, inter alia—

(a) a statement of those matters in which the county council has a role;

(b) a document for each of the larger settlements as detailed in the plan;

(c) a document for any other settlement which may be designated in the plan;

(d) a document detailing the matters relating to the authority's policies on planning contributions and the provision of social housing;

(e) a document containing policies for areas where there are specific planning designations, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty and National Parks;

(f) a document detailing how land use, sustainability and economic regeneration are to be managed;

(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

(5) The local planning authority must—

(a) prepare the plan and the documents in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed;

(b) submit the plan and the documents to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs;

(c) at that time send a copy of the plan and the documents to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London;

(d) prepare, publish and have regard to a statement of community involvement when preparing the plan and the documents as negotiated by section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) (strategies for promoting well-being).

(6) The local planning authority may withdraw the plan or the documents at any time before submission to the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (5)(b).

(7) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the plan or the documents as he thinks appropriate.

(8) A direction under subsection (7) above must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.

1234

(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters—

(a) publicity about the plan and the documents;

(b) making the plan and the documents available for inspection by the public;

(c) requirements and timetable to be met for the purpose of bringing the plan and the documents into effect, which may not exceed six months.

(10) The local planning authority must revise their plan and documents—

(a) at such time as they consider appropriate, which may not be later than five years from the date the plan came into effect;

(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.

(11) Subsections (2) to (10) above apply to the revision of a plan or documents as they apply to the preparation of the plan or the documents.

(12) The local planning authority must submit their plan and documents in their entirety to the Secretary of State for independent examination at the times and in the manner laid down in subsections (5) and (10).

(13) But the authority must not submit such a plan or document unless—

(a)they have complied with any relevant requiremetus contained in regulations under this Part, and

(b) they are satisfied that they are ready for independent examination.

(14) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.

(15) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State to be known as "the Independent Inspector".

(16) The purpose of an independent examination is to determine in respect of the plan and documents—

(a) whether they satisfy the requirements in this section;

(b) whether they are sound in all material aspects;

(c)whether all or part of the plan and the documents need to be subject of the examination.

(17) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a plan or documents must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit a summary of his representations in writing to the Independent Inspector.

(18) The Independent Inspector must within three months unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State

(a) make recommendations;

(b) give reasons for the recommendations.

(19) The local planning authority must within one month publish the recommendations made under subsection (18) which must be either confirmed by the Secretary of State or modified and published with reasons within the prescribed period under subsection (9)(c).

(20) The local planning authority must comply with directions given by the Secretary of State under subsections (2), (4), (6), (7), (9), (10), (12), (14), (18) and (19)."

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No.81 is grouped with a number of associated amendments which would make the Bill much shorter if the Minister was inclined to accept them. They would delete Clauses 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 25.
The local plan-making provisions within the Bill are far too complicated. My new clause seeks to remedy this by simplifying the whole process and returning it to something more equivalent to the former unitary

1235
development plan, bringing all the documents together under one set of covers but reducing the time-scale that the unitary development plan used to occupy.
The Government have said over and over again that they wish to produce a simpler, fairer and more transparent planning system, but how they marry-up that with the realities of their proposals for local planning is beyond me. The array of local development schemes, local development documents, local development frameworks, local development plan documents, local proposal maps and local action plans are a long way from producing the simplified planning system the Government seek—especially given that each of these provisions will be subject to revision, community involvement by way of a statement of community involvement, appeals and an independent inspection.
The new clause proposes that the local plan should be made up of a number of local documents. The particular topics of these documents are highlighted in subsection(4) and appear spattered throughout other clauses.
Members of the Committee will note that the amendment recognises a statutory role for county councils, which we have discussed already today. We believe that the counties, with their wealth of knowledge in planning matters, should not be completely excluded from this process.
In the Bill the Secretary of State can, as he sees fit, direct the local planning authority to amend its local development plan. The Minister will be pleased to note that the new clause does not remove that power. However, under subsection (8) of the new clause the Secretary of State must give his reasons for doing so. Surprisingly, that provision is not contained within the Bill.
In view of the fact that by the time the Secretary of State receives the plan it has gone through the various local authority systems, there has been input through community involvement, and consultation by the regional planning body, surely it is reasonable and fair that at the end of all that he explains his decision to the local authority.
The new clause also provides for strict times in which various events should take place. The clause will reserve power for the Secretary of State to do that by regulation. These are arbitrary and can be revised at any time. One of the problems with the current planning system is that nobody forces local authorities to draw up their plans or revise them within a time-scale. If a more complicated system were brought in, I fear that the local plans might not be revised as often as was sensible. Under the new clause the local plan and its documents must be reviewed or revised within a five-year period.
This timetable should then provide that when the plan has gone to the Secretary of State for independent inspection, the inspector has three months in which to carry out his work. Unless he has a strict timetable, things will drift and not get done. We have had plenty of experience of that with reports from inspectors.
There must be a proper impetus for the inspector to provide his report within three months unless the Secretary of State has very strong reasons for saying that he may do otherwise. The local authority must then publish its response within one month. That would reduce the time-scale for all the plans very considerably. There is no reason why these time-scales should not be met. When the Secretary of State confirms the plan or modifies it, there is no reason why that should not be brought in within six months.
Subsection (6) allows the local planning authority to withdraw its documents at any time up to submission to the Secretary of State. However, the Bill allows all those documents to be withdrawn at any time up to their adoption. Therefore, under the Government's proposals, the documents can be put through independent inspection, consultation with neighbouring authorities and regional planning bodies and then days prior to the adoption they may be withdrawn. Surely, that is a dreadful waste of time and money.
This new clause represents a simpler approach to local plan-making. It considers the process as a whole and allows local planning authorities, businesses and individuals much clearer understanding about the system and how it works, and makes them much more likely to become involved in the process. Local plan-making would become far more complex with the provisions contained in the Bill and I fear that the system will drown under its complexity. If that were to happen then the Bill will have failed to achieve the Government's stated aim of promoting speed, transparency, community involvement and an easy-touse system. The effect will be that economic growth and all the other desirable outcomes of this Bill will suffer. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to say a few words about the presentation of the Government's new proposals. I am prepared to accept that they could make life simpler. However, as presented, they make life much more difficult. Outside this Chamber, I have used the example to the Minister of the difficulty in local planning authorities. In many cases, planning officers do not know that planning permissions can be for a length other than five years. If they labour under such misapprehension about a system that has been in force for some time, the difficulty that they—let alone the public—will have in getting to grips with this new system cannot be underestimated.
I use this opportunity to make a plea on the record that I have made to the Minister outside the Chamber. Work should go on to ensure that the explanation for every regulation, guide or code of practice is as straightforward as possible. As many of the documents as possible should be written by people who do not know or understand the technicalities of the process. They would then be forced to address them and explain them in straightforward language.
5 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I have just taken some advice and I feel a little cheated. For what is, let us face it, a substantial amendment that covers three or four pages

1237
of the Marshalled List, I have the most gigantic speaking note that one could imagine. My noble friend says, "Not any more you haven't". Bearing in mind that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, sat down after six minutes, I said to my noble friend, "Let's see if I can stop at a certain point in these notes to make the position clear". I have just been given approval to do that.
I was looking forward to this because Part 2 is a very important part of the Bill—there is a lot of good stuff to put on the record from the Government and it is all in plain English. I shall try to read it in plain English after what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said. On a more serious response to her latter point, I would say, "Absolutely. Yes". I cannot claim that all our documents will be subject to the Crystal Mark, but we do try to achieve that. We do our best to get them written in that way. Sometimes, legal terms have to be used, but as far as the leaflets and booklets explaining the planning process to the public are concerned, they will be written in plain English. I cannot say that for the guidance notes because they are necessarily written for inspectors and other professionals. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right because, if the public cannot understand a policy that we introduce, they will not benefit from it and it is an absolute waste of time. That is what puts people off the process.
The amendment is a fairly radical proposal to gut Clause 2 of the Bill and replace it with another way of doing things. I shall try to explain why our proposal is a clear way of proceeding. Amendment No.81 would insert a new clause to replace a substantial number of the provisions in Part 2. I am not complaining about the number of subsections because the amendment has obviously been put together as one clause. However, it substitutes a lengthy clause setting out how local planning authorities should prepare a "local development plan" containing a number of "local development documents".
The noble Baroness starts from the viewpoint that the system that we are putting in place is over complicated, which is what I have been told before. I reject that. It can be perceived to be over complicated, but it is not. The noble Baroness believes that attempting to cover local planning arrangements in a single clause will make the system better and easier to understand. She clearly believes that the arrangement in these amendments will lead to a better local planning system or she would not have made her speech. I understand that some of her colleagues made similar speeches in another place. I hope that I can persuade Members of the Committee to disagree.
Our new arrangements, while precise, are not too complicated. We genuinely believe that they will deliver simpler, clearer local planning which is faster. However, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, that is not the be all and end all. have already repeated the words "faster and fairer". If it is faster but not fairer that is not on. We need planning which is more flexible and with which the community can become more easily involved.
1238
Describing the component parts of the system in sufficient detail means that people can be certain about how it operates. Each element of the new system is there for a reason—to address the problems, and to contribute to the goals of our planning reforms. The amendments not only fail to address some of the problems; they would create some entirely new ones.
As regards the proposed system, we have set out a clear system for local planning which contains straightforward elements, linked in a clear way. We start from the proposition that all local development documents should be prepared with full community involvement, and that they should be programme managed in a transparent and open way. The initial documents that will form part of the development plan are called "development plan documents". People may perceive complications with regard to the terminology used to describe the ingredients and building blocks of various parts of the development plan. Those which are supplementary to the development plan, other local development documents, are called "supplementary planning documents". In our draft regulations we have called them "development plan documents" and "supplementary planning documents".
Development plan documents are those that need independent examination before they are adopted by the local planning authority. In order to allow flexibility in the new system and to meet the need for clear policies, development plan documents may take different forms. Regulations may prescribe which local development documents are the development plan documents so that there is clarity and precision about which document falls into which category.
Each authority is required to have a core strategy covering 10 or more years. There will be a proposals map showing which land is to be developed or conserved. Authorities may choose to have one or more area action plans showing in more detail what will happen in areas where there will be a lot of change or which are to be kept as they are. All these development plan documents will form the development plan along with the regional spatial strategy for the area which they are required to follow.
Planning authorities will be able to set out more details on their main policies or their policies on, let us say, accessibility or design. These elements will be known as supplementary planning documents. That is the second category to which I referred. Each planning authority will also have a statement of community involvement explaining how local people and other interested parties will be able to influence and express their views on plans for their area. And, to make sure that these elements are put in place within a reasonable time, each authority will prepare and stick to a project plan setting out what documents it will prepare and a timetable for their preparation. This will be known as the local development scheme. People will be able to follow the process of the scheme and the timetable.
We have some serious problems with the present system. That is why we seek a solution. We believe that our proposals ensure that local planning in future will

1239
not suffer from the serious problems that it has under the current system. No longer will plans take far too long to put into place. No longer will it be extremely difficult and time-consuming to update them. Having plans updated is one of the serious issues.
Plans will be required to set out a clear strategy for the area's future development, not merely a list of hundreds of policies which make it hard for anyone to see what development might happen where. No longer will preparing or altering a plan be such a mammoth endeavour that the residents and businesses find it too hard—or, as they see it, deliberately off-putting—to become involved and stay involved in the process. The noble Lord, Lord King, referred to that point.
These are new arrangements. As with all changes, it will take time for people to become familiar with them. I accept that people might say the changes are complicated, but they are new. I do not think most people find reading a Bill the best way to grasp a new system. When I became a Member of the other place, I had that romantic notion. My first Committee considered the abolition of the infamous Industrial Relations Act. We thought it was a one-clause Bill to abolish it; not on your life. It had one clause: "The Industrial Relations Act is hereby abolished". It then had dozens of new clauses. What for? To protect the unfair dismissal legislation that was the one good hit of the Industrial Relations Act, which we had abolished with our one clause. I thought, "Oh, is this the way it is done?". It was not clear and straightforward. We were told that a one-clause Bill would get rid of that Act, but it did not quite work out that way. So reading the Bill is, I suggest, not what people do to find out how best the system is going to operate and to get a grasp of what will happen.
Last autumn, we published consultation drafts of the key documents on local planning. These are the Part 2 regulations, transitional regulations, planning policy statement 12, local development frameworks and the policy statement on the new system. We published a guide to procedures and codes of practice; that is, a guide to help stakeholders and the ordinary person become involved in the new procedures. There was also a guide to creating local development frameworks, a "how to do it" guide for local authorities and others involved in preparing the new local development documents.
The comments were requested by 16 January, for which I apologise. Obviously I apologise because the Bill had already entered your Lordships' House and had had a Second Reading. A number of consultees said that they will be a few days late. We are happy to wait a few days for these, as we want to take all the comments into account. By the way, that is my experience over the past few years. When a consultation closes down, the great bulk of comments always comes in at the last minute. Generally speaking, even responses that come in after the deadline—in my experience, this is so in more than one department—have always been taken into consideration, up to the point where one is making
1240
one's final decision. We are happy to wait a few more days for these comments, as we want to take them into account.
We will amend the drafts as appropriate, and publish them in an accessible style to assist all those working in, and involved with, local planning. Copies will also be on our website and will be available through the planning portal. The planners will know all about that, so I shall not explain it for the non-planners. We aim to have these out as soon as possible, to give everyone a chance to gear up for the new system.
We are also preparing guidance on sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment and guidance on monitoring and indicators. The Planning Officers Society, with support from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is preparing guidance for local planning authorities on what spatial planning policies could look like. All this new guidance will be published in draft in the next few months.
It is clear that these reforms are a bigger step-change than many in local authorities and elsewhere realised. It is a question not of putting new labels on existing plans—far from it—but of preparing new-style documents. It involves making decisions early, front-loading the system, and involving the community properly. Therefore, it is not surprising that some people have initially said that they find the new arrangements confusing. However, once authorities embark on them, they will become much easier to manage, as not everything has to be done at once. When one has the burdens of life, whatever they may be, if one can sit down and say, "Well I do not have to do it all at once", then one can make a plan to work it through. The strategic approach can set the context for the detailed, and there will be no incentive for anyone to defer decisions to the end of the process, which causes unwelcome surprises and has led to lengthy inquiries and delays before plans are adopted.
We will continue to work with the government offices, local authorities and stakeholders to prepare everyone for the commencement of the new system. We have already held training sessions with all Government Offices on the basics of the new system, and have held seminars for local authorities and others in every region to fill in the details of the new system, answer queries and encourage a full response to the consultation to which I referred.
Larger conferences have been held to roll out the key messages on planning reform at four regional venues in co-operation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association and the British Urban Regeneration Association. Ministers or officials have spoken at a number of conferences.
As soon as the provisions have reached the statute book, our officials will work with Government Offices to provide training to authorities to help them make rapid progress in starting on the preparation of their local development frameworks. As the year unfolds,

1241
the culture change agenda will focus on supply-side issues, promoting the training of planners and the users of the planning system.
I should add that, during that period, loads more money will be rolling out from central Government to local government by way of the planning delivery grant. As I have repeatedly said, this Bill is not the be all and end all. In the previous spending review we secured £350 million in extra new money resources for a host of ways of improving the planning system and raising the esteem of planners, for training, and for providing a faster response rate to planning applications. So we are not leaving it simply to legislative changes. More resources are going into planning. That £350 million has not been robbed from elsewhere but is brand new money. We will aim to ensure planners have the attitudes, skills and resources they need to practise spatial planning effectively.
That is as brief an overview as I can give. There is a chronology to it. We have titles for different sets of documents, some of which are probably subject to inquiry; I have delineated the ones that are not. Although the Bill looks incredibly confusing and complicated, outside the House, as I have just explained, we are operating on a wide front, with seminars and consultation, in order to gear up the industry for the changes, to ensure that the documents we produce are in a readable form for the public, and to ensure that consultation is at the heart of the process.
I genuinely think that that is a fair summary. The new system is clear and need not be overcomplicated. Some aspects of the system and some of the terminology are new, but I am absolutely certain that time will cure that. As soon as the public—the important people, our fellow citizens—and developers wanting to develop and those who wish to stop or adjust development plans become more involved and experienced with the new system, they will see the benefits of that system. They will say, "It was not anywhere near as complicated as we thought it would be. Thank you for giving us such a clear, precise and fairer system".
Baroness Hanham: I now know why the Government are interested in providing top-up fees for university students. There will have to be a university course on how to deal with the plethora—
Lord Rooker: There are planning courses.
Baroness Hanham: I am sure that there are plenty of those. Those have already started. People will have to be encouraged to go on them.
Whatever this system is, it is not going to be simple. While my amendment seeks to simplify all the clauses and to some extent to simplify the explanation of what these new local development plans are going to be and how they are going to be formed, I am bound to say that the Minister's explanation has left me almost more confused than I was before I started. I do not think that this is going to be simple, and I do not think that the community is going to find this simple.
1242
Community involvement is probably one of the most important aspects in the development of local plans. However, only a finite number of local residents or organisations will ever become involved. With all this structure, I think that we are going to drive them into the ground.
Many things remain unclear. One of the things that I tried to do with this amendment, which, as the Minister said, was discussed in the other place, was to set a defined timetable. As I understand it, the project, plan or scheme will have a time-scale but each local authority will be able to work to its own time-scale and that will not be affected by any strictures as to how long the process should take, when it should be reviewed, when it should go to inquiry or appeal or how long the inspector will have to deal with the matter. A great number of plans will need to go to the inspectors. Public inquiries will have to be held, and the danger is that this will stretch on for nearly as long as the other schemes, which we all admit have been time-consuming and complicated.
We will probably need to return to this matter in different ways.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The Minister mentioned training sessions and seminars that are being held up and down the country, of which I think your Lordships had no knowledge. He also mentioned the planning portal through which, according to him, it is possible to access all the documents that he mentioned, with an explanation of their meaning. Having looked at the website for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I can tell him that it is not quite as easy to navigate as that. However, it would be helpful if the notes and "Powerpoint" presentations used in the training sessions and the seminars that he mentioned could be made available to the public, if necessary through the ODPM website.
Baroness Hanham: Some time ago, I asked the Minister how the expenditure had been authorised for all the training that was taking place in connection with a Bill that was not yet law. Clearly, there has been rather more than the small amount of training that the Minister described in his reply to me as having taken place. There have been vast amounts of expenditure on this Bill already, before it has received parliamentary scrutiny. I question whether that is authorised expenditure.
There will also have to be training on the guidance notes, because of the amount of procedure and the amount of guidance that will have to be given on it. If the documents that we have seen in connection with PPS 11 are anything to go by, everybody is going to be buried under wodges of paper. This system is not simple in any terms. The fact that it is going to require an enormous amount of training demonstrates that, as does the fact that it will require so many guidance documents.
Lord Rooker: If anybody is making any allegations that we have been improperly spending money, they

1243
had better make them clear so that I can go away and get them checked. This Bill had a Second Reading in the other place more than 12 months ago, before being recommitted—the first Bill ever to be carried over according to the process that both Houses agreed to. Training sessions have been held in government offices for civil servants in order to explain how the process that they will have to operate will change, once Parliament has agreed it. As I outlined in my speech, it was decided that in some cases such matters would be dealt with once the Bill had received Royal Assent. I can assure Members of the Committee that there has been no expenditure on the Bill outwith that properly spent, otherwise the accounting officer would not have allowed it.
If we had not acted in such a way, I know what would happen—I would be subjected to criticism that we had not planned to implement properly. However, we have been operating a process and the Bill has received a Second Reading. Once a Bill has received a Second Reading, following a Green Paper consultation, certain levels of expenditure are allowed for training and implementation. That is the normal process of bringing legislation to the statute book.
Baroness Hanham: I asked the Minister a question and I have the reply, for which I thank him. I shall almost certainly return to the whole question of local development documents at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Survey of area]:
Lord Rogers of Riverside Lord Rogers of Riverside moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 7, line 10. at end insert—
"( ) the achievement of sustainable development;"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos.83, 113, 114, 116 and 117B. I declare an interest as chair of Richard Rogers Architects.
As I said at Second Reading, the Bill, although long on structure, is short on aspiration. Our planning system lacks a sense of purpose and has therefore failed us in many ways. The Bill represents an ideal opportunity to create a new system based on two linked principles; namely, sustainability and design quality. The amendments seek to achieve precisely that. I welcome the Minister's comments on Tuesday, when he said that the Government were interested only in sustainable development and wanted to redevelop the cities to make them living bodies. That is absolutely right, and I welcome the Government's decision to include a duty to have regard to sustainable development in Clause 38.
At Second Reading, my noble friend described the debate within his department about whether the clause should be included. I urge him to stick with it. Sustainability should be at the heart of our planning system.
Definition is difficult, and various amendments have attempted to put some flesh on the bones of Clause 38. There is the classic Brundtland definition of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. My definition would include developing compact live-work cities that are well connected and designed, together with measures to combat social exclusion. Sustainable development should be about the minimising of resources, reducing waste and cutting both energy and material inputs through stronger building regulations. People should be encouraged to walk, cycle or use public transport wherever possible.
Sustainability must be about considering all brownfield possibilities before encroaching on the countryside. We should contain future developments within existing settlements wherever possible. We should rebuild the empty quarters of our cities to bring vitality and security before expanding into the countryside. To give a large-scale example, the proposed greenfield expansion around Milton Keynes threatens the vitality of Birmingham some 45 minutes away, where there is a great deal of usable brownfield land. On a smaller scale, peripheral expansion threatens many town centres. We must not miss the opportunities to strengthen the empty quarters of our cities. Fiscal measures can make brownfield development much more attractive to developers. At Second Reading, I mentioned harmonising VAT on all construction, and measures to either subsidise brownfield or tax greenfield development.
I have come to accept that a definition in the Bill may not be possible or desirable. Primary legislation may be too inflexible to lock in what the Minister said was a developing concept. Instead of attempting a definition here, I urge the Government to consult widely and quickly, to bring forward clear and robust guidance on how planners should undertake their duty.
I turn to Amendment No.113, which accompanies and mirrors Clause 38. Like all the amendments to which I shall speak, it is strongly supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects. Its purpose is to put design quality at the heart of the planning process, along with sustainability.
As I said on Second Reading, design is about giving order and beauty to space, while taking into account social and environmental imperatives. It is about buildings and the spaces between them—the public space that brings vitality to our towns and neighbourhoods. Without it, there can be no urban renaissance. We need only consider the Georgian terrace on a tree-lined avenue to see how design adds value in terms of both economic and environmental sustainability. Design is the crux of what planning should be about, yet design is not mentioned once in the Bill.
Amendment No.113 aims to create a step change in the consideration of design in the planning process by giving planners a duty to exercise their functions with a view to contributing to the achievement of high-quality design in the built environment. I hope that we

1245
can raise standards in many planning authorities, where lack of design awareness and skills is woefully apparent. Planners need proper support in the form of good guidance and resources. Although the Government may say that planners already have power to reject poor planning applications on design grounds, many remain too timid to do so.
A clear, statutory duty to consider high-quality design ought to give them greater confidence to raise the quality of the built environment. As with Clause 38, no attempt has been made to define high-quality design in the built environment. Writing that into the Bill would be too inflexible, but I urge the Government to prescribe good, robust guidance outlining how design quality can best be achieved. That could be done in forthcoming planning policy statement 1 or by a dedicated statement on planning and design, while the Government could commission guidance to planning authorities from their Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. CABE has quickly established a fantastic reputation for encouraging arid enabling good design, especially in the public sector.
However, I register one note of concern. When my noble friend trailed the forthcoming PPS1 on Second Reading, he said that it would set out four objectives: sustainable development and economic development; social inclusion; protection of the environment; and prudent use of resources. But where is design? It was included in PPG 1, which PPS 1 will replace. I should be grateful for my noble friend's reassurance that that is not a deliberate omission.
Amendment No.114 is intended to tackle widespread abuse of the planning system. The existing outline planning permission system entirely fails to take design into account. It is merely about zoning. It is a rough-shod foot in the door that can be very difficult to shift. Developers can use it to red line areas and establish values, while at the same time stripping planning authorities of their ability to scrutinise the quality of developments.
That is hardly consistent with the fairer, more transparent planning system that Ministers rightly hope to establish. For local communities, outline planning permission can be used to impose a development that, when built, bears little resemblance to outline planning. Such abuse is common, and it is unsurprising when local people become conditioned to treating planning applications with suspicion. In such a climate, it is no surprise when the cry goes up, "Not in my back yard!"
Ministers have suggested that outline planning permission will remain in place. The amendment would require. applications for outline planning permission to be accompanied by a statement of design principles. That would fix the urban design framework through details such as massing, layout, density, height, mix of uses, landscape and public space. It would give planners and local communities an idea of what they can expect. It would help inform local debate and take much of the venom out of many applications.
Secondary legislation or government guidance could fix the detailed requirements of design statements. I should add that they are not a new idea; a number of architects already produce them as a matter of course. The amendment simply seeks to enrich best practice to create a fairer. more transparent system.
Amendment No.114 builds upon Amendment No.116. Where outline permission is granted and is current, it requires that a full planning application be accompanied by a statement of design principles. Planners could therefore compare that statement with the one submitted at outline stage. That would enable differences to become transparent and would discourage developers from watering down aspects of their proposal.
Amendment No.117B goes further: it would raise the degree of consideration to be given to any approved design or drawing submitted at the outline stage. Trophy architecture, as it is called, where cynical developers use a big architectural name to secure outline permission before going ahead with an inferior scheme later, gives to architecture and planning alike a bad name.
The amendments are intended to be entirely constructive. They seek to deliver purpose, design and sustainability, and to enhance transparency and fairness. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, has said most of what I wanted to say, and he did so very well. In any case, most of my interest today is in listening to the Minister—I suspect that the reason that so many people have come here today is the sheer pleasure of listening to him.
I find design enormously important in my enjoyment and appreciation of the built environment. which, in one way or another, is where I spend most of my life. Architects, when they do well, can create extraordinary experiences and make places very pleasant to live in. Many bits of London bear testament to that, as do others to the opposite. Design is an important consideration, particularly when trying to rebuild and revive cities. Cities do not work easily in unplanned mode; there is too much to get right to develop in an unplanned way. Design is immensely important to the enjoyment, safety and quality of life of people living in cities. It should be a central consideration of everyone involved in planning.
Some of the other amendments in this group relate to honesty. People care about having an input to the planning system and knowing that the plans that they are looking at represent what will be there at the end of the day, or that any differences will be explained to them. It seems profoundly unsatisfactory to have a system that allows outline planning permission to be given to something that looks nice, easy and liveable with but that somehow drips away before final planning permission is granted, without anyone having had a chance to look at it. The amendments in

1247
this group are aimed at producing a one-way system. Doubtless, we will discuss outline planning permission generally later in the Bill. So much must now be done under the environmental regulations to acquire outline planning permission, so it is not asking a lot of developers to add in what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, said was already good practice.
The statements of design principle are short and easy for members of the public to understand. They give an ordinary member of the public a feel for what a development will be like. I have not seen many of them, but I find them immensely helpful. I imagine that they are just the thing that people would want to see to give them comfort before they say, "Yes, we can live with this". If people do that, they must be sure that those documents will be properly regarded by the planning authorities and can be relied on to get into the final scheme more or less in the form that they appear in outline.
I am very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, in his amendment and to propose mine in this group. As I said, for the most part, I am interested in listening to the Minister. I do not put any particular weight behind the drafting or positioning of any of my amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: I support Amendments Nos.113, 114, 116, 117B, in the names of my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I declare an interest as the chairman of the RIBA Trust.
These are constructive amendments. Striving to achieve high-quality design should be central to a civilised planning system. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the importance of design in the built environment. Most of us spend a great deal of our time in the built environment, and it affects us all. I am sure that the Minister will also agree with that.
Until last year, I was the Minister of State responsible for architecture at the DCMS. I was the sponsoring Minister for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Since it was set up, CABE has worked hard, and with some success, to champion architecture and high-quality design in the built environment. Its existing remit has limited its role in championing better design largely to the public sector, where it has worked with a number of departments and agencies on a wide range of schemes from schools and hospitals through to the design of court buildings. Nevertheless, a design review function has also enabled it to make valuable contributions to planning decisions on a number of large-scale private developments.
I welcome the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside that CABE could be commissioned by the Government to develop guidance on what a statutory role to contribute to the achievement of good design in the built environment should mean. They have already issued useful guidance to the public sector through the
1248
Government's "Better Public Buildings" programme and through publications such as Better Civic Buildings and Spaces.
CABE understands that high-quality design is about much more than just individual buildings. As my noble friend said, it is as much about the spaces between the buildings as the buildings themselves. Careful planning requires a holistic and a well-considered approach. I am pretty convinced that CABE can provide valuable help to those planning authorities that perhaps lack some of the necessary expertise and need good guidance.
There is no doubt that developing a better consideration of design issues during the planning process can lead to better decisions, not just on design outcomes, but also on transparency and on community involvement. My noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside made a persuasive case about how an absence of design considerations has led to some serious abuse of the system. Design considerations must be central to the reform system. I hope that the Government are able to support these sensible and reasonable amendments.
Baroness Maddock: I support what has been said. The design of the built environment is particularly important. I heartily agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he said how important it was to him to be in a good, attractive environment. That is certainly true for me, although I am aware that some people do not notice their environment at all. That always comes as a great shock to me.
I thought, as he said that, of my walk every morning from Pimlico to the House. I go through the Millbank estate, which some noble Lords will know. It was built in 1901 by London County Council, and it is a really attractive development. I would be happy to live in it. I then pass what holds prison departments of the Home Office—huge granite blocks that look like prisons. I think, "oh, help!". They are about to improve what was the Westminster Hospital, and then I go through Smith Square and Lord North Street, and I am returned to better spirits by the time I get to the House.
I particularly support the references to sustainability, which we will discuss later. I am concerned that we try, by whatever means we can, to ensure that homes are more energy efficient, that they use natural resources such as water in a better way, and that building methods are changed so that we do not have as much waste and materials are used rather better. There may be opportunities to discuss that later.
I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister talk about guidance and the importance of sustainability in that guidance. I was also pleased when he said that there would not be new labels on existing plans. That is important in the context of the debate.
I remember many times in my local government days when I wished heartily that we could have thrown out some of the housing developments that were coming through. We used what we could in the planning system. In a bigger authority with a good

1249
planning department, it is possible to draw up area development briefs and push through better design. In some cases, it can be done, but it is extremely time-consuming. At the end of the day, one can lose it. If the builders do not build according to the plan, there is little comeback.
When I moved from the city of Southampton to live in a conservation area in Christchurch, I was struck by how particular they could be about everything that happened. I was putting new windows in the front of my house, and I wanted to make them more energy-efficient. Because it was a conservation area and I had to keep the same-sized panes in the windows, I could not have double windows. There is a huge contrast in the way in which we deal with this, and I hope that the Bill will enable us to remedy such matters.
With regard to Amendment No.114, as I have indicated, I certainly support a process that would enable distinctions to be made between different statements of design principle in the planning process. Amendment No.116 deals with outline planning permission. Proposed new subsection (1B) refers to regulations made under the Act. As I have said, I hope that, in those regulations, we can look particularly at energy efficiency, use of materials and other matters.
As has been said, outline planning permission can, for local communities, be used to impose developments that, when they are built, bear little resemblance to what was put down at the outline stage. That abuse has been quite common, and it is not surprising that people have become conditioned to being suspicious about planning applications.
I hope that we can have some assurances from the Minister. A good case has been put from all parts of the Committee. I have heard the Minister and other Ministers talk about the importance of design and how we want to improve it, particularly with regard to the Gateway. I hope that we will see a difference and that the Bill will mean that we get better design in our built environment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I want briefly to put in my three halfpence in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, on the basis of some local experience.
I live on the edge of an old textiles village in the Pennines called Trawden. Thirty or 40 years ago, it was full of people who had been weavers all their lives. It has now been taken over by teachers, social workers and all sorts of people, who have done the place up. It is an extremely attractive village. It is not a normal village. It is higgledy-piggledy along all the lanes coming into the village, and, as a result, on an aerial photograph or a map it looks like a spider. Obviously, the developers wanted to fill in the gaps between the spider's legs.
It is a land usage issue. Over a long period of time, residents, councillors and the council have fought a great many battles, attended many appeals, and have won. They have prevented that kind of infill taking place and have maintained the basic character of the
1250
place. By and large, they have insisted that development is on brownfield land in the village, which consists of old mills that have closed down and become derelict, and have become sites for redevelopment with housing. That is the background.
That raises the question of what type of housing should be put on these old mill sites. That is where the position becomes much more difficult to control. It is much more difficult to encourage new development that is in keeping with the old village. The village is made up of all kinds of things. There are old farmhouses, some of which are hundreds of years old; there are old weavers cottages; and there are rows of terraced houses that were built in Victorian times for the more modern mills. It is a higgledy-piggledy kind of place. So it cannot be said that one kind of development on a site is ideal for everything.
That is where the issue of drawing up statements of design principles becomes difficult. Good design is required for each site, which might need to be different for each site. With respect, if the Minister listens he might learn something. Planning and development control authorities need the ability to insist on good design on a site-by-site basis. That would he very difficult to write into local development plans. and it would be very difficult for the Minister to write into his new system. But, as a general principle, those are the powers that are needed.
In the most attractive and higgledy-piggledy part of the village where I live, a mill became vacant, became derelict and was pulled down. The development company that bought the land was very interested in producing a high-design scheme that fitted into the village. It came up with something quite different from the rows of bog-standard terraced or semi-detached houses that people were used to. It was a brilliantly designed scheme that would have been wonderful if it had come about. It caused a great deal of local controversy. The local council did everything right. It talked to the developers and the parish council, and called a public meeting. At the time, I was chair of the council's area committee that had development control powers. We had a public meeting that I chaired. There was a large turn out, including the developers and villagers.
It was generally agreed that it was an exciting scheme and should go ahead. It obtained planning permission. We refused to give outline planning permission. We said, "This is an important site. We are going to give permission for the full scheme as we want it". The developers agreed with that, and planning permission was given. Then, nothing happened. A few years later, the development company that had bought the site—for about two dozen houses—sold the land to another company that, on the basis of the existing planning permission which, of course, included outline planning permission for housing, put in a new scheme for bog-standard semi-detached houses. That is what we have got.
It was an absolute tragedy at a very local level. The advice that the council received was that the development could not be reasonably resisted because

1251
there was nothing wrong with the proposed development. The houses were adequate and fitted all the building regulations. The council has overall planning design guidelines that were brought in 25 to 30 years ago. Local development has to be built in natural stone, composition, imitation, reconstituted or whatever stone looks like natural stone from the area. Roofing materials must be the appropriate colour. Windows must have a vertical alignment and not a horizontal alignment to fit in with a typical Pennine textile town or village. All that overall planning design is there. But that does not stop people building bog-standard terraced and semi-detached houses.
Local authorities in such areas need the ability to consider applications on a site-by-site basis and to say to developers, "We will not give you planning permission unless there is design of a high quality". At the moment the system does not really allow them to do so. If they try to insist on it, it will go to appeal and they will lose.
Lord Rooker: I have changed the way in which I respond to the debate. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, because in fact I was listening to every word he said.
Lord Greaves: I apologise unreservedly to the Minister.
Lord Rooker: I do not know any of the details, but from his explanation, if the design of the houses was a material consideration for the councillor in giving outline planning permission in the context of the location, he should have been able to carry it over to the different owners. That is allowed for even under the existing planning policy guidance 1, to which my noble friend Lord Bassam referred. Paragraph 17 begins:
"Local planning authorities should reject poor designs".
They can make the design material to the planning application given the sensitivity of the location.
My noble friend and I have been having a mini-debate during the past half hour while listening to Members on all sides of the Committee. We have reread our notes to see which of the amendments we should accept on the Government's behalf, because it is the only way to get the ball rolling. None of them cost anything. My noble friend says that the worst thing that could happen is that we would make the front page of the Guardian, because it would be interested. I will send signals in due course, because the points made by all Members who have spoken are crucial. The ODPM agrees with the importance of all the points made.
There will be all the reasons in the world why the word "design" does not appear in the Bill, but to be honest I cannot think of one. I have no doubt that in due course in many of the later stages where the Bill can be amended, I will be provided with such information to claim why it should not happen, but at the moment I cannot think of anything.
1252
I will say a little about the way some of the amendments would affect the Bill. I will try to answer some of the points about the work of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment to which my noble friends referred.
Amendments Nos.82 and 83 would add to the matters that the local planning authority has to keep under review as part of its survey function. It is important that policies and proposals should be founded on a thorough understanding of the needs of the area, as identified by the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. That requires local planning authorities to prepare and maintain an up-to-date evidence base on all aspects of the social, economic and environmental characteristics of their area. It is important to review or survey gathered information to ensure the preparation of sensible and robust policies and proposals and to achieve sound planning for the area.
Clause 12(1) requires local authorities to do that. Clause 12(2) sets out matters that the local planning authority must consider in carrying out its survey function and also provides the Secretary of State with the power to prescribe additional matters. The provisions mirror those in existing legislation.
The local planning authority must keep under review the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of an authority's area. That is a wide-ranging provision and it would cover the four strands of sustainable development: economic development; social inclusion; protection of the environment; and prudent use of resources. I could make a case for that definition being wide enough to cover design of buildings and the quality of the built environment, but I am not making that case now. My notes say that the definition is broad enough to cover the quality of the built environment and I could make the case quite easily. In doing so I could quote many examples from what I have seen for myself over recent years around the country. But I shall certainly not rest my case for saying that the word "design" should not be in the Bill on that.
It is important to note that we have expanded on the legal requirements in our draft guidance on Creating Local Development Frameworks, which includes a checklist of the suggested components of the survey.
Amendment No.113 proposes a new clause to follow Clause 38, which has been constantly referred to in our debate. It hangs over the Bill and no doubt we shall have substantial debates on it when we reach that point. We agree absolutely and without any qualification on the importance of design issues. The Government are committed to high quality design. For some time our planning policies have made it clear that when submitting planning proposals applicants should be able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design.
In some ways we are in the hands of planning authorities, some of which by definition are tiny. Certain small councils worry about taking on big developers because of a design issue. They may be getting duff information and bad advice from their

1253
lawyers and planners because their culture has not changed. They are still living in the 1940s and 1950s when we put up some real junk. Part of this Bill and what I have said about the planning delivery grant are designed to change the culture of planning both for councillors and officers. Good design is key to the provision of inclusive and sustainable communities and it underpins much of what is set out in the sustainable communities plan.
We recognise that in the forthcoming draft of Planning Policy Statement 1, which will be an update. At the moment we are still working on Planning Policy Guidance 1. which was issued in February 1997. We claim no credit but we are quite happy with it, as we are with PPG6 on retail development, which will ensure that we rebuild within our cities. The contribution made by John Gummer to reversing the previous government's policy by issuing that guidance was crucial. However, as I have pointed out before, only over the past two years has it begun to bite because of all the backed-up planning permissions. We are determined to operate that policy ruthlessly. We are in fundamental agreement with it because, as my noble friend Lord Rogers said, it will protect viability in the planning of our cities, which are the only areas where we can ensure sustainable development. We are determined to curtail out-of-town peripheral developments and PPG6 helps us to achieve that.
If we deliver poor design, we know that we will not deliver sustainable development. We know that because of all the stuff that is knocked down very quickly. We are committed to ensuring that the planning system contributes to achieving sustainable development, so there is nothing to be gained in introducing a separate clause on design quality. On the other hand, the case has been made sometimes to include a declaration for the avoidance of doubt—words to give courage to and reinforce the backbone of councillors on local planning authorities. On occasion they may want to say: "Look, that is poor quality design. We insist that design is a material element in this planning application". If councillors have to argue the economics of a plan, we need to give them a little confidence and backbone. Therefore there probably is a case for saying that the word "design" should appear in Clause 38.
The framework we have adopted for general guidance is the best way forward. I do not argue that because it is not possible to put everything on to the face of the Bill. Sometimes it is necessary to send out a signal and if it does not cost anything, then it is a good signal to send.
Amendment No.114 proposes a new paragraph (2A), requiring that where outline planning permission remains in force,
"any subsequent application for planning permission must include a statement of design principles".
Paragraph (2B) would require the contents of the statement to be prescribed by regulations. We do not think it necessary to include such provisions in primary legislation. For some time government planning policy has made it clear that, when submitting planning proposals, applicants should be
1254
able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design. As I have said, the need to prepare a design statement is already set out in paragraphs 13 to 20 of Planning Policy Guidance 1.
It is true that further requirements in design could be covered by a revised policy or good practice guidance in secondary legislation. This might include possible amendments to the general development procedure order such as changing the definition of "reserved matters" in relation to an outline planning pennission or a requirement that a design statement accompanies an application for outline planning permission.
Subsection (2A) would require that in determining any application for planning permission regard shall be had to any earlier statement of design principles submitted for the outline planning permission. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because, if a further application is submitted for the same site, the planning history of the land—including any previous permission and any earlier statement of design principles—is likely to be relevant. If it is relevant, the local planning authority must have regard to it. As I have said, this might come down to the sometimes dun' advice received from lawyers and others.
6 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for giving way. The last part of the amendment deals precisely with the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves about the issue in his area. A problem that you get in local government is that you not only have to listen to lawyers, you are also told that you cannot afford to take a matter to appeal. That is the problem. We need to be clear about this issue in order that local councils can deal with it. More often than not, the costs fall upon councils. I have argued against it in my own time and won the argument, but it is quite difficult and you have to be bold.
Baroness Hanham: In planning, one also gets told that a design is subjective. It is therefore quite difficult to build the issue of design into outline planning permissions. If the Minister is going to take this issue into account, he should look to see where the subjectivity test comes from and how to get over it. After all, what you like I might not like; what I like you might not like; and what one neighbour likes another might not. That has always been one of the tests one has had to deal with in planning matters.
Lord Rooker: I accept that. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that if she checks Hansard she will see that I made the point about the fear of going to appeal in my first few opening paragraphs. I said that small local authorities without resources would be put off doing so. That fitted in with my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Similar arguments apply to Amendment No.116, which would require that an application for outline planning permission must include in the statement of design principles the contents prescribed by regulations. To a large extent the amendment is unnecessary for the same reasons that apply to the

1255
previous amendment. However, I made the point at Second Reading that we recognise the concern about ensuring good quality design at the outline planning permission stage.
On 15 December 2003, in a Written Statement, the Minister for Housing and Planning, Keith Hill, stated that if outline planning permission were to be retained one of the considerations would be the need for more information on key design principles. We believe that these concerns can be met by other means.
Amendment No.117B requires special regard to be paid to the design aspects of other planning permissions in determining new applications. As I have said—I have made this point a couple of times but it is worth reinforcing—the amendment is unnecessary because if the design aspects of the previous planning permission are relevant to the development proposed in the new application, they are a material consideration to which regard must be paid in any event. If they are not relevant, no account should be taken of them.
On the other hand, in some ways that is a contradiction in terms. If we are saying to local authorities that under the existing policy they should reject poor design, how can it possibly be the case that they could ever grant a permission where design was never a factor? It is a contradiction in terms. Paragraph 15 of the existing policy states that good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere. There is no qualification about that. There is enough here for robust local authorities, with concerned councillors, to be able to make a substantial case to the developers. But many authorities are not as large or well-resourced as others and therefore they may not have sufficient confidence.
This point has been made and it is worth reinforcing. Good design delivers value for money and poor design actually costs more in the end. Therefore, it is not an issue of expenditure whether for the public or the private sector. Design costs comprise a very small percentage of construction costs and in some ways they are infinitesimal. They are certainly less than 1 per cent. If the work is done properly, it is repaid many times over in the lifetime of the building. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Better designed buildings last longer in any event. There are many examples near where we are.
I may be working towards accepting an amendment. To promote better design, the Government are working very closely with a range of partners including CABE, English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation and house builders to drive up standards and increase the range and quality of the advice and assistance when working with people in this field.
We are working with CABE in particular to put greater emphasis on using master planning and developing specific guidance for sites. That is very important because as regards what we are planning with the communities plan, with the four growth areas and the nine market renewal pathfinders, we are saying
1256
to people that in managing those processes and the delivery vehicles for driving them forward, we would like CABE's stamp of approval on what is being done. We have made that abundantly clear.
We have also set up the Better Public Buildings initiative. We have delivered new schemes such as the Millennium Communities to provide good examples of successful, innovative and good quality design. We have announced three beacon councils under the theme of Quality in the Built Environment. We are sponsoring a number of housing design awards. We have asked Sir John Egan to undertake a review of the skills needed to deliver sustainable communities and he will report in the spring.
As regards specific measures, the ODPM has vastly increased the resources for the Commission of Architecture and the Built Environment over the next three years to ensure that good design becomes a priority in the sustainable communities programme. It is about £17 million, which is way above the normal expenditure.
We have made a commitment to the Better Public Buildings initiative. There is a ministerial design champion responsible for projects. He will probably not be there when the projects materialise because of the way in which Ministers are moved about. There is an attempt and a process to go through before one signs off buildings. We have encouraged the sponsorship of design awards in making good use of modern methods of construction to achieve higher quality in standards and reliability.
We want to remove barriers to good design. I shall return to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of the Bill, and insist on the strong suggestion from all sides of the Committee that the word "design" appears in the Bill. That is fundamental. It is important to change the guidance. It is also important to give courage to local councillors and officials who want to encourage good design, but there are other pressures on them to make a quick fix or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, put it, "We cannot do that because we cannot afford to appeal".
The result of that kind of approach is some real eyesores around the country erected by some household names, which I shall not list because we all know who they are. It is true that some of them are mending their ways. The powerful case made initially by my noble friend Lord Rogers is unanswerable so I shall not try to do so. By some means I shall get the word "design" included in the Bill.
Lord Rogers of Riverside: I was delighted to hear all the things that the Minister said. In fact, I find very little with which to argue. I was also pleased to hear the general support of the Committee. It is imperative that we continue with the policy specifically mentioned by the Minister of John Gummer's concept of no out-of-town retail. It is consistent with the concept of using brownfield first. We have to be extremely serious about this matter. There is a tendency, especially in the north, to use greenfield land because it is easier.

1257
Good design is critical, but I am not sure that I accept that it is subjective, because all art is subjective. We could argue about the quality of Georgian terraces or Bach, but there is a general sense in which we agree. We could be talking about a Cornish village. I am not suggesting that there should be high, middle or low art, but there is a general feeling about what is good design—a beautiful farm as well as a great palace such as this one. We can find a measure of agreement and I would like to see that included as much as possible within the Bill and in added verbal support to the outline planning.
To make things simple, our aim must be not to have to go to lawyers for advice. Things should be so simple that we can understand what the outline planning permission is. Again, I do not think that there is any disagreement between us. I would like to take this opportunity to say how much I enjoy listening to the Minister. I am pleased to see in what good voice he is. It is unusual to have such a Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.83 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 7, line 12, after "population" insert "and projected population"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.84A and 84B, which are grouped with Amendment No.84. I rather wish that we could have stopped while we were ahead.
Amendment No.83A is another proposed amendment to Clause 12—the survey clause. Subsection (2) sets out some of the matters to be kept under review. One of those is,
"the size, composition and distribution of the population of the area".
In the first amendment, I suggest that that should be extended to include projected population. The Minister may tell me that it does, but I would like to be clear about that.
It is simply not possible to plan without looking ahead. The last census was contentious. Nevertheless, the draft London Plan—I appreciate that we have got into the part on local development—is based on population projections. As is well known, we expect London to increase its population by something equivalent to a city the size of Leeds over the period of the plan. That will also affect the boroughs and the relationship of the area with neighbouring areas. Members of the London Assembly were interested in the relationship with the area in which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, lives because of the population living in Essex and commuting to and from London. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that matter.
The second amendment is to line 14, which states that another matter to be kept under review should be,
"any other considerations which may be expected to affect"
the matters set out before it. I wonder whether this should extend to those matters which may be expected to be affected. I may have expressed it too widely but
1258
the interrelationship of the issues exercises me. For instance, on education and health infrastructure, health centres, doctors' surgeries, hospitals, schools and educational establishments at different levels are all affected by population.
There must be some consideration as to whether limits on what can be provided could affect, for instance, what housing can be planned. The subject is quite circular. Although I am usually a critic of circularity, perhaps this clause needs to reflect it a little more.
Amendment No.84B relates to line 20 on page 7. Continuing with matters which can be included in the survey, it refers to,
"any changes which the authority think may occur in relation to any other matter".
I am puzzled by the word "other" matter. What about changes which may occur in relation to matters already listed? I dare say that it is an idiosyncrasy of parliamentary drafting which I have not got my head around. However, I wish to be certain that the clause is as extensive as I should like. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: On Amendment No.84, my main ambition is to persuade the Government that not only does the state of affairs need to be considered but also what people would like to be the state of affairs. With a collection of housing within a local planning authority, people have to survive with what is there. One could say that that came under Clause 12(2)(a). But what is not included is any feeling about people's ambitions. Are people living in houses that they do not like? Would they like to move into different housing in different environments? A local planning authority may be looking at the building of housing for its people 50 or 100 years ahead. It is not a question of the housing people need now but the ambitions they have for the future. Looking ahead, what built environment are we trying to create?
It is a difficult concept. I agree that it does not fall naturally from a collection of statistics, with people ticking boxes. But to know what people wish to have in the future should be immensely important to the planning decisions we are taking, as well as the state of play now.
Baroness Maddock: I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says. However, we need to be careful. First, given the housing system we have, for many people it is as much about the type of tenure they have as where they want to live. The issue is much wider than simply dealing with the planning.
Secondly, local authorities need to monitor and review housing need and provision. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, said, we need to consider the best use of brownfield sites and so on. But it is important to distinguish between housing need and demand. In the past, we have got into quite a mess with demand-led housing. I understand that that is not the noble Lord's precise point.

1259
However, we need to be careful. At present, there are immense pressures on the south-east when seeking to deal with the huge demand for housing. But we must ensure that there is a balance and that we provide for need. We all talk about the need for key workers to have housing. We need to get that balance right. Although I have sympathy with what the noble Lord says, that is not what we should be doing in the Bill.
Baroness Hanham: On the other hand, the survey is a very important aspect of the Bill. It becomes particularly important in the light of the sustainable communities policies and of the increase in housing, particularly in the south-east, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. We have had discussions on the sustainable communities plan, but the survey of the area is something which will have to take into account not only that but also the infrastructure that will be required for additional building. It is relevant to the issues of design—as the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, has said—provision, siting, placing, applicability to the local area and attractiveness to the local community. All these amendments are relevant. They may not all do entirely the right thing, but they are very much in the spirit of this part of the Bill and therefore I support them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am conscious, from prior Bills, that when people get up to move amendments to add to lists which the government have put into the Bill, many Ministers—not, of course, the Minister who is in front of us today, for we are full of admiration for his individuality—resist the addition of those items; they prize the quality of the list that they have already prepared and do not want it to be sullied by such additions. I commend my noble friend in particular for the choice of the subject to be added to the list that he has made, not least because of its centrality in the matters which give rise to the Bill in the first instance.
In my next remark I may well be off target, both in the context of my noble friend and in that of the Bill. I sat in on the debate between Chris Holmes of Shelter and Westminster City Council when Mr Holmes, at the behest of the mayor, was preparing his magnum opus on London housing. I could not help but be conscious that Westminster City Council, which is a significant body in the context of that plan, told Mr Holmes that the target figure which he had in mind, and which he had been expressing, was not feasible. Yet it ended up being the figure in the plan when the mayor presented it and, presumably, had some relevance to the RSS. So I commend my noble friend and his amendment warmly and I hope that we shall find that this is one of those occasions when Ministers do not reject an addition to a list.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for ascribing great powers of individuality to me but I know that they are targeted not at me but at my noble friend Lord Rooker. I could
1260
not possibly meet or match the spirit of individuality that Lord Rooker is self-evidently expert at showing at the Dispatch Box.
I have a generous view of the amendments and I have some sympathy with the general direction that they are taking. As the Government, we believe that it is important that policies and proposals should be founded on a thorough understanding of the needs of their area. As I look at the amendments, that is essentially what they are seeking to do. Local planning authorities need to prepare and maintain an up-to-date evidence base on all aspects of the social, economic and environmental characteristics of the area. That is self-evident.
In that context, it is important to review, survey and gather information to ensure that the preparation of sensible and robust policies and proposals takes place so that any plans are soundly developed. Clause 12(1) requires local authorities to do this and Clause 12(2) sets out matters that the local planning authority must consider in carrying out its survey function. It also provides the Secretary of State with power to prescribe any additional matters. These provisions mirror those in the existing legislation that the Government inherited. The local planning authority must keep the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area of an authority under review.
Amendment No.83A attempts to create a new list of matters that the planning authority must keep under review in Clause 12(2). It includes the size, composition and distribution of the population of the area. So the demographic information which is so important to the evidence base for local development documents is covered in Clause 12(2).
Clause 12(3)(a) requires the local authority to keep under review changes to those matters. So changes in population composition and size are also covered. Explicit reference to population projections is unnecessary. Indeed, there is a risk that that could lead to a type of "predict and provide" approach. As one who has occasionally seen that general approach applied to highways, I suggest that it is perhaps not the best model for us to replicate in planning matters. We have to take account of population projections which are terribly important. Population projections are available down to districts, with the latest series produced in 1999. The next one will cover from a 2002 base to 2026 and is expected this autumn. District projections feed into household projections used by regional planning bodies with other evidence in assessing future household requirements.
I was much taken with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke to his Amendment No.84. It is very important that the local authorities approach those issues in terms of what people want for their area. I think that that was the term that the noble Lord used. He also linked it with a sense of ambition for an area. Those issues are about the quality of life in an area. From my involvement in the planning process as a unitary authority leader, I know the importance of

1261
those issues, which are quite delicate. However, I also understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
Generally, we feel that the issues that the noble Lord raised are well covered in our document, Creating Local Development Framework, which includes a checklist that covers the suggested components of the survey. It specifically mentions housing need, potential supply, housing need assessment, urban capacity studies, land use density issues, the location of underused land and buildings, and availability. Those are the component parts of an ambition and a view and a sense of what people want for their area.
I entirely agree that the local authority should consider its housing and planning strategies together as a matter of course; that makes obvious good sense. Our new planning arrangements will strengthen the links between planning and housing as well as other important strategies and policies. We take the view that planning has a key role to play in contributing towards achieving successful, thriving and inclusive communities. We have just finished consultation on upgrades to planning for housing guidance set out in PPG3 entitled "Supporting the Delivery of New Housing", and "Influencing the Size, Type and Affordability of Housing". Consultation has now closed on that document and we hope to publish a final policy this summer. PPG3 already places great emphasis on links between strategies, and we think that that has been strengthened in the update.
Amendment No.84A to Clause 12(2)(e) is a general catch-all provision which requires the local authority to ensure that anything else which may be relevant to the matters covered by the survey are kept under review. The quality of the built environment could be covered by this provision if the local authority considered that to be relevant to the characteristics of the area which it has to keep under review. The problem is that this amendment could have unforeseen consequences. It would require the local authority to think of any considerations which may he affected by the matter under review. I am not sure how one could draw a line around that. The fear is that it could lead the local authority to have to take a much wider survey function than is needed for planning and land use development.
Amendment No.84B removes the word "other" from the last line of Clause 12(3)(a). The clause is phrased to indicate that a change to a matter in Clause 12(2) is itself a matter to be kept under review. The "matter" is therefore a change that occurs to the other matters in Clause 12(2). I hope that noble Lords have followed that this is purely an issue of drafting.
On substantive points and issues we believe that the framework that we have adopted with the general requirement supported by guidance is the best way forward. The debate has been useful in focusing on some of those issues and I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to it. I hope that what I have said underlines our commitment to ensuring that matters that are relevant and important
1262
in terms of planning the built environment in the future will be kept at the forefront of government thinking.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I agree with the Minister that the best place for these matters is in guidance. However, there is a fundamental difference between need and ambition. Too much of the language being used at the moment is about need. There is no counterbalance in terms of what people want. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, the matter must be balanced with a lot of other considerations. We cannot give people what they want, or we will end up with the sort of situation that exists on the west coast of Ireland, which is littered with little cottages that conform with the romantic Irish ideal. The place is an absolute blight—it looks as though it has got whitefly.
There is a great deal to be said for our planning system and the benefits that it gives to all of us in terms of the structure of our countryside and our towns. None the less, one of our ambitions ought to be to give people better houses over time. We should aim to give them more of what they want and to do what we can to enable them to satisfy their own ambitions rather than just catering to need, which is rather a Stalinist way of looking at things. I hope that, over time, we can get a bit of that into the language of guidance.
Baroness Hamwee: My amendments are far more prosaic than those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I think that I followed what the Minister said about Clause 12(3), which feeds into his response to the other amendments. He seems to have said that any other matter is any matter anywhere in the part of the forest that comes within the survey, and the matters listed. So any given matter can be another matter. When I read that provision alongside Clause 12(1), which I was expecting the Minister to quote against me, I find that it allows us to project forwards, because it includes matters that may be expected to affect health. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining all that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.84 to 84B not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Survey of area: county councils]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 7, line 34, leave out from second "development" to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: After all the sweetness and light that have surrounded the past few amendments, we return to some of the more practical matters in the Bill. Currently, under Clause 13(1), county councils are required to keep under review matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area in as far as those matters relate to county matters. There are two reasons why I felt it necessary to table the amendment. First, there is a lack of clarity in respect of the phrase "county matters". I wonder whether, if I were to ask the Minister, he would be able to give me

1263
a fully comprehensive list of what is meant by that terminology. It seems to me to be confusing, opaque and irrelevant.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the draft undermines the Government's own drive towards joined-up government. County councils currently have a general duty to seek to promote the economic, environmental and social well-being of their communities. They draw up community strategies that are focused not narrowly on particular functions but which are designed to be outward-looking. County councils are attempting to use their place in the community to exercise leadership for all citizens. The Bill runs smack into those principles—principles that the Government themselves have sought to promote in an earlier local government Bill. Unless a county matter is so broadly interpreted as to be meaningless—in which case it should be removed from the Bill—the provision attempts to narrow the survey function of county councils.
We argue that that does nothing to enhance the ability of county councils to join up services or exercise local leadership. It does nothing to help to support district councils, which might well welcome monitoring support from county councils. That is all part of a county strategy. Once again, the provision threatens to undermine the retention of planning resources in the local government system. It is a dangerous and unnecessary provision, and I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment.
Amendment No.86 is very brief, but I hope that Members of the Committee will be able to support it. Under the current provisions of the Bill, it is up to the Secretary of State to prescribe who should have access to a county council survey conducted under Clause 13. The amendment would ensure that the relevant regional planning body received the survey results as well as other people prescribed by the Secretary of State.
Good planning requires a good flow of information upwards and downwards throughout the system, across the different tiers involved. Our amendment simply makes it clear that if we are to have regional planning bodies, they should have statutory rights of access to important planning documents affecting their own planning decisions, just as we would like to see a statutory right of access to regional planning documents at other levels of government. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: Clause 13 provides for local authorities with minerals and waste planning responsibilities—that is the county councils in two-tier areas—to keep under review matters which are likely to affect minerals and waste development or the planning of that development, which are referred to as county matters. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that a county matter dealt with by a county council instead of a district council in two-tier authorities relates to minerals and waste development.
1264
Amendment No.85 removes the reference to county matters, and its effect would be to require the county council to review planning matters and undertake survey work for areas of all district councils within the county boundary. We accept that some small districts would be stretched to undertake full survey work. Obviously, we have discussed the role of the counties, as I am sure we will continue to do until the Bill sails off to become an Act. I reiterate that the counties can play a very important role. Survey work is one aspect where they can contribute.
Clause 13(3) allows for that situation. The Secretary of State can set out in regulations, or can direct a county council, to keep under review non-county matters, the wider matters relating to land-use planning.
Lord Hanningfield: Clearly then the county matters to which the Minister refers are matters related only to planning—the actual planning issues. County councils are responsible for education, social services, libraries, highways and transport, all of which are very important matters as regards the regional spatial strategy. I do not think it is clear in the Bill that county matters are really relevant only to the planning matters, which are waste and minerals. All the other issues are obviously very relevant to the regional spatial strategy.
Lord Rooker: That is why I moved from my initial notes to my side-note. I had been sent a definition, and I thought that it was worth putting it on record. In the context of what we are dealing with in Clause 13, a county matter relates only to minerals and waste development. We are not talking about the generality of county council responsibilities and duties. If I complete my notes, we will see whether we need to look at the precision of that, because that is all that we are talking about—we are not talking about the other responsibilities, as the noble Lord said.
As I said, through Clause 13(3), the Bill allows for the situation that I described. The Secretary of State can set out in regulations, or can direct a county council, that the council must keep under review non-county matters—the wider matters relating to land use planning and development referred to in Clause 12(2). Our draft regulations propose that the matters to be kept under review are those set out in Clause 12(2)(a) and (c) to (e), and that the results should be made available to local planning authorities.
Our approach can be adapted to the particular circumstances. The issues that a county would need to keep under review may change over time as the new planning system evolves. Regulations provide for that flexibility. It is inappropriate to specify in the Bill that all counties must review all matters in respect of all the areas of district councils in the county. That would be to treat the situation of every district the same, taking no account of their circumstances or capacity. We do not want to do that.
Lord Hanningfield: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but, as I said, county councils have a duty under local government legislation to produce a community strategy for the county. Producing a community strategy, which my county is busy doing, involves all the district councils. All the housing, planning and other issues are relevant to the community strategy that the county council must by law prepare. There is therefore conflict; we must understand that.
Lord Rooker: Well, it is clear that there is. The noble Lord is leader of a major county council; if he thinks that that is in conflict, we must take a serious look at it. As I said, the clauses refer only to specific responsibilities that are left for county councils' structure plans—namely, waste and minerals.
Amendment No.86, which is grouped, would mean that county councils must make available results of their work to the regional planning body. Our approach provides an appropriate role for the county councils in regional and sub-regional planning—it does so even more now than when we commenced consideration in Committee.
Clauses 12 and 13, covering the survey function, primarily cover work needed to support the preparation of local development documents. However, we agree that that could be relevant to the preparation of a regional spatial strategy revision. If the regional planning body wanted to see the work—because, for example, it was relevant to a sub-regional element of a revision to the regional spatial strategy—it could ask for it when seeking advice under Clause 4 as amended earlier today by government Amendment No.37, under which the county council has a duty to provide the advice.
If necessary, the regional planning body could enter arrangements with the county under Clause 4. Furthermore, if necessary, the Secretary of State could prescribe the regional planning body as a recipient of the results of survey work or direct that a county send the results to the regional planning body under the provisions of Clause 13(5) as it stands.
However, having listened to the debate, I am persuaded that, to put the relevance of the county survey function to the regional spatial strategy beyond doubt, we should consider amending draft regulation 5 to add a reference to the regional planning body as well as to the district council, where the regional planning body asks for that information.
That does not fully cover the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about what is covered by the definition. It may be that, simply because of how the Bill is set out—we are discussing Part 2, which covers local development—that definition is constrained in its use to waste and minerals, because it is contained in Part 2, and therefore cannot leak out into the wider responsibilities of county councils. But it is important to avoid confusion, so I shall obviously take advice on what the noble Lord said, so that confusion does not exist by the time the Bill passes from the House.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that. Clearly, there is some confusion. As the Minister will understand, I spoke to advisers, employees and legal experts in constructing these amendments, and the understanding was that the provision covered all the functions of county councils. However, the noble Lord has said that it covers only matters relating to waste and minerals, so clarification is needed. I thank the Minister for undertaking to provide clarification at a later stage.
As leader of a large local authority, I have been told by my officers that we are legally obliged to produce community strategies. I think that the Government are going weak on community strategies. They were the subject of one of my first debates as a new Peer, four years ago, before the Minister took up his current position. Community strategies were intended to be a very important part of local government, with every district and county obliged to have one. They cost quite a lot to produce. We are halfway through the process; some authorities are further down the field than we are.
The strategy involves many of the aspects that we have discussed during this Bill. I wonder whet her the Government will go cool on community strategies, particularly county ones, because they involve so much planning policy and much of what is happening in partnership with the districts in each county. We have not talked about the issue during the passage of the Bill, but it may arise later, as we wish to clarify the position regarding county community strategies. I shall not press the amendment today; I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.86 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Local development scheme]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No.87:
Page 8, line 15, at end insert—
"(a) the assistance required of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;"
The noble Baroness said: Earlier we moved our major amendment on development plans; now we start on the individual provisions, which is possible because the earlier amendment has not been agreed.
Amendment No.87 ensures that the local development scheme specifies the assistance that the local planning authority has received from any other local authorities, such as a county council. Combined with Amendment No.89, which states that a copy of the scheme must be sent to such an authority, the amendment draws both the county councils and other local authorities further into the planning process as outlined in the Bill. Our intention is to ensure that flows of information through the different tiers of local government are maintained. Especially given the government amendments moved today, which secure an enhanced statutory role for county councils, it is vital that they are kept fully informed of all local development schemes as well as other tiers.
Amendment No.87 would ensure that any assistance provided by county councils and other authorities to local planning authorities is set out clearly and forms a key part of the local development scheme. That would provide greater clarity in the relationship between local planning authorities and county councils or other authorities, and would outline that on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No.89 would serve to further improve communication and co-ordination between local planning authorities and county councils or other authorities. It would require the local planning authority to send a copy of the scheme not only to the regional planning body but also to county councils.
On a slightly different issue, Amendment No.90 restricts any direction that the Secretary of State may give to a local planning authority to amend the local development scheme to a timescale of within eight weeks of receipt of the scheme. As the Bill stands, there is no deadline for when the Secretary of State may take a decision on whether a local development scheme is appropriate, and thus, presumably, leaves the door open for a direction to make an amendment at any time in the scheme's lifetime. The question of timescales was part of the reason that I proposed the large clause contained in my earlier amendment.
The amendment would allow local planning authorities a cut-off point beyond which they could be certain that their local development scheme would not he altered by the Secretary of State. That would provide greater certainty and predictability. It is vital, because local planning authorities will prepare local development documents in accordance with the scheme. If the Secretary of State can intervene later, work will be wasted and preparation of the documents delayed. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: There are a number of amendments in this group. The first, Amendment No.88A, would provide that the local authority should submit the scheme at such time as is prescribed, but not less than two years after commencement of this part of the Act. I raised this because I have seen some—where I cannot recall where—that the local development scheme is to be produced within six months of commencement. I agree that it is desirable that the planning authorities get on with the job, within reason, but theoretically commencement could be the day after enactment. That simply would not allow for any work to be done on public consultation, let alone committees and so on. I do not particularly advocate the time period that this amendment sets out. I am asking for clarity in the Bill, to avoid uncertainty.
Amendment No.89A seeks to give the Mayor of London the right to make representations on the scheme. The current Mayor raised that point in correspondence with the Minister. Clause 23 states that the Mayor has the right to make representations about the development and document. I am unclear why the Mayor does not have the right to make representations on the scheme. The Secretary of State does.
1268
Amendment No.89B is a variation on Amendment No.90 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I would trade the 12 weeks for her eight weeks, but the point is much the same. Amendment No.90A, which seeks to leave out the subsection on the local planning authority complying with the direction, asks why this is necessary. If the Secretary of State gives direction, it must be complied with. That is axiomatic. It may be that there is, for this purpose, a difference between a direction and a regulation or a prescription. Perhaps the Minister can say. I would not have dreamed of failing to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State, but obviously those who have drafted this Bill think that it might happen.
Lord Rooker: The Secretary of State can direct changes to a scheme only once. Only when the local planning authority submits a further scheme would he able to use his powers of direction again. Amendment No.87 would require the local planning authority to specify in its local development scheme—in addition to the matters listed in Clause 14(2)—the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the areas of the local planning authority. In practice, that means county councils.
Amendment No.88A would restrict the power of the Secretary of State to set a deadline for each local planning authority to submit its scheme to him in regulation or by direction. The deadline would have to be at least two years after commencement of Part 2. Amendment No.89 would require the local planning authority to send a copy of its local development scheme to any such an authority as well as to the regional planning body or, in the case of London boroughs, the Mayor.
Amendment No.89A would give the regional planning body, or the Mayor, a power to make representations on the local planning authority's local development scheme. Amendment No.90 would set an eight-week deadline for the Secretary of State, and, as has been said, Amendment No.89B would set a 12-week deadline. Amendment No.90A would remove the requirement for the local planning authority to comply with the direction.
The scheme, as I said, is essentially a project plan. It will set out, for example, what local development documents the local planning authority proposes to prepare and what they will cover—the subject matter and the area; which of those the local planning authority proposes should be development plan documents, which will make clear which are not development plan documents—I refer to the definition of the groups of documents that I gave earlier; whether any of the documents are to be prepared jointly with another local planning authority or county council through a joint committee, as is provided for; and the planned timetable for preparing the documents.
It is important that county councils have an input into local planning, but the question is whether a requirement in primary legislation to specify in the local development scheme assistance for county councils is sensible or helpful. Agreement to form a joint committee under Clause 28—we have not got

1269
there yet—will be a major factor, based on a clear agreement and given effect by an order made by the Secretary of State. It is important to include it in the local development scheme.
With regard to assistance, neither district councils nor county councils would benefit from the requirement that Amendment No.87 would impose. What would happen if it were sensible for the county council to do something more than or different from what was envisaged when the local planning authority was settling its scheme? Amendment No.87 would be a barrier to county/district co-operation and partnership. I am sure that that is not what is intended.
We will not succeed in speeding up plan making, if the Secretary of State cannot set a sensible, practical deadline for a local planning authority to submit its local development scheme. Restricting it to at least two years after commencement, as Amendment No.88A would do, would leave local planning authorities and communities in limbo and delay the new planning arrangements. In draft regulations, we propose a six-month deadline. That strikes the right balance between moving the process forward and allowing local planning authorities time.
We do not agree that the Bill should require the local planning authority to send a copy of its local development scheme, at the time that it submits it to the Secretary of State, to county councils as well as the regional planning body or the mayor. It is right for the regional planning body and the mayor to have a copy because of their responsibilities for plan making and assessing general conformity in the two-tier system that we are establishing. We do not agree that the project plan should be delayed, while they make representations, as proposed by Amendment No.89A. They get a copy of the scheme to help them plan their work. County councils will have an interest and a view, and we believe that district councils will want to discuss their local development schemes with them in draft. Amendment No.89 would not encourage those discussions, which will need to be at a much earlier stage, not once the scheme is submitted to the Secretary of State. Once the scheme has come into effect, it will be publicly available on the local planning authority's website and for inspection at its offices.
Amendments Nos.89B and 90 would limit the time that the Secretary of State had to consider the draft local schemes, as I said, to 12 or eight weeks. Amendment No.90A would mean that the local planning authority did not need to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State.
We need the local development scheme to tackle the serious problems of delay in the current system, under which it can take over five years and as many as 10 years to put a plan in place. People know that that happens. There are enormous delays with getting a plan in place. Some local authorities may propose a set of local development documents that is not adequate or propose an unacceptably slow timetable for preparing it. The Secretary of State's power to direct changes to an authority's local development scheme would be used only as a last resort; it is a long stop.
1270
Authorities will need to have discussions on the draft scheme with the relevant government office at an early stage. We expect problems to be resolved without the need to use the last resort of a direction. As with one or two other parts of the Bill, the powers are there only to be used as a last resort, and they are not planned as the first line of action. We do not want to use them.
We want schemes to be up and running quickly, so that authorities can get on with their work. That should normally happen four weeks after the Secretary of State receives a scheme from the local planning authority. We will set out in regulations that the Secretary of State will have four weeks to consider the local planning authority's scheme once it has been submitted. The scheme will come into effect if the Secretary of State tells the local planning authority during this period that he does not intend to direct the local planning authority to make changes; or the local authority does not hear from the Secretary of State during this period; or the Secretary of State directs the local planning authority to make changes to the scheme and the local planning authority complies with it; or the Secretary of State withdraws it. The scheme will get cracking—get going—with no undue delay.
The Secretary of State may give the authority notice that he needs more time to consider the scheme. That may be necessary if the submitted scheme does not contain all the information that he needs in order to make a decision. That would also be quite exceptional. The notice will say how much more time the Secretary of State needs. It would be wrong artificially to time limit how long this could be, but we are not talking about long delays. We want to get cracking.
The safeguard would not work, of course, if the local planning authority did not have to comply with the direction. The provisions in the Bill and the regulations ensure that the vital planning document is robust and sets a timetable in which people can have confidence, while keeping the burdens on authorities and bureaucracy to a minimum. I know that we are getting into the detail of the operation of the documents, but there are a clear set of rules to he followed without undue delay. The Secretary of State does not want to interfere any more than is absolutely necessary, because these decisions are much better made at the local level, and not in Whitehall. I therefore hope that the noble Lords will not pursue the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I may have missed making my point because I am flagging, and I am sure that the Minister is too. If he missed the point of the last of my amendments, I am not surprised. The amendment does not seek to take away the Secretary of State's power of direction. It was to ask why it is necessary to provide that the local planning authority must comply with the direction. I do not understand the significance of this, when it does not say that one has to comply

1271
with the regulation or follow something that is prescribed. I am perfectly happy not to pursue that at this point.
Lord Rooker: I speak only from memory. That form of words appears in a great deal of legislation. I suspect that the parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers need that form of words just to lock it down so that there is no doubt. It is not specific just to this particular issue. If there is any doubt about that, I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness between now and next Tuesday just in case the matter can be raised while we are still on this part of the Bill.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply to all those amendments. But I do think that he made pretty heavy weather of it. We were asking for it to be placed in the Bill that the local plans had to go back to the county councils and, in particular, to the other bodies involved so that they had copies of them. We were not looking at anything very sinister. I may be called cynical, but sometimes the Secretary of State needs deadlines within which to operate.
The Secretary of State will have to be the Secretary of State plus a great many other people making decisions. If all these plans go to him personally, he will be swamped. I suspect that there will be many people in the department or Government Offices to look at
1272
these plans and, if there are directions to be made, to advise the Secretary of State that he has got to make that direction. There is room for time slippage in this. It would do the Secretary of State no harm to have a time limit. If eight weeks is no good, I shall agree to 12 weeks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.88 to 90A not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Minerals and waste development scheme]:
[Amendment No.91 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

University of Wales, Cardiff Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Energy Bill [H.L.]
(Third Day)
Thursday, 22 January 2004.
The Committee met at quarter past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I remind your Lordships that we are in Grand Committee. The procedure is exactly as if we were in Committee in the Chamber, with the exception that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in Grand Committee. I also advise the Committee, as I am sure is well known, that should a Division be called in the Chamber, I shall adjourn the Committee for approximately 10 minutes in order to let those of your Lordships who wish to vote to do so.
There are one or two preliminaries: first, I am advised that the next meeting of this Grand Committee, which is next Tuesday, will almost certainly be held in Rooms 3A and 4B, and not in the Moses Room. Secondly, I am advised that there has been agreement between the usual channels of a variation of the groupings in that the group led by Amendment No.46A, which runs through to Amendment No.60B, will now be grouped with Amendment No.45A. I shall take that as slowly as Members wish. Amendment No.46 will be taken on its own. So we shall have one grouping comprising Amendments Nos.45A, 45B, 46A, 47A, et cetera. Once that has been dealt with, Amendment No.46 will stand on its own.
I understand t hat the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has a statement to make.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee at the start of the debate if I were to return briefly to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on Tuesday about parliamentary privilege.
The noble Baroness set out her concerns about an atmosphere of anxiety among operators in the nuclear industry that they might face adverse consequences from a government department if they were to provide information to noble Lords opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, expressed similar concerns. These are serious matters. I was obviously concerned, and spoke to my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I
GC 374
spoke personally to Stephen Timms, and the record of Tuesday's debate has been drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Permanent Secretary at the DTI. I know that they, like me, will want to ensure that legitimate questions from any Member of this House about important matters which we are discussing in Committee or, indeed, matters relating to any other Bill, are handled professionally and in accordance with the normal practice of this House.
It is clearly important that parliamentarians have the necessary information to engage in constructive debate, not least about the creation of a public authority whose work will span many decades. That said, I think it important that we look into issues such as this when the evidence comes to light. My colleagues at the DTI are in the process of doing just that, and I shall report to the Committee once that process has concluded.
In the mean time, as I said on Tuesday, I shall he quite happy to meet noble Lords outside this Room if they wish to convey any more information to me about that matter, if it would be helpful.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: May I—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No, it is the custom of the House that there shall not be discussion on a statement, to the best of my knowledge. I defer to the Clerk for one moment. Not for the first time, I am corrected by the expertise of the Clerk. Lord Jen kin of Roding:
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I listened with gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am not sure that I entirely caught his last few words; I have a hearing problem and, although I am switched on, I may have missed them. I would have thought that in the light of the gravity of the comments that were made last Thursday, which I am grateful that the noble Lord has recognised, it would be appropriate, in these circumstances, for both Secretaries of State—for Defra and for the DTI—to issue, within the department, a very clear directive. It may be that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, hinted would come.
The fact is that, over the past few years, a culture has formed. One hesitates to mention names or to suggest where it came from, but one has a suspicion that some of the press people at No.10 have been very ready to lean on departments. I do not know whether the noble Lord read the interview with Alistair Campbell in the Times. It is an immensely disturbing document when one bears in mind that Mr Campbell was in a position to give instructions to civil servants. However, there is no doubt that there has been a culture of what is sometimes called "control freakery", with an implied threat that this must not happen. If that is in fact the case—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has gone a long way to recognise that there may well he substance in

GC 375
that complaint—it requires a clear and unambiguous statement from the highest level: from the two departments involved.
Lord Whitty: I shall repeat what I said, which the noble Lord did not catch. I said that if Members of the Committee who raised these issues wanted to have further discussions with me outside the Committee, I would be happy to do so. I also said that both departments were looking into the matter. Clearly, it might be helpful if any further information could be conveyed without necessarily breaching confidentiality on all sides.
In the rest of his comments, the noble Lord took matters a little further than anyone did on Tuesday. We need to discover what we can about what has happened in this respect. There will be grey areas, but I was not proposing an examination into the entire method of government communication. Many of the issues raised by the noble Lord today, as distinct from those raised on Tuesday, take us well beyond what I have undertaken to look into. If the Committee leaves me to consider this particular example and related matters and if it is necessary for a direction from the Secretary of State, I shall so report to the Committee. No doubt we shall return to the matter before the Committee stage is concluded.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for immediately taking the matter back. In fact, he spoke to me outside the Committee and pointed out that he had already put some phone calls in process. We are grateful that the matter is being considered and that we shall gain some degree of satisfaction about what happened as soon as possible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I hope that I can assume that it is the wish of Members of the Committee to proceed to the matter in hand before the Grand Committee. I would hate to do that a second time.
Debate on Clause 13, Amendment No.44 resumed.
Baroness O'Cathain: I must apologise for not being present when the amendment was addressed last Tuesday evening, but I had a immovable engagement which I had to attend. However, I have read the Second Reading and Grand Committee debates in the Official Report and I believe that the amendment was ably moved by my noble friend Lady Miller. The contribution of my noble friend Lord Jenkin was also excellent.
It will be no surprise to the Minister that my biggest concern about the Bill is that we seem to be closing down—or, at least, we are not actively opening up or continuing—the nuclear option. We know that this is not a true Energy Bill and that the title is a misnomer. It is a Bill on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and other matters which are not necessarily related to the nuclear industry but are related to energy.
GC 376
The noble Lord is aware that at Second Reading practically everyone spoke of their concern regarding the security of long-term energy supplies in this country—I shall not even mention the word "nuclear"—and how that should be addressed. In order that we do not find ourselves in a completely hopeless position five, 10 or 15 years hence, it is imperative that we should keep options open which will guarantee—in so far as anyone can guarantee anything—the continuity of supply of power for electricity generation in this country.
I shall not go over Second Reading speeches or points that have been made before but in this instance, as we all know, one of the major problems is that of ensuring that we keep the know-how in this country and that we have a commitment to maintain whatever lead we have in nuclear industry expertise. In circumstances where there is very limited commitment, if any, to the future of the nuclear industry in this country, that can be done only by having sums spent on research and development and by maintaining our research and development base.
There will be all sorts of reasons why the Government will probably say, "We have considered this and have put aside X million pounds". I think there is £5 million over five years put aside. When one considers that we are talking about the future of this economy, in particular of industrial and domestic supplies of electricity, that is a derisory sum.
I have been battling in my head as to how I can get further commitment from the Government other than for them to say, "We have it in hand and £5 million is enough". Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is possible to have, between now and Report, a table showing how much money is spent on R&D in other sectors of industry which are supported by Government and whether that amounts to more or less than £5 million over five years. That figure may show that not very much is spent by Government on R&D. I do not think they are necessarily tremendously committed to long-term R&D either. That is not a criticism. I do not think that Administrations find themselves in a position of being able to justify large sums of money expended on R&D when there can be no immediate return. In some cases, in particular as regards R&D undertaken by pharmaceutical companies or on transport, there is no hope of a payback within 10 to 15 years. However, this is different; it concerns maintaining and increasing the skills level of the people in this country who are currently employed in the nuclear industry and those who could be employed in it. Indeed, we need our best graduates. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall not repeat what I said earlier this week, which would be tedious in the extreme, but as a couple of days have elapsed, perhaps I may remind the Minister of the question I asked. The audience of the "Energy Choices" conference heard from the Minister's colleague, Mr Stephen Timms, that this research policy is under review. On Tuesday I asked the Minister, and shall ask him again today, whether he is able to tell us any more about that.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: During an earlier debate in Committee I asked the Minister how substantial was the expenditure on research. Unfortunately, inspiration was not coming fast enough, but I thought I would have an opportunity later on in Committee, and I was right. It now transpires that we are spending only £15 million on nuclear research. I can hardly believe that the sum is so meagre. Certainly, it will not excite academia. At Question Time today in the Chamber, we heard that we are spending £18 million on research into Gulf War syndrome. I shall check that in Hansard but I think that that is what I heard.
Last week my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding talked about foreign designs of nuclear reactors. What about the future of the UK heavy engineering industry in building high-technology, heavy engineering plant? Surely, if we are not careful we shall end up importing all that heavy engineering. Is that desirable?
Lord Ezra: While I would agree that it is desirable that the NDA should have a research and development obligation, the question that must be asked is: what would that research and development be about? In my opinion, it should be related to its function; namely, decommissioning. If we are talking about a wider research and development activity into keeping open the nuclear option, it is very desirable that that should be pursued, but in connection with other agencies. We should be clear about what this research and development responsibility is intended to be.
Lord Christopher: I have an interest to declare. I think most people in the room know what it is. It would he boring for me to keep repeating it, and what I have to say is not directly concerned with it.
I hope that the Government can find some way to accommodate the sense of this amendment. Certainly, what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said is eminently helpful. Whereas previously Britain was in the vanguard, there is a very real risk that we shall now follow. It will he extremely sad if the long-term future for world energy goes in that direction. Whether it lies in fusion or fission is neither here nor there if we are not maintaining our R&D.
Perhaps the amendment needs a little revision to ensure that there is some working concept with other organisations. But the fundamental issue is that Britain should not fall behind.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords for their tolerance in a debate that has been separated by several days. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for reminding us of one of the salient points he made last Thursday. He will not be surprised to learn that I checked carefully the official record of our proceedings last time so that I should have fresh in mind not only what he said but also what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said in her introduction to the debate.
I apologise for the fact that we left insufficient time last Thursday for the matter. I was under the mistaken apprehension that we had covered a fair degree of
GC 378
general issues on research and that this debate might focus specifically on the NDA. I was proven woefully wrong in that respect. It is not the first time that my predictions have been somewhat inaccurate. Nevertheless, I want to reply to the whole of the debate now.
I begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He is absolutely right. Are we discussing the wider issues of research with regard to "keeping the nuclear option open"—I think that is the phrase used in this context—or are we, as these amendments are directed at, looking at the issue of the NDA and its research function? In all fairness, we should take the amendments at face value where they appear in the Bill and address first the issue of what "research" means to the NDA because that is the purpose of the amendments, although there are wider dimensions to them.
We have never denied—and, indeed, we have been keen to stress to the contrary—that the research activity is an important and necessary function of the NDA. It cannot fulfil its principal functions without such research. Site licensees cannot carry out many of their activities on site without it. They need access to research output on safety and other issues that are relevant to the safe operation of their site.
The NDA needs access to research output to secure the benefits of increasingly innovative and cost-effective clean up, which is its main function. Accordingly, the NDA could be given responsibility for securing the operation of research facilities on designated sites, for carrying out research into matters relating to the decommissioning and clean-up of installations, sites and facilities and relating to its other functions. The power to make grants or loans to persons carrying out research in areas relevant to the NDA's functions is present in the Bill—significantly in Clauses 7 and 10(2).
The Bill clearly identifies the NDA's responsibilities in respect of research. The amendments relate to specific provisions for the NDA's annual plan and annual report to cover its research activities. The main purpose of the NDA's annual plan, which flows through to the relevant report, is to set out what the NDA has done and will be doing in respect of its principal functions—the decommissioning, clean-up and operation of its installations, sites and facilities—for the year in question. In effect, it is what the NDA will do in any year in order to deliver on its strategy. Progress on clean-up must be the focus of holding the NDA to account. That is its principal function.
By virtue of their inclusion in the NDA's strategy through Clause 12, the other functions and duties of the NDA, which include research, skills development, the promotion of competition, the adoption of good practice and socio-economic support to local communities, must also be covered in the annual plan. That plan sets out what the NDA is doing in any one year to give effect to its overall strategy. The strategy must include the operation of research-designated facilities under Clause 12(1).

GC 379
The provisions relating to the NDA's annual plan and annual report already require it to cover research. Clause 13 requires the annual plan to cover all the functions of the NDA, which would include the research functions that I mentioned; likewise, Clause 14(3) states that the annual report must cover all activities set out in the annual plan.
The Government do not consider it appropriate or necessary to give any more emphasis to research in this context. The central focus of the NDA must be on the driving forward of the decommissioning and clean-up programme. All other functions are intended to support that primary purpose of the body. While they are an important part of the overall picture, they should not detract or distract from that prime responsibility.
Amendment No.62 seeks to give the NDA financial responsibility for research and development. It is not possible to give the NDA financial responsibility in this way. After all, the amendment sets no boundaries to the proposed responsibility for the NDA. Having said that, I want to assure Members of the Committee that the NDA's financial responsibility under Clause 21, which includes the operation of designated facilities, extends to covering research facilities. This results from the operation of research facilities being a designated responsibility under Clause 4 and from the fact that the definition of "designated facilities" includes the facilities for which the NDA has been given a responsibility.
Therefore, the Government do not believe that the amendments can be supported. However, as noble Lords made clear, the representation has focused rather more on the question of what role research can play in keeping the nuclear option open. I believe that everyone accepts that the NDA is not the appropriate body to lead on this matter. It has research functions, which I have defined, but I hope that we can agree that it is not the lead body.
On that basis, perhaps I may address what the Government are doing to provide the framework for taking forward work in this important area. Such a framework was earnestly sought by those who contributed to the debate. We have already heard something about the new opportunities for fission research—announced as part of the research councils—and a sustainable energy economy initiative that will provide up to £5 million over four years. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that my honourable friend in the other place is aware of the representations that have been made about this figure, and he is looking at it again. Of course, the figure is to be seen more in the context of pump-priming activities. It is not the sole support of research across the board in terms of the nuclear option, but it is an indication that the Government are concerned that certain sums should be specifically allocated to drive forward areas of research.
In developing the programme related to this, the research councils consulted broadly, including with bodies such as Defra, the DTI, the NII, the NNC,
GC 380
UKAEA, Rolls-Royce, the MoD, Nirex and BNFL. The scope covers three key things: maintenance of current generation capacity; fission as part of a sustainable energy economy, covering the socio-economic aspects of fission; and future fission power. This will add to existing research opportunities through the European Union's framework programme for research and development—FP6 EURATOM. Figures now available for the last nuclear fission and radiation protection programme show that the EC funded a total of 289 projects at a cost of 167.2 million euros. UK participations totalled 266, and these participants received 21.6 million euros of the available funding.
Significantly, EURATOM has recently joined the Generation IV International Forum and will incorporate this new research area into its current programme. The UK, along with eight other countries, joined the Generation IV International Forum in July 2001. The initiative foresaw a need for advanced nuclear energy systems in the future to help meet growing international demands for carbon-free energy. To meet public concerns, future systems, wherever deployed, must meet exceptionally high standards of safety, sustainability and proliferation assistance, while operating economically in open markets.
The aim is to develop a framework for collaborative research and development on Generation IV reactor systems that could be deployed from around 2030. UK participation in the charter is without commitment to building a Generation IV design in the UK, but we are playing our part in keeping that option open.
The framework for international research agreements under this initiative is currently being put in place and the extent of any UK financial commitment to research in this area has yet to be decided as part of the forthcoming Government spending round. It is important that nuclear fission research is seen in the context of wider energy research.
Nuclear fission is a mature technology that has been widely deployed worldwide. The chief scientific adviser's high-level group on energy research, development and demonstration is looking closely at energy research across the board in the run-up to the next Government spending round. It aims to achieve a co-ordinated approach to energy research across government and, of course, the research councils.
In addition, a new UK energy research centre will be established later this year. It will provide leadership and energy research and assist in giving coherence to the UK energy research agenda. It will have responsibility for establishing and co-ordinating a network across the broad spectrum of the energy research community of environmental engineering and economic and social scientists. It will act as the hub of the national energy research network which will link to other centres of excellence.
I turn to BNFL and its research capacity. We should not forget that BNFL's R&D currently employs around 1, 200 people and has an annual turnover of more than £100 million. Its primary role is to carry out

GC 381
essential R&D work to support BNFL's ongoing clean-up and manufacturing activities. It also performs important work for external customers and carries out broader strategic activities that are relevant to keeping open the nuclear option in the UK.
The implementation of the BNFL joint review addressed the future strategy for BNFL's research operation. As I have already indicated, BNFL's existing R&D facilities and a proportion of the associated personnel will remain with the NDA's site licensee companies. Their work will focus on the NDA's decommissioning and clean-up objectives. Beyond that, a new nuclear science and technology service will also be established, initially as a subsidiary of the parent company. It will provide services for the NDA, site licensee companies and third parties on a commercial basis. NSTS will also be a potential resource for research into broader strategic projects in the nuclear field. Those arrangements are consistent with the Government's policies on new build and keeping the nuclear option open.
Finally, notwithstanding my earlier comments, the NDA plays a supporting role in this area. In Clause 10(2) we have allowed the NDA to allow its research facilities to he used by others for any purpose—which could include NSTS, if it wanted to make use of the facilities. Indeed, we expect the NDA to make its research facilities available. In operating those facilities, the NDA has a duty to act in a manner that it considers most beneficial to the public.
Regarding the spare capacity of research facilities, which current usage indicates it has, the NDA will be expected to maximise revenue from third parties for the use of the facilities. That would also contribute to the preservation of the nuclear skills base that might be required for future decommissioning.
I turn finally—
Baroness O'Cathain: That is twice "finally".
Lord Davies of Oldham: This is an important debate of great depth.
The future of the nuclear industry, whether that includes new power generation or not, is not just a question of research capacity. We also need an effective skills base. To that end, in December 2002 we published a wide-ranging nuclear and radiological skills report, and we are supporting the development of a sector skills council to represent the needs of the nuclear industry. The Cogent Sector Skills Council, which currently represents the chemical manufacturing and oil and gas sectors, will be extended to cover the nuclear sector. It will be responsible for taking a strategic view of the nuclear sector to ensure that the education and training base can meet the current and future needs of nuclear employers. The development of Cogent is funded by the Sector Skills Development Agency and the industry.
I hope that that reassures noble Lords on the general issues of research capacity in the UK as far as keeping the nuclear option open is concerned, while at the same
GC 382
time indicating why I am asking for the amendments to be withdrawn. They place upon the NDA a skills responsibility which it ought not to have. We have in the Bill a clear provision for the NDA in relation to the research for which it needs to be responsible—on decommissioning and clean-up—and the amendments add nothing to the Bill. On that basis, I ask for the amendments to be withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that lengthy, careful and studied reply. I do not doubt that his words merit careful sentence-by-sentence consideration, which clearly will follow the debate. Bearing in mind the import of what my noble friend Lord Ezra said, and not wishing to prolong the debate unduly, I think it may be helpful for the Minister to indicate a little more why it will be necessary not to leave the matter entirely as he set it out but to give it careful scrutiny before deciding whether a new formulation might remove prevailing anxieties.
I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a certain artificiality in seeking to divide research into that which is purely connected with decommissioning and that connected with generation, fission and the potential commercial use of nuclear power. The artificiality flows from the fact that the study of decommissioning may well reveal how earlier different approaches to the technology could have made a substantial impact on the economies of the generating method that is being decommissioned.
I put it to the Minister that it is artificial to regard that as merely a by-product of decommissioning. It would help in future consideration if those possibilities were explicitly allowed for by the agency in its work. Too great a compartmentalisation of the research is neither practical, in scientific terms, nor potentially helpful in economic terms. The Minister has done much to remove my anxieties about the total exclusion of that kind of consideration from the work of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency. However, because directions and strategies are geared, principally, to decommissioning, that is bound to dominate the thinking. If there is not specific, explicit encouragement to express the implications of that original probing work, then we could be worse off as a nation and lose the potential advantage that doing the decommissioning work gives us.
The nuclear cycle is a cycle—it is complete. It is artificial to break into and to split up in the way that the language of the Bill sometimes implies. It would not be a problem if we were still working in the sphere of the Atomic Energy Authority and the sites for which it has responsibility. Its responsibilities, both current and past, have gone far beyond that. It has always been recognised that the nuclear cycle is comprehensive—without a beginning, a middle or an end—and that the appropriateness of utilising some research for different purposes is absolutely necessary.

GC 383
I hope that the Minister will not consider that those of us who have been arguing for allowing that continued research are simply attempting to twist the Government's words, provoke them or draw out of them a commitment on nuclear rebuild. Even those of us who think that that is almost inevitable have to admit that the arguments are not yet complete and that the nuclear decommissioning exercise is a very necessary part of our case, which we hope the Government are not precluding by bringing forward the Bill.
It has been a wide-ranging debate, but it was necessary because it is about such a central issue. Nothing that is said by Ministers in debates has closed down options that ought to be kept open—I am happy to have heard that. But I still do not believe that the last word has been said on the drafting to reflect the Minister's expressed intentions. I hope that, despite the duration of the debate, we will return to the matter at a later stage.
Earl Attlee: The Minister has been extremely helpful to the Committee. He referred to the nuclear skills report. Does that suggest whether the number of nuclear engineering courses offered at universities are increasing or decreasing?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The skills to which I referred related to the development of the skills body that includes nuclear research, which is one of the 23 sector skills councils being established which we hope to have in place by June this year. That covers a range of skills, many of which are below graduate level. I refer to points that were brought up on Second Reading—which have probably been advanced also in Committee, although I cannot remember where—about the necessity of sustaining skills in case the concept of keeping the nuclear option is realistic. Within that framework, I was seeking to talk about a range of skill that were not necessarily at undergraduate level. But we and the Chief Scientific Officer are looking at that. He and his group have the responsibility of looking at energy provision across the board. Inevitably he looks way beyond the skills sector work into the question of provision in higher education.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I join other Committee Members who have expressed their appreciation to the Minister for a full reply to the case that had been made. Like the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, I will also want to study his words extremely carefully, because they have filled some of the gaps that were widely felt in the research community outside.
It is only three months since the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy heard an impressive presentation from Dr Sue Ion, Director of Technology at BNFL. Although I was not able to be there, the noble Lords, Lord Christopher and Lord Lea of Crondall, and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, were there to hear one of the most distinguished scientists in the field. At that meeting last October she made the point—I shall not quote more than a line or
GC 384
two as there is much here—as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about participation in wider international research. Speaking from her long experience, she was clear that:
"Unless a domestic programme of R&D is established, there will not be a seat at the table for the UK, at a time when international programmes worth hundreds of millions of pounds are under way".
Coming from her, Her Majesty's Government should treat that very seriously. I am inclined to agree that that would not necessarily be a function of the N DA, although it would have an interest in the matter. It is very much the responsibility of the Government to see that we participate in that work—the Minister mentioned the Generation 4 reactor work, which has enormous potential some years ahead. Unless we have our own programme:
"there will not be a seat at the table for the UK".
She has played her part in the restructuring of BNFL—sometimes called the "new BNFL"—in the joint review that was set up between BNFL and the Government. One of her points was:
"a new nuclear science and technology company will be formed as a subsidiary, and will provide research and technology services on a commercial basis".
But of course it must be funded, which is where the anxiety lies. As I said last Tuesday, the saving of £5 million, which is mentioned as the joint work of the three research councils, is not regarded as a serious contribution.
Some years ago, I worked in the chemical industry. The firm for which I worked had a large and successful research establishment in Great Burgh in south London. It had a good many discoveries, but when I was a young man I asked the director for whom I worked, "What is the real value of the research department?". He said, "We wouldn't even know what to buy if we had not done our own research".
In the chemical industry, there are enormous licensing arrangements, costs and so forth, but unless you have your own capacity from your own people who are totally understanding and keep up-to-date, you are not in the field. Only a few years later it fell to me to put a value on that research department when that part of the company was sold to British Petroleum. I found that a most interesting exercise indeed—but that is by the way.
You cannot participate in joint working unless you are doing it yourself. Perhaps I might leave that message with the Minister.
4 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank all my noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for taking part in the debate. In order to get the tone of my reply right from the start, I can do no better than echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, who said that he listened to the Minister's statement with considerable appreciation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was right in saying that this is not the ideal place to put these amendments. But I was forced to do it in my own mind because I

GC 385
wondered where else I could do it. When could I do it? When will there be an energy Bill which will deal with the nuclear option? It is important to keep on—I have bad news for the Government—and I will keep hammering on about the point made by Dr Sue Ion; that we will lose our place at the table. That is crazy, because we are well known as being one of the world's drivers in technology advance.
In turning to the Minister's reply, I must first say that I wish I had shorthand. It is a skill that I could have done with. I am looking at my scribbles and will read the Official Report with great interest. The Minister began by saying that it was not appropriate, necessary or possible for the idea of keeping open the nuclear option to be part of the Bill. But the problem is the Government. The Government can do more or less what they like. They could introduce a section into the Bill by bringing forward an amendment to ensure that the nuclear option was left open.
There are ways—all right, I will agree that they are tangential —that the provision could be hooked on to the NDA, not least in the way the Minister conceded and in relation to comments on the nuclear option and clean-up. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, made the point that by doing the clean up, we could for future nuclear build learn how to avoid some of the problems of creating waste.
However, I suggest that the Government take note of our concerns that the R&D clean-up plan deals only with R&D and that we are looking for more than that in this amendment.
The Secretary of State is looking at the future funding of research and development for nuclear, but he also said that organisations such as BNFL, NII, NNC, UK AEA and Nirex are looking at pump-priming. But what are the pump-priming schemes? Will they be long-term in their efficacy?
The Minister slightly blinded us with statistics about the 289 projects costing 167.2 million euros and the collaborative research going up to 2030. However, he said that the UK's commitment to all of this does not include research into new build but we are still keeping the option open. In the forthcoming spending round, that will be looked at again.
I want to make two points. The first relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, about the better ways of revealing how nuclear build should have been done in the first place and the fact that we should not lose that knowledge but build on it. The second point has not been mentioned. During the clean-up responsibilities, which will be conducted by the NDA, it could well be that a certain amount of research funding should be put into these particular sites so that the option of building another nuclear project on those sites should be investigated. After all, it is almost inevitable that we would have to go the nuclear way. In these areas, there is local acceptability of nuclear, which would overcome one of the objections to keep the nuclear option open.
GC 386
I am delighted with the Minister's response. I will take a great deal of care in reading it and will probably come back at Report. In the mean time, I thank him and all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.45 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may remind the Grand Committee that the groupings here have been amended from those printed. We now have Amendments Nos.45A, 45B, 46A, 47A, 58ZA, 58ZB, 58ZC, 58ZD, 60A and 60B.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No.45A:
Page 13, line 13, at end insert "which must include the expenditure that will be incurred during that year to secure compliance with the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Office of Civil Nuclear Security in relation to those installations, facilities and sites whether in respect of that or prior years"
The noble Baroness said: Fortunately, the Deputy Chairman of Committees read out the list of amendments in the group and I would like to take them together. They affect Clauses 13, 15, 16, 18 and Schedule 2.
I should mention to your Lordships that I had a further amendment on the same subject to Clause 12 at page 11, line 8, but I regret that due to the pressure that I and my colleagues are under in dealing with this large Bill, I was somewhat slow off the mark and missed it as Clause 12 had already been dealt with. So on the assumption—or perhaps I should say in the hope—-that the Minister will accept the principle behind this series of amendments, I shall bring the other one back at a later stage.
The introduction of a new player, the NDA, into the relationships which currently exist in the civil nuclear industry has the potential, if we are not careful, of blurring responsibilities by adding a new tier of direction for operators alongside the existing regulatory bodies. The series of amendments to which I am now speaking have the effect of making it clear that the NDA is not able to direct a site licensee to act in a manner inconsistent with regulatory requirements, particularly those that relate to health and safety. Within the NDA's framework, site licensees must have sufficient freedom to address current safety issues, as well as those that may emerge in the future.
In my Amendment No.29, which I moved on Tuesday, I proposed that the NDA should not be able to give directions which would cause a site operator to be in breach of its licences. I will, if I may, refer to the Minister's response later as it is relevant to these present amendments.
On the one hand, friction between the NDA and the regulators must be avoided at all costs. But on the other hand, site licensees should have sufficient freedom to address emerging safety issues or regulatory requirements without having to refer back

GC 387
to the NDA. The amendments provide that among the duties of the NDA is the duty to ensure that sites are decommissioned and cleaned up not only in accordance with its own policies but in accordance with the relevant regulator's requirements.
Presumably, the regulator's requirements will normally be consistent with the NDA's known policies. It is therefore necessary, as my amendments in effect provide, that the NDA must include in its annual plan its strategy for dealing with foreseeable future regulatory requirements. However, regulatory requirements are rarely black and white. They are sometimes, perhaps often, a matter of interpretation. Failure to address the issue of possible conflicting requirements between the NDA and the regulators could have a deterrent effect on potential contractors and their investors. Such a deterrent could detract from the Government's stated objective of opening up the decommissioning market.
There is, as the Minister told us last Tuesday, a draft memorandum of understanding between the NDA and regulators which was published with the draft Nuclear Sites and Radioactive Substances Bill. But site licensees are not parties to that memorandum of understanding. It is also of course not legally binding, but merely provides that the NDA and regulators will "retain relationships", whatever that means, which are "transparent to site licensees".
The memorandum of understanding recognises the potential for differences of view between the NDA and regulators, including the possibility that they will make differing and conflicting recommendations to the Secretary of State. That possibility could leave site operators caught in the middle of a dispute or, if that is too strong a word, a difference of opinion between the NDA and the regulators.
Earlier in my remarks, I referred to the response by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, last Tuesday to my Amendment No.29. What he said then is to be found in col. GC278. In essence, he told your Lordships that,
"the regulatory requirements under a licence are statutory obligations that flow from the Nuclear Installations Act 1965".
He went on to list other statutory requirements affecting nuclear sites and then gave what he called a clear assurance that:
"the NDA cannot require a person with control [of a site] to contravene such obligations". —[Official Report, 20/1/04; col. GC278.]
This whole series of amendments relates to different statutory obligations from those listed by the Minister in his reply to Amendment No.20 where he lyrically referred to a "golden triangle" of the NDA, site licensees and contractors. Fine, but triangles, even golden ones, have three sides and, as I have said, the site operators are not party to the memorandum of understanding.
The Minister told us that the Government,
"have devoted considerable efforts to ensure that the regulators are comfortable with what we propose". —[Official Report, 20/1/04; col. GC279.]
GC 388
But there is a gap between what the NDA and the regulators may agree or understand and what the site operators may need or understand. These amendments are to clarify and simplify the framework for those undertaking decommissioning and clean-up work at NDA sites.
It is unacceptable that in doing so they could be faced with conflicting and inconsistent requirements, especially when those conflicting requirements may have the intention of ensuring safety as their number one priority. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This is quite a range of amendments. The first two—Amendments Nos.45A and 45B—relate to the content of the NDA's annual plan. Amendment No.45A would require the NDA to include separate cost summaries for regulatory compliance at the installation of facilities it operates. Amendment No.45B would require the NDA to maintain year-on-year cumulative accounts of capital expenditure.
Both these amendments seek to impose rather more detailed information requirements on the NDA's plan and, to be frank, the content of the plan to be required is already fairly detailed. I am not entirely clear from what the noble Baroness said what the use or the relevance of prescribing that additional detail would be. As regards Amendment No.45A, much of what the NDA's site licensees will be doing will be driven by environmental security safety considerations. To identify what is determined or otherwise affected by the need to meet those requirements and what is part of the normal operational requirement would be very difficult. Any distinction between that and compliance with specific regulations would be quite artificial. Meeting regulatory requirements is an integral part of the overall safe and secure operation of nuclear installations. It is difficult to isolate what is required by regulation from natural prudence and the requirements on an industry such as this. That is not to say that we would leave out of the annual plan anything relating to the regulatory framework. Clearly, that would be part of the report on the activities of the NDA and its licensees. Specific cases where there had been regulatory intervention requiring a new project or a change in plan would undoubtedly warrant a specific mention. However, the basis should be what the NDA intends to be done at the sites rather than the identification and breakdown of all the costs and drivers for particular activity.
The amendment regarding cumulative accounts of capital expenditure would require capital expenditure to be separated from running costs. The government budgeting process treats those kinds of expenditure quite differently. The strategy is probably the right place to identify the overall costs of capital projects over a number of years while the annual plan should focus on what the NDA needs to spend in that year and has spent in the previous year and provide the basis for parliamentary approval to supply the estimate for the NDA. Many of these projects will span a large number of years. Therefore, it would be

GC 389
more appropriate to refer to their costs in the strategy rather than in the annual plan although there is nothing to preclude the NDA from giving more information than is statutorily required. Therefore, the kind of detail required by Amendments Nos.45A and 45B is over-prescriptive, as they say.
I turn to the amendments to which the noble Baroness devoted a large part of her speech which relate to the relationship between the NDA and the regulators. As we have said before—I repeat it in connection with these amendments—the regulatory framework that governs the operation of these sites is unchanged by the creation of the NDA and unchanged by the fact that the NDA will recognise licensees, particularly of its sites.
The regulators are regulating the same thing. The fact that there are different operators does not change that situation. The independence of the regulators is also unchanged by the Bill. The powers of the regulators are unchanged and the duties of the regulators are unchanged. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from in the sense that she feels that the creation of the NDA as opposed to the regulators would create another conflict and the proverbial meat in the sandwich between decommissioning and clean-up and the regulation of those activities. Clearly in one sense that deserves some consideration but it is actually no different from the current position. By and large we are dealing with public bodies operating these sites which are controlled by a number of public regulators. I shall not repeat the basis of the regulators' powers but none of those powers is changed. The NDA cannot change them. The NDA cannot require one of its licensees to breach such obligations or to put such pressure on them that they feel forced to breach such obligations.
The noble Baroness said that conflict between the regulators and the NDA had to be resolved by the Secretary of State. However, there is no way that the Secretary of State can instruct the regulators not to carry out their function or allow the NDA or its licensees to act in contravention of the statutes. None of those things could happen under the existing arrangements between, say, the UKAEA and the regulators and nor could they happen under the Bill. The Bill contains a number of provisions that highlight regulatory considerations; for example, in Clause 9(1) the NDA is placed under a duty to have particular regard to the need to protect the environment, ensure safety and preserve security. In a sense, Clause 17(2)(b) places a negative duty on people with control of the installation, site or facility to ensure that in discharging their responsibilities to the NDA there is no contravention of other statutory obligations. That, of course, includes the regulatory ones. Neither the NDA or the Secretary of State can direct otherwise. That must be right. Clause 18(7) states that the NDA,
"cannot authorise a contravention … of any obligation to which the person with control … is subject by or under an enactment".
There is no way in which the NDA will seek to contravene the regulatory requirements.
GC 390
Having said that, effective working relationships are important. The NDA, its site licensees and contractors need to operate within what my noble friend called the "golden triangle". Arrangements and relationships need to be in place to enable everyone's point of view to be recognised. However, the regulators still have their existing powers. They are comfortable with what we propose in this respect. As the noble Baroness recognised, there will be a memorandum of understanding between them and the NDA to ensure effective co-operation. However, that does not alter, and is not itself, a statutory power or obligation. In that sense nothing is changed by this Bill. The regulators will work with the NDA and with the operators and licensees to produce work plans for the sites in the same way as they do with the UKAEA or BNFL.
Therefore, this raft of amendments is unnecessary. Some of the specifics of the amendments are unnecessary. For example, Amendment No.47A prevents Ministers from directing the NDA to modify its annual plan in respect of regulatory obligations. The Minister cannot do that. No Secretary of State can override the obligations of the NDA in a way that breaches the regulatory requirements.
Amendments Nos.58ZC and 58ZD are also unnecessary. I believe I have already said that Clause 17 prescribes that persons in control must comply with the regulatory requirements. There is no way in which the NDA can override that. Amendment No.60B simply repeats the standing legal position that if something is unlawful no person can be obliged to do it. That is a general legal position and does not need to be repeated explicitly in this context.
The idea that the creation of the NDA leads to more confusion and that contractors in particular will be caught in the middle of a row between the NDA and the regulators is simply not correct. It is misguided in the sense that the relationship remains as it was and the responsibilities remain as they were. They are simply delivered through the NDA and through its contracting of the site operators. We are confident that there is nothing in this Bill which would enable the NDA or the Secretary of State to dilute or thwart any of the regulatory requirements. Indeed, the intent of the Bill is quite the opposite, as is spelt out in the earlier clauses.
The anxiety that has been expressed is unnecessary. I can see why it has arisen in that we are creating a new public body in what already seems to be a crowded field and we are allowing it to contract. Nevertheless the essential relationships do not change. It would be a serious mistake for the Government to try to change them by statute or by direction. There is no way that we can ultimately so do. Although I accept everything that has been said about good working relationships and so on, the actual statutory responsibilities should remain as they are. I do not accept that we need these amendments.
Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend responds to the Minister, I hope that I may ask three very simple questions. Obviously we are establishing a new public

GC 391
body, which I quite understand. Secondly, the Minister said that some of my noble friend's suggestions should not be included in the annual plan but should be included in the strategy. That brings me to my third point. Are the regulations that are being applied to the NDA being transposed from existing wording or jurisdictions or have new areas been brought in because the NDA is a new body?
Lord Whitty: No, the powers of the regulator, the Environment Agency in Scotland and the Nuclear Inspectorate for the OCNS are unchanged by the creation of the NDA. The Bill is silent, as it were, on something that it does not intend to change. The NDA will be the body that is responsible for delivering compliance with those regulations. The NDA itself is not therefore specifically regulated; it is the operation on the site that is regulated. The site licensee, the site operator, will need to carry out the duties that are currently being carried out, for example, by the UKAEA on its sites. The NDA and, as I have said, by extension the Secretary of State cannot authorise or otherwise require the site licensee to contravene those regulatory requirements. There is no change in the regulatory requirements. It is just that someone else will be operating according to those regulatory requirements under the new structure.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I hope that I may make one more point on this because I am not sure that the Minister has wholly grasped the additional complexity that the creation of the NDA will give rise to. I refer to a visit to Harwell last week. Perhaps I was stupid and had not appreciated this matter previously. The noble Lord just referred to the UKAEA. The UKAEA is currently a site operator, or whatever one calls it. It employs contractors to do the work. In one or two cases we saw the names of extremely well regarded international companies who are actually doing the work and employing the staff. The point was made to us that with the arrival of the NDA there will be a three-tier system. The NDA is given all these statutory responsibilities by the Bill. The NDA then appoints the site operator who may be UKAEA, BNFL or whoever, and those operators in turn do not necessarily employ the people—they employ contractors. Therefore, we are already starting with a three-tier system. We shall want to study carefully what the noble Lord has said but there is anxiety out there that difficulties will arise regarding the number of regulatory bodies mentioned in these amendments and in the speech of my noble friend Lady Miller coupled with the three-tier system. It will be at least three tiers because obviously some of the contractors will have sub-contractors. One needs to be absolutely clear what responsibility rests where. As with previous amendments that we have discussed, it may well be that these matters can be dealt with under the contract that the NDA awards to the site operator and the contracts which the site operator will then have with the engineering companies that will actually carry out the work. That may be the case. Clearly that matter will need to be addressed.
GC 392
In addition to that the regulatory bodies will impinge at every level of the process. I am mildly apprehensive that we are somehow setting up a complex system without actually spelling out in the Bill how it is to be resolved. It may be capable of being resolved by contract, I do not know. However, I leave Ministers with the thought that the matter may be a little more complex than the noble Lord's reply suggested.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: The issue that has now been raised seems to me to be of prime importance because the nuclear industry is so complex and the decommissioning operations could be one of the most complex parts of it. It is very important that those who do the work—the contractors or subcontractors—are fully aware of the regulatory framework under which they operate. The Minister said that the measure would involve no change in those regulatory responsibilities. But that is not the way it might appear with the creation of the NDA. I have looked carefully at the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. It seems to me that although it might appear to the noble Lord that she is stating the obvious, nevertheless there are occasions when the obvious needs to be stated. The burden of many of her amendments is that the NDA should have regard to the regulatory functions of the other bodies. I can see no harm in this area of extreme importance and complexity in restating that. I hope that the Minister will have some regard to that.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Before the Minister replies—if he intends to reply—perhaps he will consider a particular case that may help to elucidate some of the principles which seem to me to have been raised in this connection. There is at present a problem of contamination with irradiated particles that are periodically found on the beach, but with increasing frequency, at a place called Sandside in Caithness near the Dounreay site. As I understand it, the body currently regulated by SEPA via the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is UKAEA. If this Bill is enacted, that position would seem to me to be changed because the responsibility for this programme will have been transferred from the UKAEA to the new agency. The UKAEA will merely be acting as the contractor to the new agency. Is the contractor managing this work or the agency? Which is to be subject to the regulation by the NII and, in this case, SEPA? The answer may be very straightforward and simple, but it does not seem to me that this situation is precisely the same as it was before.
Lord Whitty: The NDA is obliged to take account of the role of the regulators but the regulators will be regulating what goes on on the site. So the site operators will be the main interface with the regulator. In the example of Dounreay, were the NDA to award the contract back to the UKAEA, the regulators would regulate how the UKAEA and its subcontractors operated on that site. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, the contractual arrangements would in effect govern the carrying out of the

GC 393
responsibilities to the regulator. However, it is already the case—I am not sure whether this applies at Dounreay—on BNFL sites, for example, and at Harwell, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, implied, that there are already subcontractors on site. Those subcontractors have to carry out the duties of the UKAEA or BNFL in respect of the operation of that site. So the site operator would be regulated. The NDA would have to take into account the responsibilities to the regulators and ensure that the site operator, in the terms of its contract, carried out its operations in conformity with those existing and continuing obligations of regulation. If the UKAEA was the site manager under an NDA licence at Dounreay, probably the management there would not notice a huge amount of difference in terms of its relationships with SEPA or the nuclear inspectorate.
Baroness Noakes: I did not intend to take part in the deliberations of the Committee at this stage but I do not feel that I can stay seated any longer. The Minister's words concerned me because I had thought that we were replacing the existing tier with the NDA. However, the Minister said that we would have the NDA, then we would have the UKAEA or BNFL and then we would have contractors. At the moment there are contractors but they are not subcontractors. They are contractors to BNFL or to the UKAEA as I understand it. If we are putting in another layer, we are adding a layer of complexity that does not currently exist in the way that clean up is managed, as I understand it. If that is the case, it seems to me that all the points raised by my noble friend in introducing her amendments are very pertinent and need to be addressed.
Lord Whitty: We are dealing here with the NDA's responsibility for the clean up and decommissioning of sites. At the moment, for example, on BNFL sites there are senior BNFL management and site managers. The NDA will take over the strategic responsibility for clean up and decommissioning operations for BNFL sites, UKAEA sites, sites relating to decommissioned power stations and other nuclear sites across the country that need cleaning up. The NDA would be the strategic authority for all of that and would have the opportunity to learn from each of those different sites which currently are under different management and different companies and have different histories and different contractual arrangements. The NDA could generalise that expertise and best practice and direct decommissioning and clean up in a strategic way. However, it is already the case—this applies within BNFL for example—that there will be a strategic management and a site management. The strategic management will now—so far as decommissioning and clean up are concerned—be run by the NDA. The site management or BNFL may well—and probably would, certainly in the first instance—be the site manager under an NDA licence. Any contracting out of that would be done on the same basis as it is now. Therefore, I do not think that the situation has become more complex in terms of actual operation. The people
GC 394
operating on site would have the same relationship with the regulators as is currently the case. They would be obliged to meet the same regulatory outcomes.
Baroness Byford: I am becoming more confused by the minute. Does the Minister's response mean that the people who are currently doing the work will be sacked and a new set-up established, or will they remain in place and be joined by yet more people from the NDA?
Lord Whitty: No, that is not the case. We discussed this matter during debate on an earlier part of the Bill. The NDA would decide who was the best manager of the site. If it decided in the cases of UKAEA sites that UKAEA should retain the responsibility for running those sites, I have no doubt that that would occur. Should the NDA decide that another contractor should have that responsibility, the issue of who is employed in that regard on that site would be a matter—as would the cost involved—for the new contractor. However, as we discussed earlier, in the early days those who were running BNFL and UKAEA sites would be likely to obtain the licence on those sites. It is a different situation when we are talking about the clean-up of other generation or other types of nuclear facility, where probably the previous operator would not be the company that took over the licensed site. It is possible that the UKAEA might take over one of those.
Lord Maclennan of Bogart: I hesitate to intervene again on the same point, but I do so only because I remain unclear. I hope that the position might become clearer by the end of the Bill's progress. I remain unclear as to who is subject to the regulations and what part the NDA has. I think the Minister said that the agency had to take account of the regulations, but he seemed to suggest that the regulatory process was between the site manager and the regulators and, in a sense, that the responsible body which we are bringing into being would be viewing such matters as res inter alia acta— not something that binds the authority. If true, it would be a very strange outcome if the body that is ultimately responsible is not the body chat is ultimately bound by the regulation—with all the consequences that flow or might flow from breaching the regulations, including damages, stopping activities on the site, liability for hazard to the public or anything else.
Is the Minister really saying that the NDA can step back and say, "It's nothing to do with us, it's all to do with our agents who are operating the site". The answer is, no doubt, clear and I am sorry if I am slow on the uptake, but I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance.
Lord Whitty: The NDA's contract system will obviously require the site operators to conform to the regulations. Any site operator that is not doing so will not be complying with the contract. As for anywhere else, the regulation is enforced on those who are running the site. The relationship of the Environment Agency's inspectors and health and safety inspect ors is with those who are running sites, whether it is a nuclear

GC 395
site or anything else. In this case the site operators would have the contractual responsibility as well to the NDA to meet the requirements of the regulation. But the regulators would deal with the people running the site.
Baroness Noakes: Earlier the Minister talked about the NDA having strategic responsibility. I cannot see that in the Bill. It seems to me that the responsibilities of the NDA are described not in strategic terms but in operational terms. We are talking about a body with operational responsibility, because we are adding a layer of that in some way, thereby making the whole operation much more complex—a point that was made earlier.
Lord Whitty: The NDA is responsible for operations. But it is responsible for securing the outcome of those operations, not for doing them. The NDA will deliver, clean up and decommission a site by designating and contracting site licensees for that purpose. That is the NDA's responsibility in its contracting arrangement and its choice of contractor must be deployed in order to achieve those objectives.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is quite a long time ago since I moved this amendment. The Minister gave a very long answer, and more or less ended up by saying, "These things are just not necessary". It is quite clear from the comments of the Committee that we all feel something that something is necessary.
I was comforted when the Minister said, halfway through his reply to my amendment, "I do understand where the noble Baroness is coming from". When he started, he said, "I really don't understand why the noble Baroness thinks this is necessary", so I was quite pleased to hear that, somewhere along the line, he had changed his view.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin pointed out, it was not until we actually went to Harwell that we realised quite how many tiers there would be. Perhaps we should have done, but we did not understand that—and that is the truth of the matter. That is one reason why, when I started moving my amendment, I talked about another amendment which I had but could not table because we had passed the space. The more we got involved in the subject, the more complicated we found the structure to be. I believe that the Committee thinks that, too.
We shall read carefully everything that the Minister has said, but I do not think that at the end of the day, that will be the end of the matter or that we shall push it away as something that is not necessary. Most of us are of the view that something is necessary, although it may not be my amendment. At some stage we shall return to the issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.45B not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No.46:
Page 13, line 29, at end insert—
"() For the purposes of this subsection, an activity shall be deemed to be significant if it entails the expenditure of £25, 000 or more within the financial year or the expenditure of a total £50, 000 or more in that year and the succeeding financial year. "
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller, myself and other noble friends. It is a probing amendment. When I discussed the matter with someone outside, it was suggested that a very low figure should be mentioned when the NDA deals with the other functions—which is what the clause refers to. A figure of £2, 000 a year was mentioned, and £4, 000 over two years. I took the view that that would be wholly restrictive, and thought that we should float a figure of £25, 000 a year as being of sufficient significance that it needed to be referred to in the plan. That is what I have put. I am not going to hang my hat on that figure, as it might be quite wrong, but it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the sort of function and amount depending on it which he would regard as "of significance", in the words of subsection 5(a). I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: It would be right to leave the NDA some discretion as to what it puts in the annual plan. There is of course a stakeholder engagement, and if the stakeholders feel that there are things missing from the proposed plan, they can discuss that. The process of approval requires the NDA to have regard to the representations that it would make.
There are two sorts of problems with prescribing by threshold. It would a include amount of back-office function that probably does not need spelling out in the report. There might also be subordinate services in the bigger sites, such as a car park, which cost £25, 000 a year to run. Certainly a canteen would. I do not know how much detail we want to put in the annual plan for activities such as that. On the other hand, if the NDA were to be involved in an entirely new area of research that cost significantly less than £25, 000, it would be sensible for the NDA to record it. The stakeholders would be interested if the NDA got involved in a new activity that might change the technological options or the way in which it operated.
The threshold of £25, 000 is arbitrary. It would cover things that were not of interest and not cover others that were of interest. I am not suggesting an alternative threshold to £25, 000 because I do not believe that one can define it in such a way. It should be defined by the importance of the activity and, if an activity were omitted, the thorough stakeholder engagement would ensure that that activity was probed and reflected in the annual report, if not for that year then for the following year. We need some flexibility. In terms of the objective of ensuring that we know what the NDA is up to, I do not believe that putting in such a threshold would particularly help.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I wish to make one point. Subsections (1) to (4) of Clause 13 give the detailed plans, and nobody could have any objection to that. However, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said,

GC 397
subsection (5) creates a slight problem. It is a sweep-up clause that refers to the NDA's "other functions", requiring the NDA to set out all significant activities that it proposes to carry out during the year and then to estimate their cost.
The Minister, in his response to my noble friend, said that of course we should leave the NDA with some flexibility. However, the activities of significance are not defined in any way whatever, and there is no indication of who would do the defining. From the Minister's comments, I presume that the NDA would have the flexibility and would do the defining. If it defined things for which the expenditure could be very appreciable, the sums of money would not be insignificant—they would be most significant.
The situation arises when a large commitment is put down and described in the phrase, by the accountants, as "sundry expenses". Here we are talking about very serious matters, and there should be somewhere along the line some kind of definition of what is significant. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, he was not putting his hat on a figure; we just had to put a figure down to make the point. I do not know whether there could be a definition of "significant" in that sense. Would the NDA have to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State? The Minister made the point that the NDA has all the flexibility in this matter. Does it?
Baroness Byford: If the Minister requires flexibility, do we really need the words "of significance" in the Bill, as they are not going to be defined?
Lord Whitty: We are not talking about accounting practice here, but about giving a flavour of what the annual report—
Lord Jenkin of Boding: The Minister has called it an annual report several times, but it is a plan.
Lord Whitty: Sorry, it is an annual plan. We are talking not about an annual account but about an annual plan that looks both backwards and forwards and should give a flavour of the significant things that the body intends to do and has done over the course of 12 months and beyond. That requires the NDA to cover everything significant, so I have no objection to saying that in the Bill. What it does not require is for everything that costs £25, 000, which can be identified as a separate activity that could be defined, to be identified separately in the plan. If one removed the words "of significance", the default position would be that one would have to report on everything, which would clearly be absurd.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I understand the difficulty. There was a famous case in court when an item was described as a "sundry special account". The judge remarked that it was possibly an account and that it was certainly very special but that whether "sundry" was the right word he did not know. The fact was that someone had gone off with a very large sum of money, but that was how it had been recorded. I am not for a moment suggesting that anyone in the NDA would be up to that.
GC 398
One has to ask the question, what is "of significance"? Perhaps that just has to be left to the NDA. That may be the sensible thing to do. The main functions are set out in the previous subsections, and then one comes to subsection (5), which refers simply to "other functions". I do not suppose for a moment that the NDA will set up a facility for selling degrees in a garage, as one reads about in the papers. It is not going to be that. The NDA may embark on a new training function that is outside the terms of the other ones. If it is significant, it ought to appear in the plan, and not just come under expenditure. However, I have heard what the Minister said and we cannot continue to press the matter, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Procedural requirements applicable to NDAis annual plans]:
[Amendments Nos.46A to 50 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Annual reports]:
[Amendments Nos.51 to 54 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No.55:
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State must also arrange for a copy of the report or a fair summary thereof to be published—

(a) directly on paper to every person whom he believes or knows to be likely to be affected by it, and

(b) on the Department of Trade and Industry website.

() The Secretary of State must make a copy of the full report as laid before Parliament to be available at reasonable cost to every person who may request it. "
The noble Baroness said: The Bill quite rightly provides for the NDA to publish annual reports and, under subsection (5), for those reports to be laid before Parliament. However, simply doing that is not enough to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the annual report. To those of us who are privileged to work in Parliament, having a report laid before it is usually sufficient. However, persons outside the Palace of Westminster and parliamentary journalists—and indeed the parliamentary advisers or lobbyists of various interested bodies—may very easily miss the ceremonial process of laying a report before Parliament.
My amendment does not impose an onerous duty on the Secretary of State but asks for three simple and inexpensive actions. The Secretary of State must send a copy of the report to everybody whom he actually knows or believes to be affected by the report. That will not be a very long list and it will be in the department's records anyway. He must publish the report on the DTI website, which can be done in a matter of a few key-strokes on the department's computer. Lastly, a print of the report must be available to the public at reasonable cost.

GC 399
It may very well be argued that the Government would be doing these simple and perfectly reasonable things without being ordered to do so by an Act of Parliament. That is possible or even probable. But there is no reason why, for the sake of the 100 or so words in nine lines of the amendment, the Bill should not say so. The Government often claim to be a protagonist of open government. Accepting this amendment will enable them to practise it. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The requirement of an annual report would be an unusual one to impose on a public body. We should have some regard to whether we are treating the NDA differently from other public bodies and, if so, why.
The terms of the requirements are to prepare a summary of the report and send a paper copy to everyone who might be affected by it. That is a fairly wide-ranging and open-ended commitment. One could argue that every employee, site contractor or sub-contractor has an interest, and no doubt the surrounding community would also be covered by such a general requirement. It could be argued that that would be highly desirable, but it is not something that we impose on public or private bodies in legislation. It would be a little odd to apply it to this new body when it does not apply to bodies that have a wider ramification in many respects than the NDA is likely to have.
As to the prescribing of the website, we have had that argument in many different guises on different pieces of legislation, including a discussion on the Floor of the House on vellum. There have been previous debates about prescribing in Bills technology for communication. I have no doubt that the report would appear on the DTI's and NDA's websites under current technology, but whether that will be the technology in 50 years' time we do not know—it certainly was not the technology 10 years ago. We have tended to resist prescription of technology in requirements for annual reports, and I would not wish to depart from that in this case.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister gave a very brief answer, which was somewhat amusing in certain parts. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.56 to 58 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Duty to decommission and clean up installations and sites]:
[Amendments Nos.58ZA and 58ZB not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Duties to operate installations and to provide treatment etc]:
[Amendments Nos.58ZC and 58ZD not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No.58A:
Page 16, line 2, at end insert—
"(5) In discharging that responsibility and in performing its designated responsibilities under section 3, the NDA shall place no restriction on the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority or British Nuclear Fuels or any other suitably qualified and experienced British or other European Union company from tendering for and (if appropriate) being awarded contracts for the decommissioning of installations or the cleaning up of sites. "
The noble Baroness said: I should like to quote a passage from the Government's White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy. It says:
"Whilst UKAEA and BNFL will have the opportunity to demonstrate that they should be the suppliers of choice to the LMA"—
we are now of course talking about the NDA—
"the management of clean up will be opened up to competition".
That is on page 13, in paragraph 1.23. On page 50, in paragraph 5.39, this Government, whose leader proclaims that he has "no reverse gear", contradict themselves by saying:
"The Government does not consider that it would be appropriate for UKAEA as a pubic sector body to compete for additional site management contracts against firms from the private sector".
The first question I should like to ask is where that doctrine came from. Secondly, why do the Government consider it inappropriate for public sector bodies to compete for publicly funded contracts? Are we are not talking about a Labour Party that fought tooth and nail against the first, and highly successful, privatisation of British Telecom, and a futile and increasingly rearguard action against subsequent privatisations?
Lord Davies of Oldham: What about the railways?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I am very happy to give way if he wants to make some political point against me.
The White Paper, in a highlighted box on page 12, proclaimed that the guiding principles of the LMA—or the NDA, as we can now call it,
"focus on getting the job done to high safety, security and environmental standards … best value for money consistent with safety, security and environmental performance … openness and transparency … competition—so as to make the best possible use of the best available skills".
That specification could have been the job description of BNFL or UKAEA.
Those organisations are acknowledged world leaders—indeed, possibly they are the actual world leaders in the field of nuclear decommissioning and clean up. There is no reason to suppose that, with the advantage of being already established on the spot on nuclear sites, they will not offer prices that amount to the best value for money, consistent with safety, security and environmental performance. By attempting to exclude them—or indeed any other qualified and experienced company from the tendering process—the Government have simultaneously excluded openness and transparency.

GC 401
By excluding a world leader in the field, not only are the Government restricting competition but they are particularly preventing themselves,
"making the best possible use of the best possible skills".
For all the high sounding "guiding principles" announced on page 12, the Government, clearly suffering from short-term memory loss, totally contradict themselves just 38 pages later.
I have no doubt that if asked, the two companies would say that they welcome competition. Well, they would be bound to say that, wouldn't they? But the White Paper does not merely subject the two companies to competition. It totally and unequivocally excludes them from it, even though the White Paper acknowledges that,
"UKAEA and BNFL have made steady progress in recent years in managing the nuclear legacy".
It excludes them on the basis of an entirely specious doctrine that it is inappropriate for a public sector body to compete.
There is only one doctrine that should apply to the massive task of nuclear decommissioning and the clean-up of high, medium and low level waste. That is that safety, skill and proven track record, coupled with value for money, are the only criteria to be applied. Apart from that, putting such a restriction on which qualified companies may tender for contracts is a breach of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome, which outlaws anti-competitive actions. It is also a breach of at least one EU Directive, which requires open-market tendering for public sector contracts.
I do not know what hidden agenda the Government have, or what strange philosophy they are following in imposing that totally unnecessary, and as it happens, illegal, restriction on the tendering process. It is a restriction that can serve only to negative the Government's so-called "guiding principles". In the circumstances, we believe that the NDA must conduct the tendering process and must award contracts on the basis of those guiding principles. We insist that the Government do not place any unreasonable and purely doctrinaire obstacles in the way of the authority doing so. The amendment would prevent the Government from interfering in the way in which the NDA will carry out the mandate that the Bill will give them. I beg to move.
Lord Whiny: It is clearly true that the objective of site competition is to get the best person and value for money for the site, subject to all the regulatory and quality requirements. There will obviously be a pre-selection process in which some companies will be excluded. The amendment would threaten the ability to exclude people from a pre-selection process, which does not seem a very sensible approach to competition. It is important that the NDA should be in a position to sift companies to ensure that they are capable of delivering a contract. Some of that sifting would exclude some people. The final competition would be based on value for money and the ability to do the job.
As for BNFL sites and the UKAEA, it is clear that the NDA will establish competition for the management of the site licensee companies. The site
GC 402
licensee companies themselves—BNFL and UKAEA—with their workforces will remain in place as site licensees throughout the clean-up process. To the extent that BNFL and UKAEA initially manage the site as an integrated entity, it is only the strategic or senior role of the management function of those organisations that would be subject to competition in relation to what are currently their own sites.
As for the ability of BNFL and UKAEA to compete on other sites, I recognise that the noble Baroness is using the European law in one direction as an objection to some limitation on that, but actually it works the other way round. Public sector bodies competing through public funds in areas that are supposed to be subject to open competition would be in breach of European competition rules. If they were to do so in some circumstances in conjunction with a private sector company and the private sector company covered the cost of the bid, we would be in a slightly different situation. It is not possible for us to prescribe that the UKAEA and BNFL could compete with their own resources in markets that are supposed to be subject to open competition. Therefore, the European law cuts in the opposite direction to the way suggested by the noble Baroness. That is the only restriction that is indicated here; otherwise, anyone who is up to the job would be able to compete for the contract.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Of course, I shall read carefully the Minister's comments, but it is a very unsatisfactory position and I shall most definitely return to the matter. In the first quote that I read from Managing the Nuclear Legacy to the Committee, where it said that the UKAEA and BNFL should be the,
"suppliers of choice to the LMA"—
or the NDA, as we now call it, one would assume i hat that is what it meant. But of course, under the competition laws and so forth, other companies would no doubt be allowed to tender. I have not heard much more about the letters of comfort that were going to be issued but which have not been, as far as I know.
Page 13 of the White Paper was quite comforting, with the quote that I gave about the UKAEA and BNFL. However, when we get down to page 50, which is not much further on, we understand that the UKAEA, as a public body, is not able to compete for the "additional site management contracts". I suppose that that might refer to the time when Magnox comes into the field. People must be able to compete with the UKAEA and BNFL for their own sites, where they are based and doing wonderful work, but they are not in a position to go out and compete for any other business. That is what it looks like to me.
It may be that I have got my facts wrong. However, the doctrine that a public company is not allowed to compete with a private sector company for public business seems to me an extraordinary new doctrine. I have never heard of such a doctrine. However, I shall look it up and take further advice. In any case, we have to withdraw amendments here, but it is an unhappy

GC 403
situation and I shall look into a way of bringing the amendment back in a satisfactory manner. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Directions by NDA to the person with control]:
[Amendments Nos.59 to 60B not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Designation as a related site for the purposes of s.18]:
[Amendment No.61 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Financial responsibilities of NDA]:
[Amendments Nos.62 and 63 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Expenditure and receipts of NDA]:
[Amendment No.64 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 23 [Borrowing by the NDA]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No.65:
Page 22. line 17, leave out "also"
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos.65 to 71 together. These are amendments to Clauses 23, 24 and 25, which relate to borrowing by the NDA.
I think that it will be simpler if I first speak to the whole group in general terms to explain the principle that I would like to establish. The option chosen by the Government as their funding option for the NDA is a statutory segregated account. Clause 23 makes it clear that the principal or at least one of the sources of funds will be loans from the Secretary of State on such terms as the Secretary of State sets, including rates of interest.
Although I believe that at the moment there is a genuine intention to keep the funding at a sufficient level to support a rolling programme for the NDA, there is, however, no certainty that this will always be so. Funding pressures and consequent cut backs of annual plans can lead to uncertainty not only at the NDA, but may also inhibit commercial concerns from taking on one of the management and operation contracts.
There is also some doubt whether the NDA will be able to enter into contracts for the management of major sites on a competitive basis without the assurance of government funds or guarantees.
It is a welcome reality that the Government have in Clause 23(4) allowed the NDA to borrow from,
"persons other than the Secretary of State",
by which we can assume the Government mean commercial banks. However, the subsection contains a drafting error which needs correcting. The words "also" and "temporarily" are redundant and confusing. They are the subject of Amendments Nos.65 and 66. Amendment No.65 asks for the word "also" to be removed because that subsection is entirely disconnected from the statutory borrowing. Amendment No.66 asks for the word "temporarily" to be removed.
What does the word "temporarily" mean? How short is a short-term loan? What happens if the NDA cannot repay by the specified date?
Amendment No.67, in new subsection (4A), gives the NDA power to,
"enter into other transactions which have the commercial effect of a borrowing".
The ingenuity of the City is such that it is not possible to define what all these transactions could be. I can, however, perhaps suggest a few: the issuing of bonds; derivative transactions to protect against price or currency fluctuations; and indemnities and counter indemnities. It is by no means clear that Clause 23 gives power to enter into what are ordinary commercial transactions at the level of finance in which the NDA will be involved.
The proposed new subsection (4B) makes it clear that without actually borrowing money, the NDA may give pledges in the form of guarantees and indemnities. Amendments Nos.68 and 69 are consequential on Amendment No.67 by making an appropriate adjustment to the next subsections—(5) and (6)—in Clause 23. These two subsections, as drafted, require the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury respectively for different types of borrowing transactions.
Amendments Nos.68 and 69 make the proposed new transactions subject to the same consents. Amendment No.70 is consequential on new subsections (4A) and (4B). It amends Clause 24(4), which gives the Secretary of State power to increase the NDA's borrowing limit. The amendment adds the other forms—the new forms—of borrowing that I have just proposed to those whose limits the Secretary of State can increase.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No.71. It amends Clause 25, which gives the Secretary of State power to guarantee NDA borrowing. The amendment makes it clear that the guarantee can extend to the other forms of transactions, including,
"other transactions which have the commercial effect of a borrowing",
which I have just proposed in Amendment No.67.
Amendment No.71 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may himself guarantee the NDA for obligations that may not be directly related to actual borrowing. That means the raising of money by means other than overdraft, as I have just described.
If I have to summarise the effect of this series of amendments, it is that they are necessary because there is concern about the effect of Clause 23 on the NDA's power to give indemnities. The Bill must provide for the NDA to be able to give an indemnity to site licensees in respect of the cost of future decommissioning and clean up work.
Let me make it clear that these amendments do not—I stress—provide for the Secretary of State to guarantee the NDA's ordinary contractual obligations. But there will be many other potential liabilities in respect of which site licensees may require a contractual indemnity from the NDA.
Any inability of the NDA to give suitable indemnities, if and when they are required, or doubts about any indemnities that the NDA may actually give, will severely restrict the NDA's ability to enter into contracts in a competitive market.
Those concerns about the funding of the NDA are likely to be shared by most companies in the market. Without these guarantees, and without the ability of the NDA to enter into what would be ordinary financial and commercial transactions by a company of NDA's size, the NDA may not be able to secure competitive terms for its site management and operations contracts.
The real question is whether the NDA is to have the ordinary commercial authority to get on with its statutory duties with a reasonable degree of independence, or whether it is to be tied to Whitehall's apron strings. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I raise one specific question in relation to borrowing by the NDA that relates to the private finance initiative. Do the Government regard private finance initiative transactions as borrowing for this purpose, the NDA therefore being unable to carry them out under the terms of Clause 23? Or, is it the case as in some parts of government—namely, foundation hospitals—that whether or not something is "borrowing" depends on how the accountants treat it. I should be grateful to know how the Government think that private finance initiative transactions will dovetail into Clause 23.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I should like to raise a question on the NDA borrowing limits. Does the limit that has been set take into account the fact that the borrowing limit is likely to be very much loaded to the front end—to the early part of its work? The Government have laid out the projected figures for spend in Managing the Nuclear Legacy. Does the Minister feel that that limit for the beginning part of its work and operation is likely to be sufficient?
Lord Davies of Oldham: In responding to this debate, I make it clear that we were aware of the concerns to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has given voice this afternoon. The amendments reflect a number of the representations that were made to us. So we had them in mind in drafting the Bill. We feel that we have met the concerns she was addressing with regard to her amendments.
GC 406
I make it absolutely clear that it is not Clause 23 but Clause 10 that gives the NDA the power, for the purpose of carrying out its functions, to enter into transactions which do not have the legal form of borrowing, but might have similar accounting consequences to borrowing.
The Government cannot see the need for the NDA to have extensive borrowing powers. It will be funded by grant by the Government to carry out its functions. Clause 23 provides for borrowing powers in the conceivable—and, after all, we are making arrangements that will obtain for a very long time indeed—and we consider unlikely event of them being needed in some connection with the NDA's commercial operations.
Therefore, Clause 23 is concerned with conventional borrowing. It does not cover a transaction entered into under Clause 10 for the purpose of carrying out the NDA's functions—which I think was the burden of the anxieties of the noble Baroness—just because the accounting consequences of the transaction are similar to the consequences of borrowing.
The Bill as drafted takes account of the concerns that are being voiced in several parts of the Committee today. We consider that the funding arrangements proposed by the Bill meet the financial requirements of the NDA.
I should like to respond directly to two questions that have been put to me. In response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we regard PFI as borrowing. It is one of the reasons why the powers to borrow are in the Bill. We want to make that absolutely clear. Clause 23(2) states:
"The NDA may borrow from the Secretary of State".
Clause 23(4) states:
"The NDA may also borrow".
from others. But we would expect that that borrowing from others would be temporary and short term. The costs of the NDA will be met by the Secretary of State.
Circumstances can be conceived where the N DA is involved in activities where an element of borrowing in the short term might obtain. I take the most obvious situation. The NDA might have received payment for a service which it has not delivered. It pays the contractor interest on the amounts rather than returning the money paid, and it might be contended that that is a form of borrowing. That would be short term; it would be quite specific; and very limited. We do not regard the NDA as being involved in borrowing because of the provision in Clause 10 that it receives the resources which it needs for its functions from the Secretary of State.
I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will recognise that we anticipated some of the concerns she has adumbrated today, and we have provided the requisite answers to them in the Bill.

GC 407
On the question of the borrowing limit, it is the same as for BNFL. The NDA's responsibilities are less than the total of BNFL. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that we should set up a similar structure.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may further clarify the point on private finance initiative. The Minister said that PFI was treated as borrowing. That is a welcome statement from the Government as often they try to pretend that PFI is not borrowing. Does that mean, therefore, that the NDA cannot enter into a PFI transaction? The only power to borrow is from the Secretary of State for short-term purposes and, by definition, a PFI transaction is not a short-term or temporary phenomenon.
So, do I understand the Minister is saying that PFI is ruled out in all circumstances for the NDA?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness is taking me down paths where I do not often tread. Therefore, I am trying to be as circumspect as possible with regard to this matter. I think that she will recognise that the Bill does not rule out PFI. That is why I answered her question as I did. I am trying to emphasise that the concept between the relationship of Clause 10 and Clause 23 is that this is not a body that we expect to be a borrower. It may get itself involved in limited transactions. I gave an illustration, which was that it has access to resources that are not its own, which are in excess of its own at that point and on which it might even pay interest for late payment. That could be construed as a form of borrowing.
However, we regard that as exceptional, as short term and as minor in terms of the overall provision of resource for the NDA. The actual source of support for the NDA is from the Secretary of State.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised a very interesting point. Does that mean that if the NDA has, say, £l, 000 million worth of PFI contracts, its limit would be only £1, 000 million in cash terms?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I really need notice of such a specific question. I apologise to the noble Baroness. I shall consult on that issue and either find an opportune moment in Grand Committee to reply or I shall write to her about it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The problem we now have is that Clause 23 is inconsistent with Clause 10. If the Minister is correct in saying that the authority will be funded by the Secretary of State then—other things being equal—it does not need powers to borrow. If he is saying that it needs powers to borrow, he is calling into question his own ability to fund it. There is an inconsistency there, which requires at least some explanation or needs to be dealt with.
Personally, I can understand the NDA requiring a borrowing facility. I completely agree with my noble friend that we do not need the word "temporarily" in
GC 408
the clause because, with the possible exception of the national debt, all debt is temporary. That is absolutely true. It may outlast our lifetimes. We are not infinite. It is a question of how one regards the word "temporarily". One does not need the word "also" either. It is just legislators slipping in words. I am quite happy about them.
However, what bothers me is the inconsistency between the Ministers words when he says, "On the one hand we are going to fund it" and "On the other hand it will need to borrow". One or other of those statements cannot be true.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I was trying to emphasise that the resources for the NDA are to be provided by the Secretary of State. We dare not rule out circumstances where the NDA might be involved in a transaction that could be defined as some form of borrowing. We conceive that as being short term, relatively marginal to its activities and thrown up by the nature of its regular operations. It does not need it. It will be funded properly for the projected budget that it will require over a period of time.
Clause 23 is there to give effect to a provision which we regard as being on the margin of the operation of the NDA in normal circumstances. That is the only point I was seeking to make. The transactions under Clause 10 are the crucial ones so far as the NDA is concerned. Clause 23 is more limited in its impact.
Baroness Noakes: Does the Minister accept my noble friend's contention that all borrowing is temporary, other than the national debt? Therefore, Clause 23(4) says in effect that one can borrow from almost anywhere. I ask that in particular because the Explanatory Notes state:
"Subsections (4) and (5) allow the NDA to borrow from other sources so that it could consider entering into PFI arrangements".
Clearly, the concept of "temporary" in the minds of those drafting the legislation appears to be much longer than I have ever encountered in any other case. It is important that we should have clarity about what "temporarily" actually means in Clause 23(4).
Lord Davies of Oldham: I cannot put a specific time limit on any form of borrowing. I am trying to defend legislation that is set up to create a body, which is to be substantially funded by the Secretary of State and which will be funded for its operations by the Secretary of State. There is a recognition that in carrying out its actions it can from time to time be involved in something defined as "borrowing". We are trying to put that properly into the context of a very limited function in a separate clause different from Clause 10, which relates to the significant operation of the body.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: In the first instance I have some sympathy with the Minister for having had to tread water on those last few points. At least he had the benefit of lots of notes being passed from behind him, which I hope were helpful.
I thank my noble friend for highlighting the whole issue of the PFI. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, my half namesake, for

GC 409
coming in with her useful point. The Minister's response was quite interesting. I thought that Clause 23 was extremely important until I heard him say that I had missed the point and that it was really Clause 10. That is quite extraordinary. We were talking not to Clause 10 but to Clause 23.
However, in view of what the Minister said and the concern that has been shown around the Committee, we shall obviously read his answer extremely carefully. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.66 to 69 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Limit on NDA borrowing]:
[Amendment No.70 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Government guarantees for NDA borrowing]:
[Amendment No.71 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Tax exemption for NDA activities]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No.71A:
Page 25, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.71A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.71B and 71C. The three amendments deal with different aspects of the tax regime prescribed by the Bill. Taking them together may be challenging for me and, possibly, for the Minister, but it may be efficient for the Committee if I try to kill three birds with one stone.
I should say at the outset that I do not claim any expertise as a tax expert. I am a chartered accountant. While many people believe that chartered accountants are tax experts, that is not true. Tax under any government is too complicated nowadays for someone like me to claim particular expertise in it. That is a rather long-winded way of apologising if I get the matter wrong, which I almost certainly will.
Amendment No.71A is a probing amendment. I should say that all these are probing amendments. It is designed to find out what organisations other than the NDA and its subsidiaries would qualify for the exemption from corporation tax that is granted by Clause 27. The amendment knocks out paragraph (b) from subsection (4), which is the part of the subsection that gives a tax exemption to a relevant site licensee which is not owned by the NDA. I can quite see that the NDA and its wholly owned subsidiaries, which are carrying out exempt activities, should not be within the tax net. I am querying extending that to site licensees who are defined in subsection (5), but who are not part of the NDA group.
Paragraph 130 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"It is Government's intention that private companies will not be able to realise tax-free profits through the tax exemption".
How exactly do the Government think they will achieve that, given the wide definition of a "relevant site licensee" in Clause 27(5)? We agree with the
GC 410
Government that private sector enterprises should not be able to make tax-free profits. I find it difficult to understand why they are brought within the tax exemption in the first place, which is what the drafting of this part of the Bill does. Can the Minister say in what circumstances a site licensee would be within the tax exemption? Can we have specific examples of that?
The amendment's solution is to knock out relevant site licensees, so that if one is not the NDA or a subsidiary one cannot have a tax exemption. My challenge to the Minister is for him to say why that simple approach is not good enough and in what circumstances, therefore, a body other than the NDA would be allowed to have a tax exemption on these activities.
Amendment No.71 B is a probing amendment in relation to Schedule 4. It deletes paragraph 3. The paragraph deals with charges on income, which is a long-standing technical term used in tax legislation for certain kinds of deductions from income for tax purposes. My question relates to what kind of charges on income we are talking about. If one is dealing with corporation tax, as opposed to the taxation of individuals, most charges on income have disappeared. Interest payments went out, I think, in 1996; royalties went out in 2002; and, I am told by people who know more about this than me, virtually the only transaction in a corporation tax sense that counts within charges on income is a charitable covenant. Is the paragraph here because the NDA will be paying charitable covenants? If so, what are we talking about? If it does not relate to charitable covenants, what charges on income are we talking about? Therefore, why do we need this provision?
The last amendment in the group is Amendment No.71C. On a probing basis it deletes subparagraph (a) from paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4. Paragraph 4 is about finance leases. It is designed to restrict the claim for capital allowances. I find it difficult to understand. It applies when, under subparagraph (a), the lessor is the NDA or an NDA company and under subparagraph (b) the lessee is the NDA or an NDA company. So we are dealing with finance leases that are wholly within the NDA and its subsidiaries. That seems to be designed to ensure that the NDA cannot create artificial structures in order to get some kind of tax relief within itself to shift tax allowances from its non-taxable activities to its taxable activities. That is all within the public sector, so I am not sure that much turns on it and we would not object to it.
Following on from that, if the Government think that finance leasing within the NDA group is unacceptable, which is what paragraph 4 is about, what is the Government's approach to finance leasing that we would conventionally come across; that is, finance leasing with a lessor, which is actually a finance house in the City? That is what most finance leasing is about. It is taking the capital allowances and getting the benefit of them in an area that would not otherwise attract capital allowances. That seems to involve a real tax leakage, which is not prevented by paragraph 4. Curiously, that is about this closed loop of finance leases within the NDA group. my question for the

GC 411
Minister is: what is this all about? Why is it about this rather odd internal finance leasing and not real finance leasing, as operated in the real world?
I appreciate that these are rather dry technical issues in tax terms. As I said earlier, I do not pretend to be a tax expert; but they could involve large amounts of taxpayers' money, which is why I think these issues are worth addressing. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is being deferential about her competence in this area, in expectation of receiving a blast of expertise from this side, she will find me sadly wanting in that respect. She can rest assured that she will have a relatively comfortable time over the next few minutes. However, I shall try to meet her points and explain our thinking with regard to our current position. I shall explain why we are not prepared to accept the amendment, with a message at the end that may be of some reassurance to her.
I shall deal, first, with the issues of detail. Clause 27 allows Treasury regulations to be made that would exempt from tax certain of the NDA's activities. The activities that we have in mind are those of Thorp and SMP, which are expected to be loss-making for tax purposes. I do not believe that many people would contest that analysis.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage. I intend to cover that point when I speak to whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill because I consider it interesting that SMP and Thorp are given as examples of activities that would be included. As I understand it, the whole sweep of activities involved in decommissioning work are included, and Thorp and SMP are given as a specific example. I shall certainly raise this matter again when speaking to the Question whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will elucidate why those are treated as loss-making activities.
If we cast our minds back to when the Thorp and Mox plants were established, they were seen very much as national activities. Their purpose was not viewed as only for the clean-up of the Sellafield site; they were seen as income generators. They would not otherwise have been able to justify the very large sums of capital that were involved in them. My question may be short-circuiting what we do with regard to Clause 27. However, is that really true? And why has the commercial future that was once seen for Thorp and Mox evaporated?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have already been guilty of entertaining the Committee for a very long time in one answer this afternoon. If the noble Baroness is now inviting me to spend a considerable amount of time on the prospects of Thorp and SMP, on why they are not making a profit and on why we foresee that situation obtaining for a considerable period, we may be here for a very long time. I shall not follow the noble Baroness down that particular avenue, and I imagine that, as a result, there will much relief all round.
GC 412
However, I want to emphasise that, in any case, computing the tax position of Thorp and SMP will be very tricky if their activities are bound up with the decommissioning and clean-up activities of the NDA. Surely, on pragmatic grounds, it makes sense to exclude them from tax when they are involved in work which is carried out to the benefit of the NDA. Where the activities might be carried out on behalf of the NDA by site licensee companies, depending on the detail of the contractual arrangements between the NDA and the site licensee companies, it might still be appropriate for them to be exempt. That is exactly what Clause 27(4)(b) does: it allows site licensee companies to be included within the potential scope of this exemption.
Amendment No.71B would remove the ability to disallow tax charges on income to the extent that they are referable to exempt activities. We contend that that would be inequitable as it would allow charges that are linked to the exempt activities to be deducted against other taxable income. If certain activities are to be exempt, surely it is right that their associated charges should not qualify as a deduction for tax. That is why we do not believe that Amendment No.71B is acceptable.
With regard to Amendment No.71 C, where matters become even more difficult, we recognise that the noble Baroness has a point. We are seeking to strike a balance here. We want to ensure that the NDA does not have its cake and eat it. I believe that the noble Baroness was referring to one side of that—the having of the cake. I am now saying that the NDA cannot eat it as well by enjoying the benefit of the exemption on its income while obtaining tax allowances available against its non-exempt income for expenditure relating to the exempt activities.
The noble Baroness's amendment would take this provision even further by preventing companies outside the aegis of the NDA making use of those tax allowances. The problem is that that would interfere with ordinary commercial transactions between suppliers of capital equipment and the NDA. However, they are not driven primarily by tax considerations but by providing a service for which they make an appropriate charge. I merely say to the noble Baroness that the amendment may be going too far and may upset the balance that we have sought to strike. By ensuring that the tax exemption is not abused, I am not interfering with the NDA's commercial freedom. Therefore, we are looking to strike a balance.
In response to all three amendments, we have laboured long and hard in the vineyard in order to get these issues right. Some real interests are at stake and these are not easy issues. Only this morning a further meeting took place between interested parties on these exact points. We believe that, because of the complexity of the situation, we do not have Clause 27 or, indeed, Clause 43 absolutely right at this point. I undertake that on Report the Government will table amendments to take account of the latest discussions on these issues, which partially revolve around the points that the noble Baroness has made.

GC 413
I merely suggest to the Committee that, in a very difficult Bill with some very difficult matters at stake, this is one of the most complex issues. We recognise that on Report we may need to table government amendments, and we shall give the noble Baroness the opportunity to press us further when we have listened to what she has said today. She has identified some of the issues which are currently the subject of intense discussion. I congratulate her on that fact. I merely say that we put the provisions of the Bill into place on the basis that we thought we had them right. We have heard strong representations on why some of the balance—this is an issue of balance—may not he entirely satisfactory at present, and we shall return to the matter on Report.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My first reaction is not to be too cruel to the noble Lord by asking him to paraphrase briefly what he has just said. I shall not ask him to do that because he is likely to say that it is a complex matter.
My second point is that I believe my noble friend Lady Noakes has scored a notable first. A number of us have been labouring in the vineyard for many hours and she has—if I may mix my metaphors—struck gold. I congratulate her on that. I can understand the difficulties with which the noble Lord and his advisers have been struggling on this matter.
My mind goes back to the creation, under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act, of the British National Oil Corporation when the then Labour government seemed determined to nationalise—or to take a substantial stake in—the North Sea oil and gas activities. One of the most difficult discussions that we had during the passage of that Act, when it was a Bill, was when we debated a clause to exempt the BNOC from tax. The issue that arose was that, even under that regime, partnership arrangements would still be in place under which the private sector partners would be subject to tax through corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and so on, whereas its public sector partner would be free from tax. All sorts of difficulties would have arisen if that had happened. In fact, it did happen but, admittedly, not for very long before the regime was changed.
This is the problem that you face when you try to exempt a public body, or part of a public body, and then you extend the definition of what, in this case, is to be regarded as a public body, which exists alongside ordinary businesses going about their lawful occupations and paying their lawful taxes. As the noble Lord indicated, not only does that open avenues for—I am sure my noble friend will forgive me—clever accountants to find ways to channel the exemptions through to the companies that should pay tax, but one can end up with the extremely unfair position in which, in a complex arrangement, some parties pay tax and some do not. This has been tried before and it caused huge unhappiness in the North Sea oil and gas industry.
I can say only that I believe that the noble Lord and his advisers are being very wise in saying that it may be necessary to reconsider this matter. However, I beg
GC 414
him to consult his colleagues in the Treasury who dealt with the petroleum revenue tax to see whether they can delve into their considerable memories and remember the great difficulties that they faced over that issue. We shall await the next stage of the Bill with great interest to see what the Government produce. In the mean time, I congratulate my noble friend.
Baroness Noakes: I was very grateful for the concluding remarks of the Minister in which he said that he would return to the matter on Report. I look forward to seeing what he brings back then. Perhaps I may briefly set out the concerns. Relevant site licensees might not pay tax on profits. The Minister said that it was right that they should be capable of being exempted. However, I am not at all clear why a private sector body should be made exempt if it is making a profit out of this activity.
I shall leave the issue of charges on income because that is a very technical point. I hope that the Minister or his advisers will read what I said and look into that matter. The Minister said that he was keen to ensure a balance. I am not sure that I see a balance where one allows expenditure by the NDA to be used as a vehicle for creating tax leakage elsewhere when we have a specific prohibition on some internal transactions. I shall not labour those points now, but I hope that the Minister and his advisers will read carefully what I said and try to understand in more technical detail the ideas that I was trying to put across. I thank him for his comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Noakes: We have already covered one of the aspects that I was intending to raise at this point: that is, to probe why Thorp and SMP were suddenly transformed into cost centres on the Sellafield site instead of what they were always seen as previously—as part of some bright commercial future that BNFL promised. I fear that I shall not receive an answer to that today. That was one reason that I gave notice of my intention to oppose Clause 27 standing part of the Bill.
Another reason was to try to obtain some clarity about what will be exempt and what will be taxable within the NDA. Much will turn upon the regulations that will be laid by the Treasury. Those regulations are subject only to the negative procedure—and then only in another place. Therefore, unless draft regulations are available, your Lordships' House will have no opportunity to see what the exact boundary is between exempt and non-exempt tax activities. I find it difficult to gain a real understanding of what the Government intend in this respect, with the exception of the portfolio of investments.
Is the Minister able to illustrate what is intended by Clause 27 and what its underlying thrust is in terms of the activities that could generate income which are regarded as taxable and what is to be left outside the corporation tax net? It is not that we challenge the fact that there should be exempt activities because those

GC 415
will involve net costs. I find it difficult to focus on where the boundary is. For example, earlier the Minister talked about research and development activities, some of which would involve third-party income. Does that income contribute to the cost centre or does it become part of the taxable profit? Is it some kind of profit centre? There will be many other such activities. If there are significant partly taxable and partly non-taxable activities, what about shared costs? In any complex activity, there are always shared costs—for example, management costs. If we are looking at the Sellafield site, is the visitor centre part of the exempt activity or is it part of the overall cost?
I have many detailed questions. Neither the Bill—quite rightly, without the regulations—nor, perhaps more importantly, the Explanatory Notes explain that issue in a way that one can understand. That was the purpose of tabling my intention to oppose Clause 27 standing part of the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: If I may pick up the metaphor again, the noble Baroness is having her cake and eating it. In the debate a few moments ago, we discussed, and I indicated in my response, some of the principles behind Clause 27. I set out why we would bring forward some amendments on Report. Now I am being asked to defend the clause as it stands, having already acknowledged that we see that some changes are necessary.
However, the principles behind it are quite straightforward. We consider a great deal of the activity of the NDA, particularly at Thorp and SMP, to be loss-making. A great deal of decommissioning and clean-up will not make huge amounts of money for anyone. However, we wanted to make it clear that we are prepared to exempt those areas. For example, we would not treat the Magnox electricity-generating business, which is perfectly capable of making a profit, any differently from any other business. Any commercial activities that are not directly intertwined with clean-up and decommissioning will not be exempt from tax. That is what we set out to establish in Clause 27.
I have already acknowledged that we are not quite there yet with regard to the arrangements that we need to make. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak since the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke. I am grateful for his indication that these trials and tribulations have been faced before in the energy world. We learn significantly from the past. Although the principles are straightforward, as everyone knows, the issues and the detail are not always easy to adumbrate. It is aspects of the detail that we must still work out. That is why I am hopeful that the noble Baroness will withdraw her objection to Clause 27, and it will come back in more perfect form on Report.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Lord sits down—I am sure that he will press this matter further with his Treasury colleagues—I should tell him that the episode to which I referred took place 30 years ago.
GC 416
Whether any people in the Treasury still have any recollection of it, I do not know. However, I remember it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will recognise, first, that the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Sheldon, are present and well. I have to confess that I can think of someone who was their PPS for a very short period of time, but clearly I did not learn much three decades ago.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his reply. I was not trying to overstretch him on this matter, bearing in mind the affirmation that amendments would be brought back on Report.
I raised the specific question of when draft regulations would be available, given that your Lordships' House is excluded from the process. I understand why that is—because it is related to taxation. It is a pity because by understanding how the exempted activities will be defined we are able to understand the clause, whether in its current form or a renewed form. I expect that when the clause comes back and is amended on Report, it will continue to contain that element, which I would understand. Trying to understand what is meant by "exempt" and "non-exempt" crucially depends on what comes out of the regulations.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness ought not to overplay her hand. She has played it brilliantly so far, but it is an old trick to suggest that at this stage we produce draft regulations to explain what we are doing. We are not in a position to do so just yet.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Supplemental taxation provisions for exempt activities]:
[Amendments Nos.7IB and 7IC not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No.71D is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No.72.
Clause 32 [Power to modify Chapter 1 of Part I]:
Baroness Buford Baroness Buford moved Amendment No.71 D:
Page 29, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: I think there will be a sigh of relief from the other side of the Committee that I am on my feet and not my noble friend Lady Noakes again. I seek clarification on three small points. The amendments speak for themselves. On Amendment No.71D, Section I 1 contains a widely drawn duty on the NDA to prepare a strategy for its operation and to revise that strategy. It also lays down in broad terms how that strategy should be applied to each new decommissioning responsibility. My concern is that the modifications to Section 11, as it is currently drafted, could weaken those. Is that so? Will the Minister give a couple of examples of modification that might apply in this section?
On Amendment No.72A, Section 13 deals with the NDA's annual plans. It specifies that they relate to financial years and that they must be submitted not less than three months before the financial year to which they relate. It sets out various factors, financial and otherwise, that must be included relating to the work that is planned to be done. One of the ways in which transparency is achieved in any organisation is by the year-on-year comparison of plans and outcomes. This is strengthened by comparison across the number of years. I am concerned that the modifications to Section 13 may result in changes to the way in which information is presented such that comparisons of one plan with another is either made very difficult or prevented altogether.
On Amendment No.72B, having read the section again I may be asking for something that is already there. If so, I apologise. I have looked at Clause 32(4) and wonder whether that covers the issue, but perhaps I may go through it anyway. Nuclear decommissioning has always been a subject of great anxiety for members of the public. Nevertheless, there is great concern over local dangers of decommissioning.
The escape of radioactive materials is feared by many, mostly by those who live within easy reach of nuclear installations. The plans of the NDA must be easily understood, open to scrutiny and consistent year on year. I am sure that that is the intention of the Bill.
It follows that they must also be easily compared and assessed for the reassurance of the local population. This is why I have asked that the judgment should be placed before Members of both Houses. If Clause 32(4) covers that and I am asking for something in addition to that, I apologise to the Minister. I do not think that it does, because I am referring to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) rather than to the remainder. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We have considerable reservations about the clause. Indeed, my noble friend and I questioned a stand-part amendment. It does not add to my assurance that the Government have already tabled an amendment to add yet another clause to those which may be modified by the Secretary of State. Now the Secretary of State will have powers to modify not only the constitution but also the duties under the strategy, the strategy itself and the annual plan.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the disquiet of the community living nearby has been great, especially when they do not know what is happening. I thought that in bringing forward the Bill, the Government wanted to be as open as possible and to ensure that communities will have a good chance of seeing what is planned for the future and how the previous year's work has gone.
I am worried that the clause, with sweeping powers to amend so much of Chapter 1, is included. We know of the difficulties even if it is subject to affirmative resolution. We have spent almost three days discussing
GC 418
Chapter 1, but with the best will in the world, affirmative resolutions give one nothing like the same chance to discuss things in depth.
Referring to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in our last session, one of the difficulties nuclear industries have had is transparency. Any erosion in the Bill of that principle would be most serious and I hold serious reservations about the clause.
Lord Skelmersdale: There appears to be a curious logic in the provisions as the Government wish to amend them in Clause 32. I can understand why they might need to take subordinate powers to change the constitution of the NDA by, for example, bringing it up to date or whatever. I can also understand the proposals in Clauses 11 and 12—the strategy for carrying out the functions and the contents of the strategy. But what about annual plans, once they have been established? Is it necessary for them to be dealt with by statutory instrument?
Lord Whitty: The central task of the NDA—of cleaning up and decommissioning nuclear sites—will last decades. The idea that we can legislate precisely now and it will be valid for all time on what should he covered by an annual plan and its exact constitution, for example, is not sensible. We must provide some flexibility for future governments to ensure that the NDA can carry out its central task. The situation will change in relation to the component or otherwise of nuclear power in 20 years' time; it will change in terms of technology; it will change in terms of sites that are being designated; and it may change in terms of the international situation. It is therefore prudent for us to provide within here a means of changing not only the constitution, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, accepted, but also the way in which the annual plans are conducted.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness on the third of her amendments, it is clear that subsection (4) applies to the whole section. Therefore, it is all subject to affirmative resolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is not content with the affirmative resolution procedure, but that is a somewhat wider issue. It is a procedure in which the House has the ability to stop the Government in their tracks, should it so choose. So it is a substantial power and can be used, if it is felt that a future Secretary of State is abusing the powers in this clause, to alter the provisions in those sections and schedules to which it refers.
The amendment proposed by the Government, which we shall shortly debate, does not indicate a change of policy; it is simply a consequence of the way in which the Bill is now drafted. So it is not an additional provision in that sense.
There is then the question of how we measure the NDA's performance and whether Amendment No.72A is necessary to ensure that we have one of the benchmarks by which we can judge such performance. I believe the amendment is unnecessary. Clearly, any government will want to be able to measure the

GC 419
performance of the NDA. As one goes through annual report by annual report, even if the content changes, one can measure performance. One may want to change slightly what the annual report covers. We have discussed the kinds of activities that should be covered in the annual plan, the strategy and the annual report and in various documents the Bill requires the NDA to produce. In changing circumstances over a long period of time that is prudent. It is also prudent to have a fairly heavy safeguard, which is what the affirmative resolution on all of this provides. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered that provision and felt that it was sensible.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: The Minister has not answered my question on the original point on Amendment No.71D. Perhaps I might bring him back to that. I am concerned that what is laid down and requested would be weakened, and I asked what kind of modifications the Government have in mind. I have not received a reply to that and would be grateful for one.
Lord Whitty: I am afraid that the noble Baroness will not receive an answer to that. The position is that we cannot possibly envisage a situation that would require us to change the constitution of the NDA. That would depend on how the industry develops; what kind of sites the NDA might have to deal with in 20 years' time; and the experience which results from that. It may mean a change to the designation of sites or a change to the range of sites which the Secretary of State would be able to designate for the NDA to take over, as technology, or possibly the failure of technology, produces different situations; for instance, a nuclear legacy problem which needs cleaning up and which is not covered by the current clauses. It is that type of situation that we may need to tidy up in future. I cannot envisage all such situations nor how this power might be used. However, it would be used where there is a changing situation either in terms of how the NDA acts or in how industry and technology develop.
Baroness Noakes: Is there any precedent for this form of power in relation to a public body? I have been involved with a public body for quite a long time and I cannot remember a power which makes such sweeping changes because we cannot think at the moment about what we might want to do in 10 years' time. There are many examples of public bodies that have lasted a long time. Sometimes, when certain circumstances arise, there has been a need for a further statutory process to bring things up to date. But as far as I am aware, it has never been done in this way. Just because nuclear has a long timescale does not mean that Parliament should reduce its ability to scrutinise how a body is set up and will operate in order to deal with a problem. I am mystified as to why we should go down this route for this particular public body.
Lord Whitty: There is a range of precedents for details of the composition or scope of public bodies to
GC 420
be changed by secondary legislation. Certainly, as regards composition, frequently there is a clause which states that changes can be made, for example, to the representation of a board by adding categories up to a certain level. There is a range of areas in which clauses define a scope of activity to which the Secretary of State may add by regulation. In animal health legislation, which is not a very popular example in this Committee, one can add particular diseases which are not known of at present. The same regulations which apply to existing diseases can be designated by the Secretary of State by secondary legislation to achieve those ends. I am sure that there are other examples where it is not possible at present to be able to identify precisely what kind of circumstances would require such changes. So, I do not think that this is unprecedented.
The noble Baroness said that this is not subject to any statutory procedure. It is subject to parliamentary approval. It is less than primary legislation but nevertheless one House has the ability to block a Secretary of State exceeding his powers in relation to the affirmative resolution procedure. I would not say that that was a negligible power or negligible constraint, but one which any future Secretary of State would have to take very seriously before thinking of abusing.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened carefully to the debate and share the unease expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and by my noble friends. The Explanatory Notes are perhaps more frank than the Minister, who spoke about some flexibility. One word I do not accept there is "some". Paragraph 144 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"It provides the flexibility to make any amendments to those provisions which might be necessary or desirable without the need for primary legislation".
Nothing could be blunter than that. It is simply taking the power to legislate, which is normally the prerogative of Parliament. The fact that it is subject to the affirmative procedure gives it the one imprimatur and then after that it stands for all time.
I am coming to the conclusion that we may need to think about this more carefully between now and Report. This entire set up requires a more regular scrutiny by Parliament than seems to be currently envisaged. Yet again, I go back to the Select Committee of this House which looked at the treatment of nuclear waste. We recommended there, quite firmly, that because this was to be a long-term policy—nothing could be more long term than what we envisage with the NDA—there should be a provision which would require the whole process to be positively approved by Parliament at least once in every Session. The Government should come forward with a summary report—not just the annual report— which could then be the subject of a full debate in both Houses so that all the implications could be considered.
Certainly, I shall want to consider carefully between now and Report whether the addition of such a clause would greatly strengthen parliamentary control over

GC 421
this process. This clause weakens parliamentary control. It gives the Government power to amend by order. I accept that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, but at the same time the whole process rolls on. Of course, it is open to either House to decide to have a debate. However, I believe it is right to have an obligation on the Government to bring the whole process before both Houses of Parliament for a full debate at least once in every Session. I should like to consider that between now and Report.
Lord Whitty: No doubt the noble Lord will consider his amendment at a later stage. However, I think that that would be much more unprecedented than the powers we propose. Nevertheless, for the record, clearly the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered the potential of these clauses and accepted that potentially the power could be used to remodel the NDA in significant ways. They went on to state
"We have concluded however that the delegation of power is in this instance appropriate. We reached this conclusion on the grounds that the basic functions and powers of the NDA do not fall within the scope of the power and that the delegation is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".
We normally take great heed of that Committee. Indeed. in almost all cases with which I have dealt, the Government have accepted its recommendations if indeed, we need to tighten controls in the light of such recommendations. The same applies the other way, and I would hope that before noble Lords pursue any changes they would weigh the judgement of that committee in this respect.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. In moving the amendments, I did not realise that it would open another hornets' nest. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her comments. Certainly, I believe that there are concerns and apprehensions outside this place which it is enormously important to allay as we take the Bill through its stages. The noble Baroness spoke of her abhorrence of the affirmative resolution and certainly she knows of mine, so perhaps I may say to the Minister that I shall add mine to hers. I believe that this process should be subject to primary legislation.
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the Committee that the recommendation was for this process to be subject to primary legislation. I failed to bring my copy with me, so I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out. I do not want to delay the Committee. However, the Minister tempts me, having mentioned the Animal Health Bill. He will know very well that we spent long fraught hours on that Bill. Many times we objected there and then to the fact that so much could be done through affirmative resolution rather than primary legislation. I digress, but as the Minister digressed, I shall do so again. I do not think that that was a. fair comparison. Certainly, an outbreak of animal disease is urgent and has to be dealt with at that moment. The Minister will probably argue that if something went wrong with a nuclear site or with decommissioning that would be equally as important. However, I shall not argue the toss.
GC 422
I am glad to have raised the amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed for their support and for expressing their concerns about flexibility. My concern is not that that will be strengthened but that it may be weakened. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.72:
Page 29, line 30, leave out "section 11" and insert "sections II and 12"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.72 would allow the Secretary of State to modify by order, subject to affirmative resolution, those provisions which deal with the content of the NDA's strategy.
We could have the same argument over this amendment. In reality, it was assumed that this would come under the previous section. However, during the course of the drafting, clauses became separated and therefore we needed to table the amendment. I explained that at our last meeting when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised a procedural issue as to whether we should wait until the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform had seen it. However, as I said on Tuesday, we have contacted the chair of the committee and he was of the opinion that there is no need to call a meeting of the committee to consider the matter, although of course it will need to be reported to that committee.
The amendment deals with the strategy dimension of what was dealt with by the last group of amendments. I suspect, therefore, that noble Lords have similar reservations about this amendment. However, the adoption of this clause would mean that we would have the full range of powers to change it. From what noble Lords have said just now, no doubt we shall return to this issue later in the proceedings. However, we might as well do that in a tidy way, which would be to include discussion on this clause as well as those we have already discussed. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: Given the debate on the previous group of amendments, the amendment should possibly be carried over to Report stage, because the concept itself does not have the agreement of the whole Committee. Perhaps the amendment ought not to go through in the way that the Minister might have expected.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Baroness has voiced exactly my feelings. I had planned to speak on the matter under the Question that the clause stand part, but as she has raised the issue I will speak now. I noted the Minister's comments that the Grand Committee would normally accept what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said. I am sure that we have all taken into account the fact that it felt that way, but perhaps the authorities would like to draw the debate to the attention of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

GC 423
and, perhaps, ask the chairman if he feels he should reconsider the issue—not necessarily come to another conclusion, but simply to look at our concerns.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was the first to raise that point by spotting that the amendment was tabled after the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had reported. At Second Reading, we had an extract of the report circulated to us, which recognised that most of the Henry VIII clauses, as they are known, were regarded by that committee as acceptable. But there is a point of propriety here that goes beyond just a communication with the chairman of that committee. The Government have failed, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has frankly and decently admitted, to spot that it had not been put before the committee until I drew it to the attention of his office. Then they moved very fast. I think that there are others that we ought to look at. We have a procedure and we ought to stick to it.
When I spoke to the Minister's private office, I suggested that he might be wise not to move the amendment in those circumstances. He is entitled not to take my advice. I may have knocked about a bit, but he is in charge of the Bill. He must decide what he must do. I would have thought that my suggestion would have been a wise move. My noble friend Lady Carnegy is not here, but she sits on that committee and expressed some surprise that apparently it was sufficient that the chairman should have looked at it and said, "That seems OK", when he knew nothing about it. That is not right. It is an important procedure; it is an important parliamentary safeguard, which I value. The work of that committee is extremely valuable and it works hard. To bypass it in this way is not right. I hope that in the light of the debate, even at the last moment, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, might think it wiser in the good name of the Government, to say that, having heard the debate, he will not press the amendment now, but bring the clause back at Report stage after it has been considered by the delegated legislation committee.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I support my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, particularly his last remarks. Surely, there is a point of procedure regarding the whole purpose of our Committee. One of the main purposes of taking Bills off the Floor of the House is that nothing controversial should be inserted into them. We deliberately withdraw all our amendments to facilitate that procedure. I accept that it is unusual for the Government to find themselves in that position in Grand Committee, but if there is clear controversy and dissent over a government amendment, then it would be imprudent, at the very least, for it to be pressed. That would begin to establish a dangerous precedent if, on a committee where we do not normally vote, there is a clear indication that we would like to vote on an issue that the Government none the less press, because they could operate force majeure. In this
GC 424
instance I plead with the Minister not to do it, because it would be wrong and dangerous as regards the increasing use of Grand Committees.
Lord Skelmersdale: While I understand this argument, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has got matters slightly wrong. Under Standing Orders of this House, there are no Divisions in this Committee. In the circumstances, with the complaints that have been made beside me and from behind me, I would recommend to the Minister that he does not seek to press the amendment at this stage. Otherwise he will cause a "mega" riot throughout the establishment, and I do not think that would be wise.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: In view of the concern from various Members of the Committee and following the comments of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I would simply say to the Minister that perhaps it would be wise not to press the amendment at this point. It would be prudent to withdraw it and bring it back on Report.
Baroness Byford: I understand that if, in these circumstances, one Member of the Committee objects, it cannot be passed, and I would formally object.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is no need for that.
Lord Whitty: I suspect that more than one person might formally object. I do not accept a lot of the arguments that have been put forward, given that we made the first mistake that we did and engaged in the proper procedure. It is a matter for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform as to whether that procedure was right in its terms. It was certainly right in the Government's terms to deal with it that way. Nor do I accept that it would be sensible to take the whole batch of amendments back to that committee in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggests. Clearly, again, that is up to that committee. This matter will need to be considered by that committee, which will need to comment on it.
I was trying to be helpful to the Committee. If we passed this amendment, at the next stage we would then be able to consider, all in one, the whole range of amendments which relate to the ability of the Secretary of State to amend earlier parts of the Bill. That would have been a tidy way to proceed on Report. However, in view of the threat by the noble Baroness in which no doubt she would be backed up by at least one or two of her colleagues—only one would be needed, at any rate—and despite the temptation by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to cause a riot in the establishment, to which I am quite attracted, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.72A and 72B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I consider that I have spoken to this clause already so I do not feel that further debate at this stage would be useful. However, I shall obviously return to the matter on Report.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Meaning of "nuclear site" etc. and "person with control]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No.72C:
Page 30, line 20, leave out "or before it became one"
The noble Baroness said: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for doing the gentlemanly thing. However, the trouble is that when we come back to the matter on Report, we shall then be able to speak only once to the particular amendment or group of amendments. Will the Government consider whether we can reach an understanding before Report for that matter to be discussed as if we were in Committee? If that does not occur, we shall be limited in the extent of our discussion on that matter. As the Minister well knows, on Report one can speak to a matter only once. I put that on the record. I should be grateful if the Government would consider that. I am not asking for the same concession regarding the next two provisions.
In moving Amendment No.72C, I wish to speak also to Amendment No.72D. Amendment No.72C is a probing amendment designed to elicit the circumstances in which a site may be contaminated before it becomes used in one of the ways laid down in the preceding subsections.
I am particularly anxious to determine whether the Minister intends that areas of land contaminated by fall-out, past or future, from nuclear accidents will be included under this definition. It could be very important in respect, say, of land affected by Chernobyl where steps are, or have been, taken to monitor the situation, control the effects and restore the land as soon as possible to its former uses.
I turn to Amendment No.72D. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 specifies that the direction which gives the NDA responsibilities for a site may require the person in control of that site to make payments to the Secretary of State. This subsection specifies that in the case of installations in the sea, the person deemed to be in control is the Secretary of State.
I should be grateful for a fuller explanation of the effects of these two subsections. It would aid understanding if the Minister gave an example of an underwater nuclear site that might be made an NDA responsibility. Will he then state what sort of payments might be required and from where he would obtain the money?
Is it something that would come from the Consolidated Fund in the reverse of the process whereby he has to remit to that fund any payments received by him? Or would it, for example, in the case
GC 426
of a nuclear installation belonging to another department come from the ministry concerned? I beg to move.
Lord Triesman: These two amendments seek to alter the definitions in Clause 33 of a "principal nuclear site" and a "person with control". Amendment No.72C would remove the possibility under subsection (2) of Clause 33—the key paragraph here is paragraph (e)—that a disused nuclear site—that is, one that used to be a principal nuclear site but is no longer—that has been contaminated by activities carried out on it or in it before it became a principal nuclear site could be considered a principal nuclear site for the purposes of this Bill and designated to the NDA for clean up. In short, paragraph (e) in this context is what I would describe as a safety net—a paragraph that deals with all contamination that exists.
It is our goal that the NDA should do the fullest possible job in cleaning up the United Kingdom's nuclear legacy. The provision in Clause 33 allows the NDA to tackle all historic contamination at a site for which it takes responsibility. The provisions in subsection (5)(a) of Clause 33 which defines,
"contaminated as a result of nuclear activities"
as contamination arising directly or indirectly from activities carried out at a site which was or became a principal nuclear site, were included to allow for this.
We would not want the NDA to be prevented from cleaning up chemical or radiological contamination on a now disused site which was caused before that site became a principal nuclear site. On occasions it may be technically difficult to determine which parts of the contamination being cleaned up at any particular moment resulted from which process. That could lead to a situation in which the NDA would be required to clean up the contamination arising from the site's history as a principal nuclear site, but could leave behind pockets of contamination which were ca used before that stage in the site's history.
I was encouraged to give an example in another case, but let me give one here as well. An MoD site designated to the NDA which, in addition to any contamination caused by virtue of being a principal nuclear site, contains, for example, disused ordnance, mustard gas, high explosive or the like, which may have leached into the soil or even the groundwater. We would, of course, want the NDA to deal with that in the process of clean-up—we would not want it to leave the job half done. The NDA would be dealing with our nuclear legacy in the interests of future generations and not leaving any contamination for future generations to deal with. There would be little purpose in the activity as a whole if what was left was a certain amount of noxious inheritance.
Amendment No.72D would add an unnecessary complexity to the process of dealing with any contamination at sea that arose as a result of nuclear activities. Of course, that is to be avoided and the Environment Agency works hard to prevent such an eventuality. But in the undesirable event that contamination occurs at sea, we need to be able to designate a person with control in order to get the

GC 427
clean-up under way. There have been occasions when contamination has leaked into the sea in Cumbria. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, spoke earlier about particles found on a beach at Caithness which might have been found further seaward had they moved in that direction. I took careful note of what he said.
The territorial sea adjacent to the UK—that is, within 12 nautical miles—is within the territorial sovereignty of the Crown. The Crown, through the Estate Commissioners, is responsible for managing the territorial waters. To avoid having to designate the Crown Estate Commissioners or another Crown body as the person with control, who would then doubtless ask the Secretary of State to act on their behalf in the event of nuclear contamination at sea—as a result of a shipping accident, for example—we have drafted the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to take responsibility for control of any site of contamination at sea caused by nuclear activities. That would mean a rapid response—for example, by a direction from the Secretary of State to the NDA—to any incident that happened in territorial waters without having to go through a further loop.
I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. Both proposals are aimed at controlling something which is better controlled by the process described in the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may formally welcome him to a speaking part, nearly two-and-a-half days after the start of our proceedings. We welcome him to his new position.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation, particularly his helpful example of the MoD site. Does he see any difficulty with the responsibilities falling between different government departments? Some could be the responsibility of Defra and some could be maritime—Defra again, I suppose. Some would come within the scope of the Crown, some would come under the DTI and some, obviously, under the MoD. I do not know if I am asking something that is unnecessary, that is not in the Bill. As I have raised the issue, it would be quite helpful to have clarification from the Minister. If he cannot give it now, perhaps he might write to me later.
Lord Triesman: I hope I can clarify at least part of the question. The person with control does not have an implication for who pays—that is established by the designation direction. The assumption will be that the polluter pays. That is the way in which who is responsible will be determined.
Baroness Byford: That is very helpful. As I have already said, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.72D not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Nuclear transfer schemes]:
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No.73:
Page 34, line 2, at end insert—
"() A transfer under subsection (5) should only take place as a consequence of failure to deliver a set standard of performance agreed in advance with the NDA. "
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this probing amendment is to obtain a clearer explanation about the practical effects of Clause 35 and the very substantial Schedule 5 associated with it. The Explanatory Notes, which have already proved useful this evening, make it clear on page 31 that this clause and the related schedule are not simply about the transfer of property but the transfer of employees, hence the reference to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations.
There was, I believe, a preliminary discussion on this sort of question on Clause 12. Should there be some criteria in place when it comes to the legislation providing that these transfers of nuclear undertakings can take place? Key players in the industry need to have an assurance that, subject to meeting necessary performance standards, their operations will enjoy some degree of security. There is a feeling that the sword of Damocles is hanging over them. The amendment would provide that assurance. It clearly would not provide an absolute assurance that operations will continue as they are for ever. However, it would provide an assurance that is conditional upon some criteria such as service delivery. In any event, it would be very useful to have on the record the way in which Clause 35 is perceived, particularly with regard to employment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: There is perhaps little need to add to the eloquent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. However, I confess to finding Clause 35, the subsequent clauses related to it under Chapter 2 and the schedule opaque in the extreme.
The circumstances in which it might be regarded as appropriate to sever the property, rights and liabilities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority from its operations as a site licensee are hard to envisage. The Minister may well be ready to spring to the provision's defence with precisely such an example. I know from the Explanatory Notes which are, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has said, a helpful guide, that this is not entirely without precedent. I believe it may be indicating that the development of AEA technology was brought about by some similar device. However, the circumstances in which that happened were very different from those which are now envisaged.
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is not a contractor of choice without opposition in the field, but is becoming, by institution of the Bill, merely a player to compete with all corners in the future. The thought that it would be possible to hive off, even in advance of the transfer of the licence, property which may be intimately associated with the delivery of the services which will subsequently be judged not at the behest of the authority but of the Secretary of State, is pretty remarkable.

GC 429
I hope not to sound in any way alarmist, but I think that the fears that have been expressed to me are reasonable, and I hope that the Minister's answer will lay them to rest.
Lord Triesman: Let me deal first with the very direct question of my noble friend Lord Lea. I do not believe that anything in the clause or the Explanatory Notes would remove the security of the transfer of engagement arrangements were members of staff to be moved from one company to another. That can be said very directly.
The problem with the amendment as a whole is that it runs contrary to government policy on the use of competition to ensure that the best available skills are brought to bear in the clean-up task and are used to the greatest possible effect. It would restrict the circumstances under which the NDA could introduce competition for individual UKAEA sites or groups of sites.
While there is no intention to introduce competition simply for competition's sake, the NDA needs to ensure that it is getting best value for money—that must be in everyone's interests. The NDA needs to ensure that it is doing that. Indeed, it will have a statutory duty to do so. That means being able to test the market even in situations where the UKAEA is meeting its performance targets.
The NDA must be able to seek out the best available skills and new ways of doing things so that it can achieve real advances in the clean-up programme. By restricting this ability, the NDA would not be able to deliver against its fundamental obligation to offer best value for money to the taxpayer.
I simply make the observation that there is an inevitable connection between trying to achieve the best possible performance and standards—the notion that that is one of the tests—and the notion of getting the best value for money. Those two things are always intrinsically linked in a strong competitive environment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: It is not for me to conclude what, ultimately, should be the fate of this amendment, although I had some hand in the drafting of it. I am bound to say that I do not feel that the questions that I raised were fully answered, although I am perhaps unreasonable in expecting them to be fully answered following such a short debate.
I remain puzzled about why it is considered necessary to have this provision to sever the property, rights and liabilities of the site operator during the
GC 430
currency of the licence to operate. That appears to be the implication of this clause. It sounds to me like opening the door to the Secretary of State to make a scheme which would be capable of hamstringing the operator in the conduct of its business for reasons which, frankly, are hard to envisage. However, I may be simply lacking imagination because I cannot see in what circumstances that might be done.
None the less, if there is some necessary purpose behind the provision, I hope that, although this debate might better take place on clause stand part than under the amendment before the Committee, the Government will feel able to realise what that purpose is. It has given rise to concern; it suggests that steps may be taken to split up the Atomic Energy Authority, to take just one of the affected parties. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes say at paragraph 151,
"the powers may also be used to split new site licensee companies out of … UKAEA".
In what circumstances would that be done? There may be a very simple answer, but it does not spring to mind. It suggests that those who are not part of the company that is split off for the purposes of being a new site licensee company may simply fall by the wayside. their interests unprotected. I think that a clause and a schedule that run to many pages might have been clearer in the drafting. This is not the most transparent aspect of the Bill.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I think that this brief discussion has demonstrated that it was quite useful to have this probing amendment on this afternoon's agenda. I take it from what has been said that the employer can change. TUPE covers it, but this is not just to do with changing property; there can be a change of employer. I think people in the industry will want to study Hansard carefully and see whether more clarity can be introduced into the matter before Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: This seems a highly convenient moment to suggest that the Committee do now adjourn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday, 27 January at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at one minute past seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Language Implementation Body: Budget 2004
  North/South Language Implementation Body: Budget 2004
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Northern Ireland: Public House Licences
  Northern Ireland: Public House Licences
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Belfast: Waterways
  Belfast: Waterways
  Iraq: Sewage Treatment
  Iraq: Sewage Treatment
  Cory Reports: Publication
  Cory Reports: Publication
  Legislative Process: Public Involvement
  Legislative Process: Public Involvement
  North Korea: Food Aid
  North Korea: Food Aid
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  UK Flag: Business Premises
  UK Flag: Business Premises
  Iraq: Casualties of Bombing
  Iraq: Casualties of Bombing
  Data Protection: EC/US Discussion and UK Citizens
  Data Protection: EC/US Discussion and UK Citizens
  Northern Ireland: Disability Living Allowance
  Northern Ireland: Disability Living Allowance
  EU Decisions: Public Expenditure Implications
  EU Decisions: Public Expenditure Implications
  Tourism: Compensation Claims
  Tourism: Compensation Claims
  Tourism Accommodation: VAT
  Tourism Accommodation: VAT
  Delayed Discharges (Continuing Care) Directions
  Delayed Discharges (Continuing Care) Directions
  Water Disconnections
  Water Disconnections
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line
  M6 Toll: Speed Cameras
  M6 Toll: Speed Cameras

  Northern Ireland: Justice Oversight Commissioner's Report
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:

  The Government have received and welcomed the first report from the Justice Oversight Commissioner, the right honourable Lord Clyde, on the progress achieved in implementing the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review in Northern Ireland. Consistent with his terms of reference, the report was submitted to the Attorney-General, Lord Filkin, the Minister for the Northern Ireland Court Service and myself in December.

  Lord Clyde concludes that the degree of progress achieved so far in the process of implementation has been significant and impressive. He also acknowledges the real commitment of the criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland to taking the
  WS 50
  recommendations forward. The Government warmly endorse these conclusions.

  Copies of the commissioner's report have been placed in the Library.

  Medication Safety
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  The department's document Building a safer NHS for patients: improving medication safety has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Science and Technology Select Committee Report on the Scientific Response to Terrorism: Government's Response
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  We are today publishing the Government's reply to the eighth report from the Science and Technology Select Committee session on the scientific response to terrorism. The Government thank the committee for its report of 6 November 2003. We have considered in detail the recommendations put forward. Copies of the Government's response are available in the House Library and can also be viewed on the Home Office website at http://www. homeoffice. gov. uk/terrorism