Sitting of 26 January 2004

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

    Army Training
    Jim Knight(Lab):If he will make a statement on the implications of the defence White Paper for Army training requirements. [150153]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Following the publication of the White Paper in December, detailed work is now under way to redesign the Army's training requirements. That will underpin the changes that will be needed in the future. Our current assumptions are that the Army will continue to train for war in all potential environments, and that training will be based on the existing facilities in the UK and overseas.
    Jim Knight: I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the White Paper, which I broadly welcome. Some of my constituents, however—
    2
    particularly those at the Bovington armour centre and the gunnery ranges in Lulworth—are concerned about it, given the conversion of one of the heavy armoured regiments to a light armoured regiment. Can the Minister give them any reassurance about Bovington's future?
    Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend is right—the White Paper does mention the conversion of two brigades to medium and light structures. Such changes, however, would not affect the total throughput of training in the armour centre in his constituency. Indeed, because of the unique range of facilities offered by the Bovington garrison, it will remain a centre of excellence for the delivery of training to our armed forces.
    Dr. Julian Lewis(Con): The White Paper rightly emphasises the revolution in military affairs and the importance of technological advance rather than numbers, but does the Minister accept that when it comes to peacekeeping duties in particular, Army training must reflect the fact that large numbers of people need to be on the ground for such operations?
    May I also take this opportunity to tell the Secretary of State—at the beginning of what may prove to be a deeply unpleasant and stressful week for him—that many Conservative Members, especially on the shadow Defence team, well remember the many kindnesses, courtesies and levels of consideration that he has shown us on a personal basis? We would like to put that on record.
    Mr. Caplin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the facilities for training in the United Kingdom are there, and that we will continue to use them for the purposes of the main training environment that I have described.
    Mr. James Gray(Con): Am I not right to be concerned—and is my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) not right to be concerned—about the availability of infantry training

    3
    facilities, particularly on and around Salisbury plain? If the infantry is to be downgraded, surely there will be much less of a requirement for infantry training in such areas as Warminster. Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that infantry training in and around Wiltshire will not be downgraded?
    Mr. Caplin: I want to put the record straight—there is no downgrading of the infantry. Over the past five or six years we have invested heavily in our training facilities, some of which I have seen recently at Catterick, and we will continue to do so.

    Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer
    Shona McIsaac(Lab): What efforts the Government are making to promote the Hawk 128 advanced jet trainer for the international export market. [150154]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government are committed, through the Defence Export Services Organisation, to supporting the legitimate efforts of British industry to export defence equipment overseas. The Hawk advanced jet trainer is no exception, and we are pleased to be supporting industry with the sale of the Hawk to the Government of India.
    Shona McIsaac: The announcement in July that the Government were to choose the Hawk trainer was excellent news for my constituents who work at BAE Systems in Brough. Does not the long-awaited decision by the Indian Government vindicate my right hon. Friend's decision, and does it not also demonstrate that this is still the trainer aircraft of choice throughout the world?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her consistent support for what was undoubtedly a difficult decision. I know that her constituents who work at Brough will have reason to be grateful to her for all those efforts. She is right that the Hawk trainer is the aircraft of choice for a number of countries around the world. I hope that the Indian Government's expressed wish to purchase the aircraft will set a precedent for a number of other countries that have already shown an interest.
    Dr. Vincent Cable(LD): After the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence made known his objections to the UK Hawk jet contract on the ground that it represented poor value for money, did he say whether exports would change the balance of advantage? If so, how many Hawks will have to be exported to turn the contract into good value for money?
    Mr. Hoon: It was an excellent decision for UK manufacturing. I seem to recall the hon. Gentleman saying that it should not be for the United Kingdom Government to promote export sales of defence equipment throughout the world. I look forward to his saying that around the country on behalf of the Liberal
    4
    Democrats, when he will see the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who risk losing their jobs because of his policies.
    Jeremy Corbyn(Lab): Will the Secretary of State assure us that there is no danger of any Hawk aircraft that are sold anywhere in the world being converted into combat aircraft and used to mount campaigns against insurgents, which happened in East Timor and is reported to be happening in Indonesia? Is he confident that the end-user certificate system actually works and is properly monitored by British officials?
    Mr. Hoon: The aircraft are of course training aircraft, and the United Kingdom operates the most rigorous and transparent export licensing arrangements of any country in the world
    Miss Anne McIntosh(Con): From the right hon. Gentleman's time in the European Parliament, has he formed a view on the potential benefits—especially for collaborative international projects in which British Aerospace is involved—of using the European budget line of joint Export Credits Guarantee Department cover?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Lady left the European Parliament more recently than I, so no doubt she has greater familiarity with the precise details of its budgetary arrangements. I assure her that we look for collaboration and partners in all such projects, not least because the investment required today to bring forward a hi-tech piece of equipment such as an advanced jet trainer means that there is a clear benefit to having more than one partner.

    Armed Forces Education and Training
    Mr. Michael Foster(Lab): What measures he is taking to improve education and training for the armed forces. [150155]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Training and education make a vital contribution to our armed forces' operational capability. The 2001 defence training review identified more than 200 recommendations for improvement, which are now being taken forward. This includes the rationalisation of certain specialist training and the exploitation of new technology to enable the widespread introduction of e-learning throughout our armed forces. In support of the wider Government learning agenda, we have also developed programmes to improve the basic skills of our people in literacy, numeracy and communications technology. As far as possible, we also seek to ensure that our training and education is accredited to nationally recognised qualifications.
    Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that reply, but will the Minister explain to the House what progress is being made to make training, skills and qualifications earned in the armed forces match more closely those that would be earned in civilian life, so that when the time comes people have a smooth and easy transfer back to civilian life?
    Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. The Ministry of Defence is one of the

    5
    largest training organisations in the United Kingdom and it is important to maximise the return on the investment that we make in our people. One of the ways in which we have been able to do that is through Skillforce, which uses those who leave our armed forces to educate and train youngsters in 23 pilot areas throughout the United Kingdom who would otherwise not get such support for their education.
    Patrick Mercer(Con): The Minister will be aware that last year more than 90 per cent. of field training exercises had to be cancelled and that many career development courses were not taken up because of overstretch. Will he tell the House how he intends to ensure that battle-winning skills are not blunted any further?
    Mr. Caplin: Of course we are learning the lessons of what went on last year, in terms of not only Operation Telic but Operation Fresco, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. All those issues are important so that we can ensure that our armed forces are in the right frame of mind with the right training and development for the future.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins(Lab): My hon. Friend is right to praise the armed forces and their education. There has been a tremendous improvement in the way in which they have linked up and made that compatible with the civilian force outside our industry. What is he doing to ensure that we get real value for money for the training that we put into the forces by securing retention, which is a vital element?
    Mr. Caplin: One of the important aspects of retention is ensuring that we have the right accreditation for members of our armed forces after they have completed their training and skills. That is why it is important to have transferable skills that increase the confidence of individuals in our armed forces and make them the credit that they are to our nation.
    Mr. Edward Garnier(Con): Can the Minister assure me that the training facilities at Suffield in Alberta will be adequately financed so that our troops can go to operations of war with proper large-scale unit training under their belts before they arrive?
    Mr. Caplin: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have heard my answer on the heavy investment that we have made in our training facilities. That applies equally to the camp he mentions, which I understand was part of the Saif Sareea operation in 2002.

    Iraq
    Mr. Ben Chapman(Lab): What assessment he has made of equipment provision in relation to Operation Telic. [150156]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Ministry of Defence's report on Operation Telic, "Lessons for the Future", closely reflects the conclusions of the independent report by the National Audit Office that
    "the logistic effort for the Operation was huge and key to success"
    6
    and that
    "key equipments…performed well".
    Both reports recognise that there are areas for improvement. This includes, in the logistic area, developing a more robust in-theatre asset-tracking system.
    Mr. Chapman: It has been suggested that Sergeant Roberts might not have been killed in action in Iraq had he been wearing enhanced combat body armour. I know that that matter concerns my right hon. Friend and is under inquiry. When was such equipment first procured for the armed forces? How many sets have been issued?
    Mr. Hoon: The version of enhanced combat body armour currently being used by the armed forces was first put into service as long ago as 1992, when approximately 32 pairs of ceramic plates were issued. Two sets of plates are required for each soldier. Those issuing enhanced combat body armour issued plates consistently in the order of 4,000 for each year of operation until 1999, when some 22,000—almost 23,000—were issued. Most recently, in 2003, more than 80,000 pairs of ceramic plates were issued.
    Annabelle Ewing(SNP): The Secretary of State will be aware that the regimental headquarters of the Black Watch are in my constituency. What does he have to say in response to the very serious statements issued by senior officers of the Black Watch last week, to the effect that there were serious problems with the supply of adequate protective equipment?
    Mr. Hoon: I read that particular article carefully, as I am sure the hon. Lady did. It indicated a considerable success in the logistic effort, set out by the commanding officer conducting the interview. It also indicated that all the soldiers in question had at least one set of nuclear, biological and chemical equipment. Moreover, given her close knowledge of the Black Watch, perhaps she is aware that it declared itself ready for combat—that is, ready for action—a full seven days before the regiment crossed the line.
    Mr. Eric Joyce(Lab): Does my right hon. Friend remember the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), when he was a Minister in 1995, saying:
    "There will always be"
    kit
    "deficiencies; there are always things that the services need to do their job better."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]?
    Does he agree that today the armed services are better equipped to carry out their tasks than ever before?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has considerable relevant recent experience. It is certainly the case that when he was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that there would always be deficiencies in the provision of equipment. That is not something that the Government accept. It is not the case that we will always recognise that there will be deficiencies. We will continue to try to improve the equipment available to the armed forces.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames(Con): While the whole House will wish to congratulate the armed forces on their brilliant performance in Iraq, does the Secretary of State agree, given that the principal reason for going to war in the first place was to rid that country of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, that it is extraordinary to find at figure 6 of part 3 of the National Audit Office report that the NAO inspectors discovered that the
    "7 Armoured Brigade armoured vehicles did not have viable Nuclear Biological and Chemical defence filters fitted throughout the warfighting phase of the Operation."?
    Is that not a wholly unacceptable failing by the Government?
    Mr. Hoon: I have the report open at the page cited by the hon. Gentleman. The paragraph begins:
    "Although overall protection against chemical agents was good"
    there were shortfalls. That is precisely the position that the Government have set out consistently since the operation began. The conclusion was, however, that the overall protection against chemical agents was good. The hon. Gentleman has to explain how it is, given that conclusion by the NAO, that he persists in misrepresenting the position for a great majority of soldiers.
    He knows, or he should know from his experience as a Minister and, indeed, in the armed forces, that provided that individuals are issued with appropriate kit, which was the position, that is satisfactory protection against an NBC threat.
    Mr. Soames: It is clearly not the case that adequate protection was provided for those in the 7th Armoured Brigade, and in Challenger tanks and other armoured vehicles. It is a mercy that they were not attacked with chemical weapons. Sir Kevin Tebbit, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, admitted to the Public Accounts Committee last week that the military decision to order extra equipment was taken in late October, but that political permission was not given until 25 November. What was the cause of that unacceptable delay? Was it the Secretary of State who caused it, was it the Chancellor, or was it the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hoon: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, as the permanent secretary said when giving evidence to the Committee, the Government were concerned to ensure that overt preparations did not in any way compromise the diplomatic effort to pursue resolution 1441 through the United Nations. That is not to say that earlier preparations had not been made once the Prime Minister had told the House at the end of September that it was necessary to prepare our armed forces for the prospect of a conflict.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner(Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the fact that I voted against the Falklands war, the Iraq war twice and all the rest of them, I find it preposterous that people such as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should talk about the Secretary of State for Defence being responsible for every single death while there is a war
    8
    on? If that had been the case in the past, Churchill would have been hung, drawn and quartered in 1915, Thatcher would have been a figment of everybody's imagination—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Colin Breed(LD): I accept that there were problems and that the Ministry of Defence is learning the lessons and putting some things right, but I find it difficult to accept that much of the time Ministers said at the Dispatch Box that everything was fine. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he was or was not told of the supply problems? If not, why not? Who takes responsibility for such tragic failures?
    Mr. Hoon: I will not trouble the House with a long list of the statements that I have made about those issues. Suffice it to say that on 14 May last year, some two weeks after the end of combat operations in Iraq, I made it clear that there were bound to be shortcomings in the issuing of equipment but that, overall, operations had been a remarkable success. I repeated that in Defence questions in September, and I said the same sort of thing again in December. That is borne out by both the MOD's lessons learned document and the independent NAO report. That is an absolutely consistent picture. We are not saying that there were not difficulties; we are saying that, overall, it was an outstanding logistic and military success.
    Ms Dari Taylor(Lab): This Government have appointed a Chief of Defence Logistics and implemented a total assets visibility project. If that project and a senior member of the armed forces had not put together an effective structure and process for the deployment and use of equipment, what else should we have been doing?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the successes that have been achieved. Equally, I recognise that one lesson, for example, that we must learn is how we improve the in-theatre asset-tracking system. That was part of the reason for not being able to identify the precise location of a small amount of the equipment that was in theatre but could not reach front-line forces in time.

    Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
    Mr. Laurence Robertson(Con): If he will make a statement on the future strategic tanker aircraft project. [150157]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I was pleased to announce to the House this morning that we have decided that the bid from Air Tanker for Airbus A330 aircraft offers the best prospect of providing a value for money PFI service. That decision represents a key milestone in the future strategic tanker aircraft programme. We now need to undertake complex negotiations with Air Tanker before final decisions are taken.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response, but the news that he announced this morning will have come as a great disappointment to Smiths Aerospace in my constituency, which would have liked to add the UK tanker programme to the technology already selected for the United States, Italy and Japan. Where does the news leave British industry's confidence in the much-vaunted MOD defence industrial policy, and what reciprocal arrangements does the right hon. Gentleman have with the French as a result of his strengthening the position of EADS and Thales in the UK?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that both bids contain significant benefits for UK industry. There are winners and losers in any competition, but our decision has been based on the bid that we judge offers the best potential solution for the armed forces, for the taxpayer and for UK industry.
    David Cairns(Lab): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning. One of the potential partners for Airbus is IBM, which will produce some of the software for the project based in Greenock in my constituency. Does that not demonstrate that throughout Britain we have the technological capacity to fulfil very high-spec orders? If he could see his way clear to giving us a little of the aircraft carrier orders as well, we would be very happy indeed.
    Mr. Hoon: Some people are never satisfied, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations on the high-tech aspect of the bid. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the project offers significant opportunities for British and British-based industries and for the development of technology in this country.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth(Con): We welcome the decision to replace the ageing VC10s and Tristars, which have done stalwart service for the Royal Air Force, but the Minister's statement today leaves several questions open. What are the outstanding issues referred to in his statement? What assessment has he made of the export potential of the A330 tankers, given that other air forces have bought 767 tankers? Why has he not yet decided to go down the private finance initiative route? Given the last-minute switch last summer of the Hawk 128 order from a PFI to a straight purchase, and last week's disastrous National Audit Office report that the procurement budget was £3,000 million overspent last year, the Government's smart acquisition programme is looking more foolish than smart.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, spoiled quite a good first point with a rambling observation in the second part—an observation that he knows is inaccurate. Eighty-seven per cent. of the criticisms of major projects concerned four projects that were begun under a Conservative Government—four projects that were begun without the benefit of smart procurement. If the hon. Gentleman had read the report instead of making slogans, he would have seen that the smart procurement aspect was welcomed by the NAO. It is the difficulty with the four projects started under a
    10
    Conservative Government that has caused the major backlog. I am in no way complacent about those projects—we have to get them right. However, perhaps he did not read too carefully the statement I made this morning about the future strategic tanker aircraft, in which I indicated that it was a PFI project. The negotiations that we are now taking forward with Air Tanker are to establish the precise details of the PFI aspect.
    Mr. Tom Watson(Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that although some will be disappointed by the Air Tanker decision, the west midlands manufacturing supply chain will not be? In the past three years, many of the companies in question have diversified out of the automotive sector and into aerospace. The announcement is good news not only for north Wales and Scotland, but for the west midlands. Will he get his Department to highlight some of the initiatives for British manufacturing that are giving the west midlands a chance?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Often, shipbuilding is associated with Scotland and the north-east, and aircraft manufacturing with north Wales and the north-west, but in reality the benefits of such major contracts spread throughout the UK's manufacturing base. I am especially pleased that the west midlands will reap some of those benefits.

    Modern Apprenticeships
    Mr. Bill Tynan(Lab): How many modern apprenticeships are provided by the Department; and if he will make a statement. [150159]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The Ministry of Defence trains its personnel for the operational and business requirement. However, as part of that training we are also committed to providing opportunities to obtain civilian qualifications, including modern apprenticeships. There are currently 13,789 modern apprenticeships in the armed forces, representing approximately 7 per cent. of those currently serving.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. The Department should be congratulated on the fact that many servicemen and women are benefiting from modern apprenticeships. However, does he accept that there is little opportunity at present for the training of apprentices in private industry, so would he consider using MoD facilities to give private industry the opportunity to benefit from those training services?
    Mr. Caplin: We are already working with the private sector where possible, but we would certainly like to investigate further the opportunity to develop training links between the Ministry of Defence and the private sector.
    Mr. David Watts(Lab): I agree that many of our armed forces' facilities are the finest in the country, but there is an awful lot of spare capacity.

    11
    Is it not time that the Department carried out an audit to see what spare capacity there is and how we can expand training facilities in those areas?
    Mr. Caplin: We are always looking at the defence training estate, and shall continue to do so. When any conclusions are reached, we shall of course tell the House.

    Joint Strike Fighter
    Mr. Michael Jack(Con): What steps his Department has taken to follow up the findings of the Rand Europe report on the joint strike fighter. [150161]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Rand report is a useful contribution to the debate on what industrial infrastructure is required in the UK to support our procurement of the JSF. We are considering the way ahead closely in conjunction with industry and our US partners. We do not expect to be in a position to make announcements, however, before 2005.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for his answer, but can he identify what progress, if any, he is making with the United States to ensure that it will participate fully in the technology transfer to make the discussions to which he has just referred meaningful? Can he update the House on what is happening in the consortium of four major British aerospace companies which, I understand, is currently working on proposals dealing with, if nothing else, the maintenance and repair aspects of the JSF operation? He will know that if we can win those contracts, tens of thousands of jobs, given updates on the project, could be available for UK aerospace workers.
    Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point in the second part of his question. Maintenance, repair and upgrade facilities are clearly an important feature of any major procurement process in the aerospace sector, and are something that we are keen to develop. Clearly, however, as he rightly pointed out, that has to be done in consultation with our US partners and other members of the consortium. As for access to technology, those talks are continuing. I am sure that he will understand the sensitivity of those talks from the US perspective, but our close relationship with the US as a key international partner stands us in very good stead for making progress on that front.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell(Con): What the current strength is of the Territorial Army. [150162]
    Gregory Barker(Con): What the current strength of the Territorial Army is; and what it was in January 1997. [150164]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The strength of the Territorial Army on 1 December 2003, the most recent date for which we have figures, was 37,750, which
    12
    includes 3,920 mobilised reservists but excludes 390 TA officers currently serving in the full-time reserve service. I regret that I am unable to provide comparable figures for 1 January 1997, but I can for 1 July that year. The strength of the TA on that date was 55,760, which includes 620 mobilised reservists. There were no TA officers on full-time reserve service on that date.
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank the Minister for his response, which shows how significantly the manpower strength of the Territorial Army has declined since 1997. Given that the strategic defence review in 1998 spoke of a manpower target of 45,000, and given the increased versatility required of our Territorial Army forces following events that have taken place in the meantime, can he tell us how long it will be before that shortfall of 7,000 is made up?
    Mr. Caplin: I know that the hon. Gentleman served with the Royal Tank Regiment, and has considerable knowledge of these affairs. We are, of course, busy recruiting to the TA as often as possible. Recruitment is a constant process throughout the year, and the hon. Gentleman will know that it is conducted geographically by local TA centres. I am confident that in following the strategy set out in the strategic defence review we are going in the right direction.
    Gregory Barker: Does the Minister recognise, in the light of the campaign in Iraq last year, that the Government will continue to undermine morale and retention in Territorial Army units unless they ensure that when the TA is deployed on active service its units are not cannibalised as a matter of course and, crucially, that both officers and NCOs are given credible operational roles, preferably with their own soldiers?
    Mr. Caplin: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who has also served with the TA, on completing the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The TA continuous attitude survey is due to report shortly, and it will provide an opportunity to examine issues raised by him and those raised by the various lessons learned documents from Operation Telic and Operation Fresco.
    Mr. Tony McWalter(Lab/Co-op): As my hon. Friend has indicated that he is looking for TA recruits, will he do something about the areas of the country from which TA units were removed in the earlier review? In particular, the matter caused grave concern in my constituency because the nearest unit is in Hertford, which is an impossible distance away, so young people in my area are not being given the chance to join the TA.
    Mr. Caplin: I was going to offer my hon. Friend the chance to volunteer and participate in TA activity, which is something I am sure he has done. Ensuring that the TA has the right footprint is an important part of our work, and we will continue to examine the estate on every possible occasion.
    Mr. Keith Simpson(Con): I am sure that the whole House appreciates the dedication, professionalism and bravery that the TA has shown and continues to show in operations in Iraq. The

    13
    Government's defence White Paper states that the TA has become an integral part of the regular armed forces and that it will be increasingly used in future operations. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and others who have served in the TA have highlighted a recent survey of TA personnel who have been sent to the Gulf, which found that 80 per cent. of them do not expect their employer to support any future deployment, that 63 per cent. of medical and technical staff are thinking of resigning from the TA and that 73 per cent. of them think that the NHS has lost vital skills because of the deployment. The problem will obviously increase given the Government's defence White Paper. What practical measures are Ministers taking to the square the circle between the desire to use the TA more and employers' increasing reluctance to release staff?
    Mr. Caplin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our reserves have served with distinction in Iraq, at home, and in other areas of the world such as the Balkans in the past 12 months and before that. I am not sure whether he really wants me to discuss Army medical services, because if I do I will delve into events during the 1992 to 1997 Parliament, which may embarrass Conservative Front Benchers. We are heavily engaged with employers through SaBRE, the supporting Britain's reservists and employers campaign, with which he is familiar. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I continue to discuss the matter with national employers such as the NHS, regional employers, with whom we engage through the reserve forces and cadets associations, and other small and medium-sized businesses.

    Army Welfare Services
    Mr. Robert Key(Con): If he will make a statement on the future of Army welfare services. [150163]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The Army welfare service provides invaluable support to the Army and will continue to do so. We have recently expanded its remit so that it is in position to provide much needed assistance to Army veterans.
    I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work that the Army welfare service has done—and continues to do—in assisting our soldiers and their families, both regular and reserve, particularly during recent operations both at home and abroad.
    Mr. Key: I warmly endorse what the Minister says, and the expansion in Army welfare services in south Wiltshire has been particularly effective. Will he do all he can to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command is never put in the position of having to cut Army welfare services as a soft target because of budgetary constraints, bearing in mind the fact that the pressure on Army families is growing remorselessly due to overstretch and the shortened interval between tours?
    Mr. Caplin: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes considerable interest in these affairs, especially in his constituency, which I have visited twice during my first
    14
    six months in post. The Army welfare service provides an invaluable service, but, as he knows, the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command has a devolved budget and those decisions must be down to him. I can tell the House that there will be a review, and I hope that when it is complete I will be able to say more.
    Mr. George Foulkes(Lab/Co-op): Will the Minister consider paying a visit to the excellent centre run by Combat Stress at Hollybush in my constituency? Tremendous work is being done there for people suffering from mental problems caused by various conflicts in Hollybush—that is a problem as well—or, rather, in the Falklands and Northern Ireland as well as Iraq. Does he agree that while the remarks of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) were meant in the kindest possible way, it is far, far too early, if there is any justice in this world, for any member of our excellent Front-Bench team to be considering making valedictory remarks?
    Mr. Caplin: First, may I say to my right hon. Friend that he will certainly be missed when he eventually leaves the House? He has been absolutely 100 per cent. behind the United Kingdom's armed forces on every possible occasion. He is right to point out the importance of the work being done by the charity Combat Stress, which I have met on a number of occasions. I am looking forward to taking the opportunity when I am next in Scotland to visit Combat Stress in his constituency.
    Bob Russell(LD): The Minister rightly draws attention to and praises Army welfare services for the excellent work that they have done, particularly last year during the Iraq conflict. Does he agree that the work they do week in, week out plays an important part in the retention of soldiers and that there needs to be more involvement on the education side so that soldiers with children at school get a better deal?
    Mr. Caplin: I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman would get to his favourite subject—schooling, particularly in the Colchester area. However, he forgot to mention Colchester—a rare moment in the House. As he knows, we are putting more money into service children's education and we will continue to do so. As he also knows, I am looking forward to visiting Colchester garrison in March.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody(Lab): Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the review will consider the provision of psychiatric support services for those who have served in various wars? This is a real problem for young soldiers and there has not been sufficient support in the past, which is a price that we cannot afford to pay as a community.
    Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. She is right—I am not sure that this matter has been properly dealt with in the past. As she will be aware, however, we are engaged with the Priory group to provide psychiatric services and we very much hope that that will put an end to some of those problems.
    Sir Patrick Cormack(Con): What practical help are the Army welfare services giving to the families of those Territorials who served in Iraq, causing great financial hardship to themselves and their families?
    Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which covers the call-out of members of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. Clearly, if there are any such problems, in particular, for his constituents, and he would like to let me know about them, I will take those cases up.

    Air Defence
    Mark Tami(Lab): If he will make a statement on air defence policy priorities. [150167]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The United Kingdom's air defence capability is an important contributor to those standing military tasks that provide for the maintenance of the integrity of United Kingdom airspace, and the defence and security of the overseas territories. It also provides a valuable component of the United Kingdom's overall deployable military capability.
    Mark Tami: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement this morning on the future tanker aircraft as a massive boost to Airbus at Broughton and to the economy of north Wales. Can the Minister assure me that the remaining issues regarding the private finance initiative contract will be sorted out as quickly as possible and not be allowed to drag on?
    Mr. Ingram: It clearly was an important announcement, and an announcement that was much awaited. My hon. Friend has alighted on one of the critical areas that must be properly resolved, and we are determined to get it resolved as quickly as possible.

    Iraq
    Huw Irranca-Davies(Lab): What steps his Department has taken to help the reconstruction of Iraq. [150168]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Since the end of major combat operations, the Ministry of Defence has supported some 750 quick-impact projects, which have improved the immediate situation, as well as preparing the ground for broader reconstruction efforts. Experts from the UK armed forces have also contributed to the emergency infrastructure programme in the south that is funded jointly by the Department for International Development and the coalition provisional authority. As a result, supply routes, such as the rail link between Basra and Umm Qasr, have been reopened, while the repair of bridges over the River Hamdan has strengthened vital transport infrastructure. Clean-water provision has been restored through our construction of
    16
    the water pipeline from Kuwait to Umm Qasr and repairs to the Umm Qasr water treatment plant, and we have also made extensive repairs to the electricity grid.
    Separately, we are helping provide the security needed for other reconstruction activity to flourish. Significant progress, for example, has been made in developing Iraq's own security sector. There are now around 60,000 Iraqi security personnel operating across the country.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that exhaustive update on the quick-impact projects that are under way. I must pay personal tribute to the work of our troops in carrying out this important work. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he prioritises within the Department the work in hospitals and schools? Beyond the quick-impact projects and the benefits that they will bring, it is the long-term benefits that will be brought through health and education projects that will lead to the prosperity and health of the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation. He might like to know that we supported the refurbishment of more than 90 schools in our area of operations. Another 140 further refurbishment projects are under way. As for the health service in Iraq, we have completed 65 general health projects, 16 hospital projects, 32 health centre projects and seven veterinary centre projects.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt(Con): The Secretary of State will agree that one of the most important contributions that the Army can make to reconstruction in Iraq is maintaining internal security and public order, as evidenced by dealing with the recent riots in Basra. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wholly unacceptable if, six months after the end of the major operations in Iraq, our armed forces did not have sufficient riot control equipment in Basra?
    Mr. Hoon: If there is any serious suggestion to that effect, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will raise it with me directly so that it can be investigated. Certainly, all the television programmes that I have seen providing footage of the operations conducted by British personnel have shown how expert those soldiers are in dealing with the threats to order that we have seen from time to time in southern Iraq. They have used precisely the same kind of techniques and equipment that I myself have seen them use when they have been training in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Kevan Jones(Lab): I and other members of the Defence Committee visited Iraq last year and saw some of the sterling work that is being undertaken by MOD personnel in some of the quick-win projects. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of staff not only of the MOD but from the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the non-governmental organisations, who are making a real difference in regenerating schools and putting infrastructure in place—work which is unfortunately not widely reported in the British media, but which is making a real difference in Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their visits to Iraq. That is much

    17
    appreciated by troops on the ground, who appreciate the interest shown by visiting Members. I am delighted that he saw so much that is positive about progress in Iraq. That bears out all the reports that I have received. Although there are continuing concerns about security—less in the south than in other parts of Iraq—real progress is being made in reconstructing the country.
    Mr. Boris Johnson(Con): Given that a vital part of the reconstruction of Iraq is presumably the discovery and removal of weapons of mass destruction, may I remind the Secretary of State of an answer that he gave to me more than six months ago, when I asked him whether the failure to find weapons of mass destruction undermined the legality of the case for war? He gave a four-word answer, which was, "They will be found." Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that? If not, does he not think that it is about time that the public saw all the legal opinion upon which the Government based the case for war?
    Mr. Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but he needs to check more carefully the precise circumstances in which military action was taken. It was taken on the basis of resolution 1441. We know that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction previously; 1441 was given by the United Nations to Saddam Hussein as a last opportunity to co-operate with the international community. The coalition forces judged that he had failed to take that last opportunity. I am sure that a fair-minded observer of these affairs, as the hon. Gentleman is, would reach that conclusion.
    Harry Cohen(Lab): But is not unemployment in Iraq, including in the UK-occupied sector, running at a rate of about 70 per cent., and is not the UK following the approach of the United States of privatisation and foreign contractors, and in the case of the United States, corrupt sweetheart deals? There is plenty for the state to do there. Should there not be a massive programme of public spending and public ownership to get those Iraqis back into work? Would that not be better for the Iraqis and safer for the troops?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that it is public money that is going into Iraq—largely the public money provided by the US taxpayer. It is not entirely surprising, therefore, that the US tends to look first to its own companies to provide assistance. Nevertheless, there are significant opportunities for British companies to participate in projects in Iraq, which they are doing, and for other countries that are not even members of the coalition.

    Logistics Support
    Bob Spink(Con): What recent research has been commissioned into logistics support in the field for army operations. [150169]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): A range of reviews are under way to examine how best to deliver operational logistic support to the armed forces in the most effective and efficient manner.
    18
    These include the work being led by the Chief of Defence Logistics, under the auspices of the end-to-end review and under my direct chairmanship. We are also determined to learn the lessons of recent operations, drawing on our own Operation Telic report "Lessons for the Future" and the helpful recent report by the National Audit Office.
    Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware of reports this weekend that show that the lack of a radio may have been a cause of the tragic death of six British military policemen who were killed by a mob in Iraq last year? Is that not yet another example of our troops being sent into active military operations without the proper equipment? Will the Minister support the families of those brave troops in seeking a public inquiry into those deaths?
    Mr. Ingram: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he do something that the press does not seem to do, which is to try to establish the ground truth about the matter. They make these lurid accusations without so much as seeking the view of the Department. I can tell him that the allegations are wholly unfounded. I will write and give him greater detail on this point.
    Richard Younger-Ross(LD): Could the Minister look at logistical support for our heavy armoured brigade, particularly in light of recent events in Iraq, and ensure that in future they have chemical filters that work for more than six hours?
    Mr. Ingram: The reality was that those tanks—the heavy armour to which the hon. Gentleman refers—had 95 per cent. reliability. He should read the National Audit Office report and the lessons learned, and stop throwing around accusations not based upon the breadth of examination that was carried out. If any lessons need to be learned about equipment shortcomings or failures, they will be learned. That is what the NAO report is about and it is why we carry out such an intensive investigation into our own experiences. Iraq tells us a lot about what needs to be done for the future.

    Fleet Air Defence
    Angela Watkinson(Con): If he will make a statement on fleet air defence. [150171]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): All naval task groups include defensive assets matched to the size of and risk to the task group, which provide air, surface and underwater protection. For multinational operations such as Operation Telic, protection is provided jointly across coalition forces. The effectiveness of these complementing layers and the benefits of operating with allies has been successfully demonstrated in many recent national, NATO and allied exercises and proven in the Gulf and Adriatic operations.
    Angela Watkinson: The air defence Sea Harrier is being withdrawn before the new joint strike fighter becomes available, and we also hear that the number of destroyers and frigates is being reduced. How does the

    19
    Minister assess the Navy's capability to defend itself should it come up against an enemy that has an air force at full strength?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not think the hon. Lady listened to my earlier answer. We have said consistently that there will be combined and joint operations with allies, and if we find ourselves in theatre of conflict, mutual protection is afforded to all. The decision was taken to dispense with the Sea Harrier. It was an old aircraft and to upgrade it would have cost a considerable sum of money, was technically complicated and might not have produced the necessary result. The Type 45 destroyers will come on stream later in the decade and they will afford an immense level of protection to the Navy.
    John Robertson(Lab): I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the aircraft carriers, because that is the matter that I want to address. He will be aware that the size of the aircraft carrier will determine the response time for landing and take-off, in that that will be much quicker on the larger ships than on the smaller ships. Exactly where are we with these aircraft carriers?
    Mr. Ingram: We are still going ahead with building them, which I know my hon. Friend welcomes. Because of his sophisticated knowledge of these matters, he will appreciate that the design aspect has to be properly defined, not only in relation to what the aircraft carriers can carry but in relation to a range of other matters associated with the ships' overall size. Progress has been made and the Navy is very much looking forward to getting the vessels.

    International Terrorism
    Mr. Tom Harris(Lab): If he will make a statement on his plans for the future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism. [150172]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The new chapter to the strategic defence review and the defence White Paper "Delivering Security in a Changing World" set out the significant contributions that the armed forces can make to the Government's responses to international terrorism. These range from the role of defence diplomacy and stabilisation operations in tackling the conditions that promote terrorism, to large-scale combat operations, such as those in Afghanistan, which destroyed al-Qaeda's training camps and disrupted its leadership.
    Mr. Harris: Given that at least some of the activities that my right hon. Friend mentioned do not involve the use of force, can he explain to the House how the Ministry of Defence is co-ordinating the activities of other Departments as they meet their obligations in the Government's fight against international terrorism?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right that there is no single military solution to international terrorism
    20
    and the Ministry of Defence must work closely with other Departments in ensuring that we use all effective means to tackle terrorism. For example, the Treasury may well have a significant role to play, as does the Ministry of Defence, in cutting off sources of finance. But I can assure my hon. Friend, as I assure the House, that we work closely right across this Government and in co-operation with other Governments in dealing with the threat of international terrorism.
    Michael Fabricant(Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that the United States Department of Homeland Security takes the risk of cyber-terrorism very seriously indeed, and that the United States army and other armed forces within the United States have in place blocks to stop cyber-terrorist attacks breaking down its computer control systems. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the British armed forces have similar protection in place?
    Mr. Hoon: We take seriously the threat to computers and computer networks—I shall try to avoid using the phrase that the hon. Gentleman uses—and we discuss it jointly with our friends in the United States.

    Reserve Forces (Gulf Region)
    Mr. Kevin Hughes(Lab): How many members of reserve forces are serving in the Gulf region; and if he will make a statement. [150174]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): As at last Wednesday, 21 January, 1,042 reservists were serving in the Gulf region supporting Op Telic. Broken down by service they are as follows: Royal Naval Reserve, 18; Royal Marine Reserve, 14; Territorial Army, 991; Royal Auxiliary Air Force, 19.
    Mr. Hughes: And is it not the case that despite certain stories circulated in the media, most reservists were proud to be deployed and to serve their country during the conflict in Iraq, and are proud to be out there now helping with the rebuilding of Iraq?
    Can the Minister tell the House whether he has received any feedback from industry about the additional skills that reservists have picked up while they have been out in Iraq?
    Mr. Caplin: I know that my hon. Friend has a personal interest, because his son Martyn was a valuable member of our armed forces during the conflict.
    We continually work with employers to consider all the issues involved in call-out and mobilisation, in particular the skills that our reserve forces can bring when they return to work. It is worth pointing out that our reserves made a very important contribution to operations in 2003, and I am confident that they will continue to do so in future.

Constitutional Reform
3.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat a statement made in the other place by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on the judiciary-related functions of the office of Lord Chancellor.
On 14 July, the Government published consultation papers on the establishment of a new way of appointing judges, the creation of a new supreme court and the future of silk. In September, we published a paper on the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor; and we are grateful to those who responded to our consultation process. The Government are today publishing summaries of these responses. As set out in the Queen's Speech, we intend to bring forward legislation to enact these changes. It is for Parliament to consider that legislation, and the proposals today are conditional upon parliamentary approval.
Today I wish to set out our proposals for the future handling of those functions of the office of Lord Chancellor which relate to the judiciary. The Secretary of State has had detailed discussions with the Lord Chief Justice, who has been speaking on behalf of the judges on these issues. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the terms of today's statement have been agreed with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice's agreement is of course conditional on Parliament's approval of our proposals. It is right, though, that Parliament should be told first of the results of the discussions.
In making changes, we must secure embedded, enduring judicial independence, good working relationships between the judiciary and the Executive, high-quality judges, and high public confidence in the judiciary. I believe that, taken together, our reforms and the proposals in this statement will help to secure those aims.
The reforms seek to clarify and embed in statute the principle of judicial independence. Judges must enforce impartially the law made by Parliament. The Executive must continue to guarantee security of judicial tenure and remuneration and ensure that the judiciary is supported by an efficient and effective system of court administration. We propose, then, that there should be a general statutory duty on the Government, all those involved in the administration of justice, and all those involved in the appointment of judges to respect and maintain judicial independence. In addition, there should be a separate, specific duty falling on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to defend and uphold the continuing independence of the judiciary.
However, the judiciary does not operate in a vacuum—it is part of a constitutional framework in which Parliament is the supreme law-making body. The Government, through Parliament, must ensure that the needs of the public are fully served by our legal system. Parliament must be able to hold the Government to account for the operation of the justice system and the resources provided for it. That clearly requires a partnership, and the Secretary of State is determined—
22
as is the Lord Chief Justice—that the successful partnership between his Department and the judiciary should be sustained and entrenched for future generations.
But to maintain that partnership without blurring the boundaries of responsibilities requires clarity and transparency. To that end, we intend to define in the forthcoming Bill the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and those of the Lord Chief Justice, as the most senior judge in England and Wales. The Bill will make it clear that the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of the courts, that he is accountable to Parliament for the efficient and effective running of the courts system, and that he is responsible for supporting the judiciary in enabling it to fulfil its functions. The Lord Chief Justice will lead the judges with the authority that comes from being appointed as chief judge. He will be responsible for ensuring that the views of the judiciary are effectively represented; he will be responsible for the education and training of judges; and he will be responsible for decisions on the deployment of individual members of the judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice should therefore be given the additional title of President of the Courts in England and Wales. He should also no longer be President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court—that should become a new post in its own right. We propose that responsibility for setting the overall framework for the organisation of the court system should be exercised by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. But when it comes to the posting of individual members of the judiciary within that framework, responsibility should fall to the Lord Chief Justice.
We announced in July the Government's proposals for a Judicial Appointments Commission and consulted over the summer on the detail. Central to the appointments process will be a new, clearly independent Judicial Appointments Commission. The commission will have full responsibility for the process of advertising vacancies and evaluating candidates for judicial appointment. No candidate will be appointed to the judicial posts for which the commission will be responsible unless recommended by the commission.
The sole criterion for the commission in making its recommendations will remain that appointments must be made on merit. To ensure proper accountability to Parliament, the final decision on who to appoint or who to recommend to the Queen for appointment should remain with the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State's discretion must be severely circumscribed. He should only be able to appoint candidates recommended by the commission and should have strict, limited powers to challenge those recommendations. It is not right that a political appointee, albeit one always acting in good faith, should be able to cut across the system to appoint who he or she thinks is right.
Magistrates are a very important part of the judicial family and we propose that equivalent arrangements should apply to magistrates appointments. On the advice of the local advisory committees, the Judicial Appointments Commission will make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who will have the same limited powers to reject as he does in relation to the professional judiciary. For

23
administrative reasons, the commission will not be able to begin dealing with the appointment of professional judges and magistrates at the same time, and we propose, therefore, that for an interim period the Lord Chief Justice will fulfil the role of the commission for magistrates appointments.
It is vital that the commission itself should incorporate the expertise of the judiciary and of the legal professions but also the demonstrable impartiality and wider experience of those who are not from the legal world. We propose, therefore, that the chair of the commission should be neither a lawyer nor a judge and the largest single group on the commission should be of members who are neither lawyers nor full-time judges. The commission will include members from each level of the judiciary up to the Court of Appeal and be required to consult the Lord Chief Justice during the recruitment process. The Lord Chief Justice will be able to engage judicial colleagues, and that will ensure that the commission is able to benefit from the views of the judges about potential candidates and about any particular requirements for a vacancy.
In order to ensure that the system is as open and accountable as it can be and that it is independent of Government, we propose that the commission should be fully responsible for the appointments process itself. It should recruit its staff and submit an annual report detailing its activities over the year. To provide a further guarantee of the system's impartiality, the commission should establish a system for handling complaints from candidates who are unhappy with the way in which their application has been handled. We shall further provide for an ombudsman to deal with those instances where a candidate remains dissatisfied.
I want to make it clear that appointments will continue to be made strictly on merit. However, our proposals will greatly improve the transparency, openness and fairness of the appointments system. By doing so, they will help to ensure that the judiciary of the future fully reflects the diversity of the community that it serves—a goal that both the Government and the judiciary seek.
I am pleased to announce that Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, has agreed to chair the appointing panel for the commissioners. The Lord Chief Justice will also sit on the panel, as will one other member, who will neither be a member of the Government nor a civil servant, to be nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Once appointed, the chair will be on the panel for the appointment of the other commissioners.
The education and training of the judiciary is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, which is chaired by a senior member of the judiciary and, although staffed by members of my Department, is under the control of the judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice will be responsible for the provision and sponsorship of judicial training within the resources provided by the Secretary of State, with a continuing role for the Judicial Studies Board. We shall further propose that the Lord Chief Justice should in future appoint both the chair and members of the board after consultation with the Secretary of State.
24
The Secretary of State—the Lord Chancellor—and the Lord Chief Justice will both continue to have a role to play in relation to judicial discipline and conduct. That partnership reflects the importance of respecting the independence of the judiciary, providing assurance to the public that complaints about judges are subject to proper scrutiny, and of providing accountability to Parliament for the complaints system. In the most serious cases, in which it falls to be considered whether a judge should be removed from office for incapacity or misbehaviour, removal will be by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. It will not be possible unless they both agree.
For the higher judiciary, removal will continue to be by Her Majesty the Queen on an Address from both Houses of Parliament. Such cases will first be investigated by a judge of appropriate seniority, and will be able to be referred to a review body. In less serious cases, the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State will need to agree on any penalties short of dismissal to be applied to a judge. They will be supported in that work by a complaints secretariat, and will both be consulted about all complaints of any substance, as well as receiving regular reports about all other complaints dealt with. For all cases involving magistrates, local input will continue. The Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for the efficient and effective operation of the complaints system as a whole and will continue to deal with correspondence from peers and Members of Parliament on this subject.
To provide greater certainty and transparency about the process for handling such complaints, the Bill will provide for a complaints procedure to be agreed by the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State and set out in secondary legislation. As a further guarantee of the openness and fairness of the new complaints process, we propose that the complainant or the judge concerned should be able to refer the handling of a complaint to the ombudsman.
A number of posts, such as the senior presiding judge and the presiding judges, do not involve formal promotion to a more senior judicial level. These roles, which are held for a relatively short term by different judges in succession, entail a degree of judicial leadership and a range of administrative functions. We propose that, in future, such appointments should be made by the Lord Chief Justice, either in consultation with or with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
The making of the rules of court is a key means of giving effect to the policy decisions approved by Parliament. Responsibility for the making of rules will remain with the relevant rule committee. The Secretary of State will allow or disallow rules. We propose, however, that the power to alter rules should be repealed. Instead, we propose a new power to allow the Secretary of State to require a rule committee to make new rules or to change existing rules to achieve a particular desired outcome. It will then be for the committee to consider how best to frame the rules to meet such a requirement, and to submit or re-submit them to the Secretary of State.
The policy that I have announced today covers the position in respect of England and Wales. The Secretary of State's responsibilities also extend to Northern Ireland, and consideration will also be given to the future handling of his functions that relate to the

25
Northern Ireland judiciary. That process, which is currently under way, will include consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and will be based on the same guiding principles that apply in England and Wales, taking into account any provision already made for Northern Ireland to give effect to the recommendations of the Northern Ireland criminal justice review.
The Lord Chief Justice, the Secretary of State and I will listen carefully to all the views expressed today in the House and elsewhere. The House will have a further opportunity to consider these issues in more detail when legislation is introduced. To assist in such consideration, we have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses an explanatory document—which I know that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is dying to see—that sets out these proposals in even more detail. With parliamentary approval, the reforms that I have set out will guarantee for future generations that the independence of the judiciary is protected. They will clarify the relationship between the Executive and judicial arms of the state, improving each arm's accountability, and will promote and strengthen partnership so as to serve the public better.
Mr. Alan Duncan(Con): I thank the Minister for providing an advance copy of the statement. Unfortunately, however, this is yet another step in the sorry saga following last summer's botched reshuffle, in which the Lord Chancellor was suddenly abolished, and then miraculously resurrected. The Government have embarked on a programme of reform that has no rhyme or reason to it. There is no special call for it, and there is certainly nothing but danger in it for the maintenance of high-quality justice devoid of political interference. Its only motive seems to be the Government's need to parade some sort of spurious radical momentum.
The Government have cobbled together in a piecemeal manner an attempt at a coherent policy. It has not been thought through, and it satisfies only a quite elementary standard of political theory. Indeed, why has the Minister decided to do this without consultation on the very day on which he is publishing the responses to four other, related, consultations? We have been told today of a change to the interrelationship between the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, but without any clear legislative context.
The Government have always claimed that their reforms are designed to protect judicial independence, and we heard it again today. We have always argued that they are not, because when they speak of judicial independence, they advance arguments in favour of the separation of powers. Well, now we have it in black and white. Judicial independence is clearly secondary, as the document that they have published alongside today's statement says:
"The overall aim of these reforms is to put the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary on a modern footing, respecting the separation of powers between the three."
The Government fail to understand even now that the separation of powers is a concept that might suit other countries' constitutions and presidential systems, but is a theory that has never applied in Britain. The danger of forcing such an inappropriate theoretical template on
26
our structures, which are substantially different, is that it risks creating no end of dangerous consequences and unforeseen conflicts.
Is it not the case that today's document makes a mockery even of the separation of powers? It is riddled with no end of requirements to consult, confer and do things concurrently—not so much a separation as a mess. Is it not also the case that inasmuch as there is an attempt to separate powers, it is not a balanced structure, because the Secretary of State has swiped all the powers that matter most—it is a system of checks and imbalances?
Over the past few months, the Government have put the judiciary in an impossible position. For fear of losing many precious elements of judicial independence, they have been forced to bow to political pressure and protect whatever they can. We do not blame the judiciary for a moment, and in the face of what amounts almost to duress, the Lord Chief Justice and his judicial colleagues have behaved with dignity and propriety.
Let us not pretend, however, that the Lord Chancellor's proposals enjoy the enthusiastic endorsement of the judges. They do not. At best, they have their reluctant acquiescence. They have been left with no option but to salvage whatever safeguards they have been able to negotiate. It is entirely the fault of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor that they have been compelled to express their position in secret negotiations instead of open debate. Parliament has been totally bypassed—we will just be asked to rubber-stamp a fait accompli.
The fundamental flaw in the Government's changes is that they think that a rules-based separation of powers will work better than the existing structure. It will not. What is likely to ensue is a dramatic erosion of the independence of the judiciary, with a real risk of its increasing politicisation. It also risks pitting the judiciary and politicians in permanent open conflict. Does the Minister claim that today's proposals do have the enthusiastic endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, and that the removal of the Lord Chancellor is Lord Woolf's preferred option and now supersedes the opinion that he gave in the Cohen lecture in December, in which he said:
"the disappearance of the Lord Chancellor will leave the Judiciary more exposed to the attacks of politicians"?
What is the point of getting rid of the office of Lord Chancellor, who protects the judiciary by taking the judge's oath, when the Government have had to concede that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have to have a specific statutory duty to safeguard judicial independence? What does this statutory duty mean for the rest of Government in that, hitherto, all Secretaries of State have been equal and interchangeable, and yet there will now be one who is different? The Government have come up with a cast list for the Judicial Appointments Commission. But what is their justification for the composition proposed? How is it better than the present system of consultation?
What does it mean to say that the judiciary must be reflective of society? The Lord Chancellor and the Minister have said that it is only merit that matters, but they have also included that applicable criterion. What exactly must it reflect? How many existing judges under the current system does the Minister think should not be

27
in their job? How does he reconcile appointment only on merit with a parallel requirement for them to be reflective of society? Will the decisions—I request seriously an answer to this—of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in the discharge of his statutory duty be open to judicial review or will they not, and will, indeed, the entire Government be so liable?
To us, this reform contains dangers for judicial independence. Its facile radicalism reveals that the Government have no understanding of the value of our existing arrangements. The present system may look odd in theory, but it works in practice. Our only interest is in the quality of justice for Britain. We want to keep high-quality judges, exercising their duties in the best possible way, free from posturing politicians trying to control them or second-guess their judgments. This proposal does the opposite: it creates a pale imitation of the existing Lord Chancellor, operating in a highly politicised environment. He will have most of the powers of the Lord Chancellor and none of the responsibility entrenched in convention and traditions of conduct. It is a backward step, and we will resist it.
Mr. Leslie: I regret the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who is resisting from gut instinct, rather than looking at the detail of what is proposed. I realise that those in the Conservative party are always looking to preserve the status quo from their Westminster-established viewpoint—never mind what the wider public and the wider world think. In fact, they were due to publish a legal reform policy paper some time last Thursday. I have looked all over to see whether I can find its contents; I have not seen it yet, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman may have a chance to send it. It was mentioned in The Daily Telegraph on Thursday.
It is right that we end the blurred role of the office of Lord Chancellor. It has a very important series of functions. It should not be perceived as an antiquated role, but all those different elements should be regarded with the importance and vigour that they deserve, and it is important that we move forward with these sensible reforms, but in partnership with all the different stakeholders, and the judiciary in particular. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are now talking about the separation of powers as the only avenue down which their policy is developing. Of course it is true that we want to ensure that we clearly define the separation of powers, where it is appropriate, but that is not incompatible with having a partnership between the different branches of the state. That is entirely right, and it is what we want to see.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Lord Chief Justice is commenting on these proposals, probably as we speak. He has said that he welcomes this statement and the proposals, which have his "firm support". In view of the hon. Gentleman's question on whether I regard that as an endorsement from the Lord Chief Justice, I have to say, yes, I do. He also asked whether it was possible to have an ability to keep the existing system. I believe that it is difficult to justify a senior politician at the core of the judiciary. These measures are intended to bolster and strengthen the independence of the judiciary.
28
Of course there will still be a need to scrutinise the Bill, which will be introduced in due course, and there will be worthwhile discussions about the hon. Gentleman's questions on the ability for judicial review of the different duties at that time. We want to see a general duty on all the Government, but also a specific duty on the Secretary of State, not least in view of the hon. Gentleman's comment that we need a voice in Cabinet specifically with regard to the preservation of judicial independence. Our response today helps to some extent to reflect some of those concerns.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he was concerned when I said that merit should be the overriding criterion in appointments—[HON. MEMBERS: "The only"]—the sole criterion in appointments—suggesting that that was somehow going against the ability to secure a diverse judiciary, reflecting the composition of society. I happen to believe that merit is not incompatible with diversity. I believe that all society can, potentially, be included in the judiciary by merit, as the sole criterion, and that we now have the opportunity to give the Judicial Appointments Commission that remit, to take an overview of those matters. Again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at these proposals in more detail. It is important that we modernise our constitution not only to put the different branches of our Government and state on a firm footing, but to enshrine the independence of the judiciary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that and think again.
Mr. David Heath(LD):I welcome the early sight of the proposals and, as the Minister knows, I welcome the overall thrust of the Government's plans for judicial reform. I am, however, highly critical of the peremptory way in which they have been introduced and the desultory consultation to date. In that context, I welcome the armed truce between the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary, not least the Lord Chief Justice—albeit at a price. May I gently tell the Minister that that should have been the starting point in the genesis of the legislation, not a point reached shortly before the Bill is to be published?
On judicial independence, how does the Minister view elevating protection for the concept in statute to ensure that it is not subject to later attack by primary or, indeed, secondary legislation? Will he confirm that secondary legislation will be disqualified under the terms of the proposals? Will he clarify the role of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) mentioned the collective responsibility of the Cabinet and the interchangeable role of Secretaries of State. It is essential to have a clear statutory basis for the particular position of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. How does the Minister expect to achieve that through the Bill? Will the staff of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Appointments Commission fall outside the remit of the civil service? Will they be civil servants—will they be seconded from the Minister's Department—or will they be entirely independent?
I welcome the Minister's retreat on the composition of the appointing committee for judicial appointments and, indeed, the appointment of Dame Rennie Fritchie, who I think will make an excellent chair. However, I question the continuing role of the Secretary of State in

29
judicial discipline. Why should the Secretary of State have any role in the new format for judicial discipline other than the final point of recommendation to the Queen for the removal of a judge? The Minister mentioned the rules of court. Can he confirm that the only Secretary of State involved in the consideration of those rules will be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—no other Secretary of State, and certainly not the Secretary of State for the Home Department?
There are several question marks about the proposed legislation. The Government have not thought through their proposals: they have not thought about the Scottish dimension or the location of the Supreme Court; and there are many other unanswered questions. When does the Minister expect to bring forward and publish a Bill? When he does so, will he have completed not just the present consultations and discussions with the senior judiciary but those required with the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish Executive and with the many other people who take a real and genuine interest in the proposals?
Mr. Leslie: May I first thank the hon. Gentleman for at least recognising that there is benefit from having a clear partnership between the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State? We believed that it was important to draw that agreement to the attention of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman asked several detailed questions about the statutory duty, which we envisage as applying not just to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, specifically to uphold judicial independence, but to the whole of the Government, including the civil service, to respect and maintain such independence. Enshrining that in a more formal manner is a step forward, and I believe that most hon. Members will welcome it. It will apply to secondary legislation, which also amounts to proposals by Ministers, but I know that that particular duty will be debated further, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) highlighted earlier.
We believe that it is important to have a separate general duty on the wider Government. We have debated the general interchangeability of the Secretary of State as a generic term, but we also feel that there should be a particular responsibility on this particular Secretary of State. That was regarded as one of the better elements of the current system, which we believe can be brought forward to the new one.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the staffing of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Supreme Court. We have not announced our final policy conclusions on the Supreme Court today, but we are aware of the need to resource and supply finance for the staffing and running of those bodies. Parliament will want to hold the person accountable for that expenditure. We are working with the judiciary and others to establish what might be the best form of accountability. It might be provided through the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, but there might well be other mechanisms.
Discipline and conduct arrangements for the judiciary are clearly sensitive issues. We must ensure that we respect independence, but also secure public accountability, on behalf of our constituents, when it
30
comes to any misbehaviour or malpractice in a court. That will be the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice, because of the need for accountability. There will be concurrent agreement between the judiciary and the Government at almost every stage in respect of discipline.
Rules of court are very important. We expect them normally to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I am not aware of any specific provision preventing the involvement of other Secretaries of State, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
I have no date for the announcement of legislation, but I hope that that will be done shortly.
Mr. Clive Soley(Lab): I welcome the statement as another logical step in the process of constitutional reform—not least because since long before I entered the House I have found it difficult to explain or justify the fact that an active member of a political party can also be the head of the judiciary in Britain. The fact that during my lifetime that person has generally been a member of the Conservative party may explain some of the opposition that we are hearing today.
Because the detail is so important, may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that he and his colleagues in the House of Lords are receptive to any changes that are needed? The devil is often in the detail when it comes to legislation of this kind.
Mr. Leslie: That is certainly true, and it will be a significant piece of legislation when we produce it. We have placed a number of documents in the Libraries of both Houses today to ensure that there is widespread awareness of the current proposals, and we will welcome comments on the responses we have received so far and the conclusions we have reached.
My hon. Friend has a reforming instinct, and I too feel that it is wrong for a politician to be at the heart of the judiciary. This is an important reform, which will put the judiciary on an independent and much stronger footing.
Sir Teddy Taylor(Con): Has the Minister estimated the cost of the new commission? Will there also be a new commission in Northern Ireland, and how much will it cost? Will there be a new ombudsman's office, and how much will that cost? Who will determine the budgets? Will they be determined by the commission itself, because it is independent, or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Leslie: Parliament will determine the amount of the resources that it votes for these purposes: that is where the ultimate responsibility lies. Of course there will be additional resource requirements for a brand new Judicial Appointments Commission, which we expect to be about £2 million or £3 million. I consider that a price well worth paying for a much more transparent process of judicial appointment, rather than a cloaked or behind-the-scenes arrangement—albeit one that has worked well to date. It is important for us to make progress, and other matters referred to in the statement

31
need not give rise to excessive costs. They will be covered by existing resources, as planned. There will be resource implications, however, and we will keep the House informed of them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell(Lab): The Minister will forgive me if I did not pick this up at the time, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the position of the Scottish judiciary. What, indeed, is the position of Lord Hope of Craighead and others?
Is the Minister entirely comfortable with the idea of some paragon who is not a lawyer or a judge being chairman of an appointments commission? I must say that, as a layman, I would not have the impertinence to make judgments on the merits of lawyers. Surely that must be done by a lawyer. Who the heck is he, or am I, to make such a judgment?
Mr. Leslie: Far be it from me to say to the Father of the House that he is not capable of performing any of those functions—I believe that he probably would be if he were to turn his mind to it. I do not think that it is an impertinence to have lay involvement in the appointment of the judiciary. It is important to broaden out the appointments process, open the doors and involve the public in it as much as possible so that we have more clarity and transparency and so that it is not something that is distant from the rest of the world. We should reconnect the judiciary with the public, so such lay involvement is important. My hon. Friend should not be so bashful in underestimating the ability of lay members.
Mr. Edward Garnier(Con): Will the Minister tell me precisely how judicial independence is at risk under the present system? Will he tell me the implications of his statement for the ministerial and parliamentary role of the Law Officers?
Mr. Leslie: I do not believe that the statement has any implications for the role of the Law Officers. I set out why I think that it is important that in abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor we should have a clearer definition of the respective judicial functions of the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State. The answer is that if a senior politician—a member of the Cabinet appointed by the Prime Minister—acts day to day with almost untrammelled powers at the heart of the judiciary to interpret and make laws, there is clearly a problem. We already know that there are difficulties, which is one reason why there is a strong rationale behind the creation of a Supreme Court. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider seriously the important reasons and rationales behind our proposals.
Mrs. Ann Cryer(Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that early last summer, Professor Erik Jurgens, a well regarded constitutional lawyer and the rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in the Council of Europe, appeared before the Committee of which I am member, which was at that time called the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department? He said that owing to our lack of a clear
32
separation of powers, if the UK were now to apply to join the Council of Europe, we would probably not be admitted.
Mr. Eric Forth(Con): Oh good.
Mr. Leslie: I have not met Erik Jurgens, but I have met another Eric, who perhaps has differing views on the matter. I know that the Constitutional Affairs Committee, as it is now known, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), has been examining the matter carefully, so perhaps I shall review the evidence that it received from Professor Jurgens.
Mr. A. J. Beith(LD): Is not the most significant change from the Government's original proposals that the Minister has announced today the fact that many of the most senior appointments—heads of divisions and judges of the Court of Appeal—will be appointed not by the appointments commission, as such, but by a panel of four on which the Lord Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge will have a casting vote? Was that change necessary to deal with the level of anxiety that was expressed to the Select Committee by members of the judiciary, and does that illustrate how much work must be done on the range of constitutional proposals to get them right and deal with such anxieties? Is the Minister thus ready to recognise that the Bill must not be rushed through?
Mr. Leslie: Nobody wants to rush legislation, but it is important to make good progress with our proposals when they are clear and solid. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have reflected on the responses to the consultation that we received and there are slightly different proposals on the way in which the Judicial Appointments Commission would bring its decisions to bear on more senior judicial posts, which reflects the need to have a stronger input from the senior judiciary on several of the senior posts. The Secretary of State would have greater input in some of the leadership posts because they are partly administrative. The important point is that all appointments would come as recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which represents the new transparency that we must bring to the system.
Chris Bryant(Lab): The Minister will know that many Labour Members welcome the separation of powers envisaged in his proposals, not least because every time this country has been involved in helping to draft a constitution for another country, we have insisted on precisely that separation of powers, especially in Germany. One thing remains uncertain, however. Does he believe that the new duty of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to protect the independence of the judiciary can be performed only from the House of Lords, or is it time that we repatriated those issues down to the elected House of Commons?
Mr. Leslie: It is entirely true that the Prime Minister will be able to appoint whomever he or she chooses in future as the Secretary of State for Constitutional

33
Affairs, and the legislation would apply to the post in whichever House that occurred. At present, the arrangements work well, and long may they continue—[Interruption.]—in respect of the current holder of the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.
I take my hon. Friend's point on the international view. That was reflected in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). It is important that we continue to lead in the strong democratic, but also high-standing, judicial manner, in which we are held in high regard by the rest of the world. The reforms will aid that.
Sir Patrick Cormack(Con): Is the Minister aware that in answering questions he said that the present system works well; that it is important to enshrine the independence of the judiciary; and that there must not be a politician at the core of the judiciary? How does he reconcile those statements with the implicit statement that there will, indeed, be a very political politician at the heart of the judiciary, possibly someone who sits in this House and has campaigned on a party ticket? What guarantee does that give to those outside the House?
Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the detail of our proposition, he will see that we do not want a politician at the heart of the judiciary. That is not the proposal. The Secretary of State will not have those judicial functions. That is the whole point of today's statement.
The hon. Gentleman says that we make such announcements when there is little criticism of the existing system. We do have good judicial appointments, but it is not always best to make reforms when the system is collapsing. Sometimes the best way to progress is to make improvements in a calm atmosphere. That is precisely what we are doing.
Keith Vaz(Lab): May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his proposals and give him my full support? However, he must be aware that, notwithstanding the agreement reached between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, there is enormous concern among the judiciary about the way in which the proposals have been taken forward? Given the detail that will be required in establishing the Judicial Appointments Commission, does he think that there should be a pause in the timetable? I know that the Government have an ambitious timetable to get the measure through, because they are a reforming Government, but surely sufficient time must be given to ensure that the proposals are embedded in our constitution, because it is unlikely that we will deal with them ever again.
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend will no doubt be involved in the scrutiny of the legislation as it comes before the House. From end to end, we will probably have about 18 months of scrutiny from the time of the announcement of the proposals to when they are finally enacted, such is the length of time of consideration of legislative change. I welcome his support, but I do not think that the timetable is rushed. It is cautious, but it
34
also ensures that we make progress because of the agreement that we have made, not least with the Lord Chief Justice, as achieved and articulated today.
Sir Michael Spicer(Con): How do we have an independent judiciary if the whole system is about to become subservient to the European Court of Justice? Whatever the Minister does to the Lord Chancellor, can he avoid calling him Lord Speaker?
Mr. Leslie: The chairmanship—or speakership—of the other place is a matter for it to decide. The Government believe that we should not dictate to the other place what arrangements it should choose. It is not for this House to say how the other House should settle matters, but we will help to guide those discussions and to inform them with our reforms.
I am surprised that it has taken about 45 minutes for the spectre of Europe to raise its head. No changes have been proposed in the relationship between the legal system in England and Wales and that in Europe. I suspect that hon. Members will have to make those proposals another day.
Vera Baird(Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on thoughtful progress, and particularly on the decision that the Judicial Appointments Commission will not be chaired by a judge and will not have judicial majority. I am sure that he is aware that, had it been any other way, progress towards an open-merit system of appointments would have been very slow—extracting members from the usual white male suspects. Will he reconsider his thinking on the Secretary of State's role in discipline? Would it not be better if it were at arm's length, perhaps in the hands of the Judicial Appointments Commission? In order to be an effective system and not just a hostage to public complaints, with all the attendant danger, ought there not to be proper monitoring and appraisal of judicial competence—nothing to do with independence—as there is in every other public service job?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. and learned Friend is a campaigner on improving arrangements for the judiciary's discipline, conduct and complaints system, and I very much respect her point of view. Although we clearly need a thorough and effective system—it is particularly for the judiciary to improve its own processes—we proposed a partnership because Parliament will need to hold to account an aspect of how we discipline the judiciary. That is not least because Parliament will in many cases have the right of final decision in making the request to the Queen concerning higher judicial office holders. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend about having lay input in the membership and chairing of the Judicial Appointments Commission. I think that that is good. It will open up the process and make it more transparent. I appreciate her welcome for the proposals.
Mr. James Clappison(Con): Is not the short answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that there is no evidence of a threat to judicial independence under the present system? Given the length of time that the system has been in place and the way in which Lord Chancellors

35
of different political persuasions have exercised their functions, is it not a bit late in the day for the Minister to claim that there is such a threat? Was he not manifestly unable to provide from the Dispatch Box any evidence of such a threat? To use the Minister's terms, is not the independence and integrity of our judicial system widely recognised in the rest of the world and among the general public? Is there not a great deal to be lost by what the Minister is doing and very little to be gained?
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman seems to want to continue to allow the Prime Minister to appoint a politician as head of this country's judiciary, so that that politician may sit in a judicial capacity, presiding not only in Parliament but making judicial appointments behind closed doors without any input from wider sources. I do not believe that, in saying that there is no evidence of a problem, the hon. Gentleman is looking properly at the system. The evidence rests in the construct: a political role at the heart of the judiciary. That is not sustainable. There is a manifest reason and need to remove that—to put our constitution on a modern footing and to create a clearer separation of powers. The hon. Gentleman needs to think again about the matter.
Mr. Douglas Hogg(Con): Does the Under-Secretary understand that those who are seriously concerned about the independence of the judiciary are really troubled by his statement? Does he understand that, historically, judges have been able to look to the Lord Chancellor as one of the most senior figures in government and as someone who has very little to gain and nothing to lose? Consequently, in their battles with, for example, the Home Office, they have had a formidable spokesman. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that that spokesman is being replaced by the most junior member of the Cabinet, who is represented in this place by an Under-Secretary? What conceivable reassurance will that be to those who want an independent judiciary?
Mr. Leslie: To the rising star of the Opposition Benches I say that the Lord Chief Justice's statement today supporting and welcoming the statement is significant. It shows that, when he speaks on behalf of the wider judiciary, we have a partnership between the Government and the judiciary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should reflect more seriously on the detail of our proposals. I think that our proposals bring progress in the reform of our constitution and I urge him to look again at them.
Mr. John Bercow(Con): Given the hon. Gentleman's laudable enthusiasm for the independence of the judiciary, would he care to remind the House and the country who will appoint the members of the Judicial Appointments Commission;
36
and given that paragraph 17 of his statement this afternoon refers, with apparent pride, to "strictly limited powers" of the Secretary of State to challenge the recommendations of the commission, will he advise us on the nature and the extent of the limitation?
Mr. Leslie: First, the hon. Gentleman asks, in effect, who appoints the appointers. We propose that the Commissioner for Public Appointments should chair the appointing panel, the Lord Chief Justice should be on the panel, the Commissioner for Public Appointments should pick another independent member, and once the chair has been selected, he or she should also sit on the panel. No Ministers or civil servants will be involved.
The hon. Gentleman asks what is the circumscribed role of the Secretary of State when the Judicial Appointments Commission makes its recommendations. We need to have accountability for any appointment of the Crown, so in my view a Minister needs to make the recommendation—to pass it on. I think that it would be very rare indeed for the Secretary of State to decline to accept the recommendation of the commission, but one rejection or one reconsideration of such matters should be possible. Those are our proposals regarding the severely circumscribed role of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Forth: For those of us who are moving towards support for the separation of powers, this is a rather disappointing statement. I was not convinced by the answer the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the independence of the Judicial Appointments Commission. We have to know a lot more about that. Instead of the Secretary of State having the powers that the Minister outlined and on which he failed to give any reassurances in response to my hon. Friend's question, will the Minister consider giving the power of final appointment—or of advice and consent, if he wishes—to the upper House, where the Government currently have and, according to their own prognosis, will have, no majority? Would not that be far more reassuring to those of us who want a genuine degree of separation between the Executive and the judiciary, if not the legislature and the judiciary?
Mr. Leslie: That was a rather complicated but interesting proposal regarding a potential role for the upper House of Parliament. I shall try to decipher it and examine it in more detail. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to question the independence of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who will play the leading role in the appointing panel for the Judicial Appointments Commission. I believe that Dame Rennie Fritchie, who has agreed to chair the appointing panel, is capable of acting independently: she is not a political figure, or a member of the Government or a civil servant. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on his comments. I believe that we can have an independent appointments process and that it can work well.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald(Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of this matter. You will be aware of the serious allegations in weekend newspapers that Labour Members of Parliament who are members of the Council of Europe who intend to vote against university top-up fees are being refused Government authorisation for their travel costs of £600 for returning to vote tomorrow. Is it not the case that members of the Council of Europe are entitled to freedom from restriction of movement to and from the assembly and that that includes authorisation of their travel costs? Is it not also the case that proposing a financial penalty against a Member because of his conduct in Parliament has always been a serious contempt of Parliament, as has any direct or indirect attempt at intimidation to influence future conduct?
Mr. Speaker, are you prepared to make a statement deploring any attempt to fine or bully Members of Parliament? Will you also say what can be done to stop that sort of abuse of power?
Mr. Tam Dalyell(Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that I wrote to you in my capacity as Father of the House expressing unease on this matter.
Mr. Douglas Hogg(Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly the case that the Government are seeking through financial pressure to influence the votes of its own Back Benchers. You will have seen pages 124 and 122 of "Erskine May", which make it quite plain that visiting pecuniary loss on any Member of Parliament as a method of influencing a vote is clear contempt. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that about 10 days ago, the House referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee the conduct of the Lord Chancellor, who is alleged to have intimidated witnesses. Against that background, would you entertain a motion referring the relevant Minister, probably the Government Chief Whip, to the Standards and Privileges Committee on the grounds that she is apparently in contempt of the House?
Sir Patrick Cormack(Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will confirm that the issue of a Whip to Members of Parliament is entirely a matter for the internal affairs of the party concerned. Members of Parliament are supposed to come to the House and may be in attendance when they wish. They are sometimes urged to attend by their parties, Mr. Speaker, but no party has the power to say how a Member shall vote. In the light of that convention, surely this amounts to a serious contempt of Parliament.
Mrs. Ann Cryer(Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to take sides in this argument. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I really do not want to get involved. However, for six years I was a member of the Council of Europe. The rule
38
was always that we were allowed only one return ticket to Strasbourg for the plenary session. I do not think that anything has changed.
Mr. Eric Forth(Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that the House, mistakenly in my view, voted for Members to be able to travel to a continental destination twice a year.
Mr. Hogg: Three times.
Mr. Forth: It is getting worse. They could make those journeys at the taxpayer's expense and, importantly, they were authorised by the House, not the Government. If Members are under threat from the Government could they not use their parliamentary allowance to travel back and forth and say "Up yours" to the Government?
Mr. Edward Garnier(Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before they do that, could you invite either the Solicitor-General, as the only Law Officer in the Commons or, through the usual channels, the Attorney-General, to investigate whether this is not only contempt of the House but a breach of the criminal law?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we need lawyers. Like the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), I definitely do not want to take sides. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for giving notice of this matter. Any Members attending the current meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg are able to return to the House tomorrow if they so wish. The arrangements for the reimbursement of expenses for Members attending the Council of Europe are laid down in the administrative guide approved by the House of Commons Commission. If it appears that the rules do not meet the complexities of the position relating to Members in Strasbourg this week, I shall ensure that they are reviewed urgently and that they operate fairly for all Members. I repeat, however, that any Member is entitled to return to Westminster to vote tomorrow if they so wish.
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your consideration, would you ensure that the ambit of inquiry includes a retrospective look at the matter so that nobody will be disadvantaged in any way? It would be sad if improper pressure was applied to a Member and we could only rectify the position for the future.
Mr. Speaker: The matter will be looked at by the House of Commons Commission, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, so perhaps he can put that case if we have a look at it.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am listening very carefully to your statement. I understand that you are saying to the House that no distinction should be made between hon. Members

39
depending upon how they propose to vote in any one Division. Can you confirm that I have correctly understood your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly understood my ruling that every hon. Member must be treated fairly, but I stress that no hon. Member in Strasbourg will be denied the right to return to the House tomorrow.
Chris Grayling(Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that item 7 on the list of written ministerial statements in today's Order Paper is a statement on an independent review of the effect of the introduction of variable tuition fees in higher education. You may not be aware that although all the other written ministerial statements for today have been delivered to the Library, that particular one has not, which clearly symbolises the chaos in the Government in the run-up to tomorrow's vote. Will you tell the House whether you have information on when we can expect that urgent statement and use your good offices to ensure that it arrives sooner rather than later?
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct. Notice has been given on the Order Paper and therefore it is not a matter for me as to when the statement will arrive in the Library. The appropriate Minister is acting within the rules of the House.
Mr. John Gummer(Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not in your purview to know that over this weekend I have been asked many questions about that issue. I hope that you will make it known in the right quarters that many of us want to try to understand exactly what the Government are proposing. If we do not have that document early enough, it will be very difficult to do our jobs as Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: The appropriate Minister will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments.

BILL PRESENTED
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (REGISTRATION)
  Keith Vaz, supported by Tony Lloyd, David Taylor, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. David Drew, Dr. Vincent Cable and Dr. Rudi Vis, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of telecommunications masts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed [Bill 44].
Orders of the Day

  Fire and Rescue Services Bill
  [Relevant document: The Third Report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2003–04, HC43-I, on the Fire Service.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.32 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is important and historic. It is the first substantive legislation concerning the operation of the fire and rescue service in more than 50 years. The Fire Services Act 1947, which it replaces, encapsulated immediate post-war thinking on the role of the fire service and set in place a framework that lasted for a substantial time. It placed a strong emphasis on rapid and effective responses to fires, for which the fire service has justifiably earned a very good reputation.
  Firefighters are rightly held in high esteem for their professionalism and bravery. The service has historically performed to a very high standard in responding to and dealing with fires. Despite that success, too many lives continue to be lost, with around 350 deaths and more than 11,000 injuries estimated in dwelling fires in 2002. It is the vulnerable in society who are most likely to be affected: people aged 80 or over are six times more likely to die in a house fire than those aged between 30 and 59.
  As the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions pointed out in its recent report on the subject, which we warmly welcome, in 50 per cent. of cases involving fatalities, the victims were dead before the fire service was called. There could be no more telling illustration of the importance of focusing the service on the prevention of fire, which is one of the main themes of the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster(Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that not a single life has been lost in a domestic fire in this country, or elsewhere as far as records show, in a building fitted with sprinklers? Is not that the real answer?
  Mr. Raynsford: I will be dealing with the question of sprinklers later. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sprinklers is a complex matter that has been the subject of detailed research. I shall refer to that.
  The greater focus on prevention was one of the key recommendations of the independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that the Bain report, which was discussed extensively in the House and more widely a year ago, was a thorough piece of work that did not pull its punches. I believe that we owe a real debt to Sir George and his two colleagues, Sir Michael Lyons and

  41
  Sir Anthony Young. They reminded us that despite many previous reports advocating reform, the fire service had been very slow to change. As the Select Committee has pointed out, a number of far-reaching reviews—seven in the past 30 years—have been left to gather dust on the shelf.
  The Bain report made it clear that the time for action was overdue and that there was a heavy responsibility on all involved with the fire and rescue service not only to recognise the need for modernisation but to ensure that this time it happened. Fire and rescue authorities, chief fire officers, managers, staff and the Government were all under the spotlight. The Bain report recommended more strategic direction and engagement by the Government. It made a persuasive case for greater collaboration and joint working between fire and rescue authorities to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the service. It proposed giving managers the clear responsibility and the tools to make and carry through decisions that they are best placed to make. Bain held out the prospect and the opportunity of a more rewarding and diverse career for firefighters.
  The uniformed fire and rescue service has for too long been seen as overwhelmingly white and male, even in areas with large ethnic minority populations. The challenge to the service is to become more representative of the communities that it serves.
  Mr. David Curry(Con): Will that put out more fires?
  Mr. Raynsford: It would help to put out fires, because sensitivity to the position of a number of ethnic minorities is crucial to fire safety. If people have cooking practices that are potentially dangerous and they are told by people who understand those practices how they can change them, they will be much more likely to respond than they would be to others who do not understand such factors. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is normally thoughtful and sensitive on these issues, uncharacteristically made a superficial remark on a rather important issue.
  We took the recommendations of the Bain report extremely seriously. Last June we published our response in a White Paper entitled "Our Fire and Rescue Service". The White Paper accepted the broad thrust of the recommendations and committed the Government to implementing the reforms. I am pleased to be able to report that we are making good progress in taking the reforms forward. The first draft fire and rescue national framework was issued for consultation on 11 December. Integrated risk management plans, which all fire and rescue authorities are now required to produce, have been published and are out for consultation. The new integrated personal development system is being rolled out with new investment in the Fire Service College to develop a centre of excellence.
  Mr. Philip Hammond(Con): The Minister is running through the timeline for those various documents. Will he tell us what has happened to the discipline regulations that were apparently to be published in December?
  Mr. Raynsford: That is a valid point. We are making progress on many issues, and the speed of progress over
  42
  the past year is, to many people, remarkable. Quite recently I was talking to some local authority representatives who expressed concern about the speed of progress and asked whether we could slow down and reduce the pressure for change. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as the Select Committee said, that there is a major agenda that needs to be carried forward with energy. In the past, important proposals for change did not necessarily receive the priority and the sense of energy that they deserved. I give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that we shall be carrying the programme forward. However, he will know that it is an extremely large agenda and that there is a great deal to be done.
  We are considering a Bill that represents the next stage in modernising the fire and rescue service so that it is better able to save lives and create safer communities. Part 1 deals with the definition of fire and rescue authorities and their structure. It also updates existing powers set out in the 1947 Act that provide for the voluntary and compulsory combination of fire and rescue authorities. Those powers are necessary to underpin the greater collaboration and co-operation between fire and rescue authorities that the Bain report concluded was vital to the effective organisation and delivery of key functions.
  As the Opposition appear to be obsessed with the view that the Government are likely to use these powers to impose regionalisation on the fire and rescue service in all parts of the country, it is right that I should put the record straight. The Government are not proposing to regionalise the fire and rescue service, except in regions where voters choose to have an elected regional assembly.
  Elsewhere, existing fire and rescue authorities will continue to be responsible for the service.
  Mr. John Gummer(Con): I find that very reassuring, except that in the same written answer to me the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that areas that would not have a regional assembly
  "would develop robust regional management arrangements to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at regional level".
  He referred to
  "the benefits of the regional approach"
  and wanted
  "standardisation and pooling of resources and expertise".—
  [Official Report, 15 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 862W.]
  Is that not regionalisation under another name?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun. I was about to go on to say that greater efficiency and capacity within the service to plan and respond to major national emergencies is critical. Terrorism is obviously very much in our minds. That is why we are rolling out the new dimension programme to ensure that the fire and rescue service is properly equipped and trained to deal with the level and scale of potential threats for which we must be prepared. That requires a regional response. Robust planning and preparation is equally important to deal with other potential emergencies, and also requires region-wide co-operation.
  There is real scope for significant efficiency gains in, for example, training and procurement, as well as in the operation of control rooms. That is why we are

  43
  expecting all fire and rescue authorities other than London, which is already organised on a region-wide basis, to work together to establish regional management boards. I look forward to the report on progress, which the Local Government Association is co-ordinating. We hope that through voluntary co-operation, regional management boards will tackle the issues that must be addressed at a regional level. The powers in the Bill provide an important reserve to be used only should regional management boards fail to deliver.
  Mr. Edward Davey(LD): The Minister's last remark might help me. He suggests that regional management boards will deal with co-ordination and will not become authorities. In the "Draft Fire and Rescue National Framework" published last December, the Government say that they will ask for a report on progress in each region towards 1 April this year, and that
  "If insufficient progress has been made, the Government will consider the use of its statutory powers to combine Fire and Rescue Authorities and impose regional management structures."
  The Minister, in his usual way, is being emollient, but the draft framework does not sound very emollient to us.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am not sure how the passage that the hon. Gentleman read out differs from what. I was saying. We hope that there will be progress, which the Local Government Association is co-ordinating, and that through voluntary co-operation, regional management boards will be up and running to tackle the issues that must be dealt with on a regional basis. But if that fails to happen, we could not stand by if there was a lack of adequate organisation to ensure effective response to the threat of terrorism or other emergencies involving regional co-ordination. That is why we have reserve powers to use in the event of a failure of the voluntary co-ordination arrangements. We are encouraging voluntary arrangements. We want to see them succeed and I hope they will.
  Mr. Davey: I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. In the document, he imposes a deadline of 1 April this year. At the same time, local fire authorities have to introduce and implement the integrated risk management plans. He can he expect local fire authorities to do everything in the space of two or three months?
  Mr. Raynsford: As a classic Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman will argue the case for slowing down on one occasion, and for speed on the next. He knows that there has been enormous pressure—understandable pressure—for us to move quickly. He is well aware of the extent to which the fire service failed over 20 years or more to move forward, despite many well-intentioned reports advocating change. He knows very well that there is strong impetus for change and an expectation that change will be taken forward urgently. He is also well aware that when we are dealing with terrorist threats, there is no justification for delay.
  44
  We take all this seriously. We have set tight but realistic timetables. We expect everyone, ourselves included, to work to tight timetables, and we will do so, but as I said, our emphasis is on voluntary co-operation. The powers are to be used only in the event of that voluntary co-operation not succeeding.
  Mr. David Drew(Lab/Co-op): I welcome my right hon. Friend's reassurance about where the regional element fits in. He knows that we have a successful tri-service emergency call centre in Gloucestershire, with police and the ambulance service. Can he put it on record and assure me that that, too, is a way in which voluntary co-operation can bring efficiency savings and make the most of working on a county basis, notwithstanding the fact that strategically, there are benefits in co-operating regionally?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that both the Gloucestershire and the Wiltshire joint control rooms have demonstrated the benefits of cross-service co-operation, and that was taken fully into account by our consultants, Mott MacDonald, when they reviewed progress with control rooms. Their report's conclusions, which we made public just before Christmas, made it clear that they see the future in terms of combined fire authority control rooms on a regional basis, and that obviously poses significant challenges to areas that have moved towards joint service control rooms.
  We have said on the record, and I repeat, that we do not intend to disrupt existing arrangements unnecessarily, but we must move forward in a co-ordinated way if we are to combine two developments that must work together. The first is the procurement of the new Firelink radio communications system, which is necessary to ensure interoperability between all the emergency services and all the fire services, and we are commissioning that at the moment. There is clear advantage in making that go hand in hand with the move towards regional control rooms for the fire service. That is why we have set out our prospectus as to how we move forward, and we are currently consulting on that. It has been considered by the practitioners forum, among others, and we will have more to say about that in the future. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the significant implications that he has raised this evening.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham(Con): I spent quite a lot of today talking to the Norfolk fire service, which is concerned about the challenges of the regionalisation of its control room functions, which will obviously lead to a great deal of disruption and many job losses. I do not understand how the Minister can say that that will not be regionalisation, and that there will not be any disruption, yet the control rooms will be combined. Will he comment on that?
  Mr. Raynsford: Let me repeat what I said earlier. In regions that do not vote for elected regional assemblies, existing fire and rescue authorities will remain the responsible authorities; we do not propose to change that structure. However, because of the need to ensure effective regional co-ordination on certain functions, including anti-terrorist work, prevention of and

  45
  response to major emergencies, the benefits of joint procurement and training, and the benefits of joint control rooms, we will require those authorities to work together through regional management boards. That is the framework that I have described.
  The benefits of joint control rooms were spelt out in enormous detail by the Bain and Mott MacDonald reports, and one has only to look at the considerable benefits of a more cost-effective response, as well as the benefits of incorporating the latest technology, which will be invaluable when it comes to dealing with emergencies, to understand the clear case for a move towards regional control rooms. That is what we have set out, and that is what we are consulting on. We believe that it is the right way forward, but obviously we will take account of any concerns voiced by the hon. Gentleman's local service in Norfolk, or any other service.
  Mr. Mark Field(Con): The Minister characterised the Conservative party's position as "obsessed by regionalisation". Having explained exactly what regionalisation will mean, will he give a pledge today that in no circumstances in any of the referendums that take place later this year will the notional advantages of regionalisation of the fire board for emergency control be cited as one of the main reasons why people should vote in favour of the regions?
  Mr. Raynsford: When I talked about the Conservative party being obsessed by regionalisation, I was thinking partly of the question that the hon. Gentleman tabled—and which I have just answered, although he may not have seen the answer yet—which asked what discussions I have had with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority about proposals for regionalising the fire service. I had to point out to him in my reply that the service in London is already regionalised. That is an indication of just how obsessed the Conservative party appears to be with the issue.
  Mr. Roger Williams(LD): The Bill says that in Wales, counties will be covered by the county fire and rescue service and county boroughs will be covered by the county borough fire and rescue service. We have already been regionalised, so we are a little bit ahead of that. Indeed, the lire service that serves our area is the Mid and West Wales county fire service.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. As he will know, the Bill effects the devolution of responsibility to the Welsh Assembly Government—I hope that he welcomes that—and in future it will be entirely a matter for Wales to determine the appropriate structures.
  Mr. Hammond: The point that was raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is also a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). The authorities in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire invested considerable sums of money in tri-service or bi-service control rooms following the Deputy Prime Minister's exhortations to do so. Wiltshire has a 10-year commitment to its new control room. Can the Minister give those authorities an
  46
  undertaking that when the new regional control room arrangements kick in in 2007 he will indemnify them against any ongoing costs that they incurred because the clear steer that was given by the Deputy Prime Minister turned out to be quite different from Government policy?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises the need to take stock in light of the changed circumstances that have developed since September 11. One major development was the need to go for effective interoperability in communications systems, which led us to suspend the previous procurement arrangements for communications systems for the fire service. The new Firelink system, which is being fully funded and procured by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is critical to a framework of new regional control rooms. We have made it clear that we will be prepared to support financially some of the costs of the move towards regional control rooms. As there will be significant savings for fire authorities, it is necessary to consider both sides of the equation in determining the appropriate level of support, but we have not been neglectful of the potential cost implications.
  Jim Knight(Lab): We have been focusing on the south-west region, which is the size of Denmark. The proposal for a single regional control room should be carefully scrutinised. What analysis has the Department undertaken on the resilience to attack of such a control room? Is there some merit in having two control rooms in a region, to ensure that there is a back-up facility in the event of one suffering an infrastructure attack such as cyber-terrorism?
  Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the current arrangements in most fire authority areas usually involve the need for back-up facilities. However, the Mott MacDonald report, on which our proposals are based, demonstrated the real benefits of the new arrangements involving interoperability, with the Firelink system applying universally throughout the country and new regional control rooms being able to provide back-up facilities for other regions in the event of any failure. That is one of the potential advantages and benefits. I recommend that my hon. Friend have a close look at the Mott MacDonald report, which is very persuasive on that matter.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown(Con)rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way once more, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to the tri-service centre at Quedgeley. Gloucestershire is on the edge of three regions. If—God forbid—there were a serious terrorist attack in Gloucestershire, how would the Minister's regional approach work, and how would the regional centres co-ordinate with the other emergency services, as Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are doing so admirably at present?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the guidance that we have prepared on this issue, he will find

  47
  that the whole question of potential resilience and the safety of premises used for regional control rooms is a fundamental consideration. We are very conscious of that issue. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), there will be back-up systems to guarantee effective resilience and support in the event of a disaster occurring to any one control room
  Part 2 is at the heart of the new legislative framework. It puts in place an up-to-date statement of the powers and duties of fire and rescue authorities. Clearly, fighting fires is and will remain a key part of what the fire and rescue service does. The Bill acknowledges that, together with other responsibilities, such as dealing with road traffic accidents, which are now a mainstream activity for all fire and rescue authorities but were not envisaged when the 1947 Act was passed.
  The new framework also gives effect to our objective of helping to save more lives and protecting the public through more effective prevention. It creates a new duty for fire and rescue authorities to promote fire safety, which is crucial if we are to prevent fires in the first place. Hon. Members will know about the excellent work that several authorities have undertaken to raise fire safety awareness. For example, the number of accidental dwelling fires in Cheshire fell by 10 per cent. in 2002 following a home fire risk assessment initiative by Cheshire fire service that was targeted at vulnerable members of the community.
  Merseyside fire service has carried out 160,000 home fire risk assessments and fitted 250,000 smoke alarms since 1999. Deaths nearly halved, from 20 to 11 by 2002. Merseyside has also introduced innovative arrangements to help promote fire safety among the minority ethnic population in the community. However, nationally, the performance is varied and there is genuine scope for doing much more. By creating the new duty, all fire and rescue authorities will have to make fire prevention a central part of their planning and we are confident that that will help to save more lives.
  Prevention works. Smoke alarm ownership has increased from 9 per cent. to 76 per cent. in the past 20 years. We estimate that 80 lives a year are being saved as a result. However, we need to build on that success and focus our efforts on the remaining 24 per cent. of households, typically those most vulnerable to fire, which still do not have a working smoke alarm. If 100 per cent. of households were covered, we could halve fire deaths in the home, saving around 150 lives a year. That is a telling figure, about which we should all know.
  Mr. Hugo Swire(Con): The Minister is making an extremely good and responsible point about smoke alarms. However, will he comment on the fact that in Devon false alarms caused by automatic fire detection apparatus have been steadily increasing? Devon fire service is expected to have attended 5,000 such calls in 2001—a rate of 125 per 1,000 non-domestic
  properties. That is below the national average. Although the Minister is right to encourage people to have smoke alarms, what can he do to reduce the number of callouts through malfunctioning?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The figures that he cited from Devon are repeated
  48
  throughout the country. Some startling figures from Derbyshire implied that something like 97 per cent. of responses to automatic callouts are false alarms or not serious fire incidents. That is disturbing, and the practitioners forum, which we have established to enable experts and relevant practitioners to examine such issues and advise us, is currently undertaking a review to help to inform the decisions of individual fire authorities on how to respond under their integrated risk management plans. There is a range of views on how best to respond and it is right that practitioners should properly and thoroughly evaluate the matter before we give detailed advice. The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is right to raise the matter; there is scope for making genuine progress.
  Andrew Bennett(Lab): Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the number of false alarms through smoke detectors in domestic properties is low? The problem that has been highlighted relates to commercial and industrial properties and should not discourage anyone from fitting a smoke alarm in a domestic property. It is fantastic value for money.
  Mr. Raynsford: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who rightly reminds me of the distinction between domestic and commercial alarms. if there is a malfunction in a domestic alarm, it simply means that the individual has got out of the house or had an opportunity to check whether there is anything wrong. The problem with the automated fire alarm is that it summons a fire engine because it rings automatically in the fire station. Malfunctioning in that case has much more serious consequences. As my hon. Friend said, the majority of domestic smoke alarms function properly. They are lifesavers and by getting into the approximately one quarter of homes that remain without properly functioning smoke alarms, we can take an enormous step forward in reducing the lives lost and injuries caused by fire.
  We recognise that sprinklers have a part to play in fire safety, and we agree with the Select Committee that their installation in certain dwellings whose occupants are considered the most vulnerable warrants further consideration. We will do this as part of the current review of part B of the building regulations that deal with fire safety, which is being overseen by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who has responsibility for fire safety. We are also playing our part to help authorities to deliver the new preventive approach, and I am delighted to inform the House that we will be announcing tomorrow the outcome of the arson control forum implementation fund. We plan to use the fund, totalling more than £9.3 million over three years, for local arson prevention initiatives throughout England and Wales.
  Jim Knight: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would like to comment on the speech made by Baroness Andrews in the other place on 7 January, in which she said:
  "we have not given, and we do not intend to give, general guidance on installing sprinklers in new schools. The building regulations do not require it and we do not intend to change them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 168.].

  49
  How is the dialogue going between my right hon. Friend's Department and the Department for Education and Skills?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for fire safety has been in contact with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills, and his review of the building regulations will, of course, include premises such as schools. It will not be limited to domestic properties.
  Mr. Hammond: I should like to take the Minister back to what he was saying, before he gave way to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), about the arson reduction forum. Will he confirm that the £3 million will be spent in pursuit of a target for the reduction of arson incidents that has been reduced from the Government's original 30 per cent. to 10 per cent?
  Mr. Raynsford: First, we are talking about £9.3 million, not £3 million. Secondly, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the original target was set before the huge increase in the number of abandoned vehicles, which is the main factor behind the rise in the number of arson incidents. That increase was the product of the collapse of the scrap metal market and, because of it, the number of arson incidents has increased dramatically because abandoned cars provide an easy target for people who might be tempted, for whatever reason, to cause mischief. In the light of that, we looked carefully at what was feasible, not least because of the impact that the forthcoming end-of-life vehicle directive will have. Taking account of that, we have now set a challenging new target in order to reduce the number of fires. The original target envisaged a substantial reduction of arson incidents by now, whereas, in the intervening period, there has been exponential growth.
  As I made clear to the Select Committee, which quite reasonably asked me questions on this matter, any responsible Government will look at changing circumstances and respond in a sensible and pragmatic way. There is no point in holding on to targets that have turned out not to be achievable, because that simply demoralises people when they fail to implement them. We must look at why the target could not be met—as I have explained, that was to do with the problem of abandoned vehicles—and ensure that policies are in place to deal with the problems. We must then set a new target that takes into account the changing environment. In this case, the new target will be demanding, because it will seek to drive down the number of arson events. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. Gummer: Would not a responsible Government have revisited the ridiculous concept whereby this Government, alone among all others, have decided that, instead of the industry being responsible under the end-of-life vehicle legislation over the next seven years, the last owner of the motor car must take responsibility? The poorest and least able people will therefore be tempted, over the next seven years, to abandon their vehicles. Is not the Minister really the victim of a silly decision by his own Government?
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall not be tempted by the right hon. Gentleman to move into a territory that is far from
  50
  my personal responsibility. I would remind him, however, that there are wider implications involved here, and that imposing such an obligation on the UK motor vehicle industry, which has gone through some very difficult times, could have proved catastrophic for the future of the remaining indigenous car producers in this country. The right hon. Gentleman might not choose to take account of those wider issues, but the Government certainly do.
  I have already mentioned the vital role of the fire and rescue service in ensuring national resilience in the face of major emergencies. The Civil Contingencies Bill provides the overall framework for the Government's response. This Bill will ensure that the fire and rescue service makes an effective contribution to that response. We have already committed —188 million to provide the fire and rescue service with the capability to respond to terrorist incidents. We are also committed to funding the new communication system, known as Firelink, which I have already described, to ensure interoperability with other emergency services.
  The Bill will provide clear statutory cover for this new role. It will allow the Government to set out, by order, how fire and rescue authorities should plan and respond to particular incidents: for example, deployment of mass decontamination equipment. I am sure that the House will recognise, however, that we cannot be certain that all possible threats have been identified and provided for in advance. The Bill therefore provides powers for the Secretary of State to direct fire and rescue authorities as to how to respond to particular emergencies that may emerge in the future. The Bill also provides fire and rescue authorities with the flexibility to respond to other incidents that are not defined as core functions but in relation to which they judge such a response necessary to protect life and the environment. Some may emerge, for example, in the preparation of their integrated risk management plans.
  Part 2 of the Bill also provides powers to ensure the effective discharge of functions by fire and rescue authorities. Those include power to enter into arrangements for mutual assistance, also known as reinforcement schemes. The Bill will provide fire and rescue authorities with the power to work in partnership with a range of other bodies to discharge their functions. For example, some authorities may contract with local authorities, schools or other agencies or providers to help promote fire safety in their area. Others might choose to explore the contribution that alternative providers could make in the aftermath of road traffic accidents, for example in dealing with non-hazardous spills.
  Richard Younger-Ross(LD): On collaboration with other bodies, that between the fire authority and the police in Devon in forming an arson taskforce has been extremely successful, and has seen arson reduced by 15 per cent. The fear is that because it is funded by competitive bid, that good work might not continue. What assurances can the Minister give to Devon and other authorities that have seen a reduction in arson because of such joint working?
  Mr. Raynsford: One of the purposes of competitive bids is to encourage all authorities to look to improve their performance and to be more ambitious. We have

  51
  an expanding budget for support for initiatives, however, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that good, well constructed and worthwhile projects are likely to be supported. At present, I cannot say more on the specific example that he gives.
  Ultimately, these are matters for fire and rescue authorities, but the Bill will allow flexibility in terms of service delivery where it is appropriate. Firefighting, however, requires particular specialist training and expertise, and the Bill restricts delegation for extinguishing fires to those who are properly qualified such as other fire and rescue authorities and airport fire services.
  Part 2 also provides the power to charge for services. Fire and rescue authorities already have the right to charge for discretionary services under the Fire Services Act 1947. There is some debate about how such powers might best be used in the future, partly prompted by the Bain report. In developing the new legislative structure, therefore, we decided to make clear what a fire and rescue authority can and cannot charge for. We will do that by order, which in the first instance will confirm our White Paper commitment to maintain the status quo. Any proposals to extend charging will be subject to further consultation. Hon. Members will, I hope, note that the Bill prevents a fire and rescue authority from charging for fighting fires.
  Part 3 of the Bill covers the administration, supervision and infrastructure of the fire and rescue service. On 11 December, we published for consultation a draft fire and rescue national framework. That responds to the criticism by Bain about the lack of strategic direction for the fire and rescue service from successive Governments. It sets out the objectives that we expect the service to achieve, what actions we expect fire and rescue authorities to take to meet those objectives, and the support that we in Government will provide to help meet those shared objectives. The Bill will give statutory force to the national framework. It will require the Secretary of State to keep the national framework up to date and to consult on any significant changes. Fire and rescue authorities must have regard to the requirements of the national framework and the Secretary of State will, from time to time, report on the extent to which authorities are acting in accordance with it.
  In most instances, it will be for fire and rescue authorities to determine how best to deliver the requirements of the national framework. We need reserve powers to intervene, however, if a fire and rescue authority is failing to act in accordance with the national framework, as that may impact on national strategies to deliver essential emergency response services. The Bill provides a power to intervene in such circumstances where existing powers within the best value regime would not apply.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister says that these are reserve powers, but hon. Members who have read clause 22 will know that the Secretary of State will be able to
  52
  order an authority "to do something", "to stop doing something" and "not to do something". Is that not effectively the nationalisation of the fire service?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he must be aware that, given the kind of circumstances that we have to deal with and make provision for, it would be grossly irresponsible if the Government were not to have the power to intervene in extreme circumstances if an authority was failing to meet responsibilities that are fundamental to the safety of that area's population or, indeed, to wider resilience across the country. It is the action of a responsible Government to have these reserve powers. We hope that they will not need to be used. but they will be there just in case.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister not already effectively have the power to intervene in a failing authority under the provisions of the Local Government Acts?
  Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State has powers under the best value regime, but I was pointing out in response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that the powers that we are considering could be used in extreme circumstances of national emergency, where the justification for intervention would be a failure to deliver not best value, but something that was, in fact, fundamental to national resilience. So it is necessary to have these additional powers, although we could still use the best value powers in other circumstances.
  Equally, we need to ensure that crucial public assets and facilities can be used, for example, during a period of industrial action where official fire and rescue cover is insufficient to meet local risks and ensure public safety. Therefore the Bill will replicate the powers under section 1(1)(b) of the Fire Services Act 2003, to direct fire and rescue authorities on the use and disposal of their assets and facilities. When we introduced that Act, which we agreed would be time limited, we made it clear that we would introduce longer-term arrangements as part of this more substantive legislation. However, I should make it quite clear that other powers in the 2003 Act that empower the Secretary of State to impose a settlement are not being re-enacted. They will end, as envisaged, two years after the legislation came into effect.
  The recent pay dispute and subsequent industrial action highlighted the weaknesses of the existing fire service national joint council. Indeed, the need for change was accepted by both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers in the June 2003 pay agreement, which included an agreement to review existing NJC arrangements. The White Paper made it clear that the review must deliver more effective negotiating machinery that recognises the changing roles and structure of the service and is more inclusive of the representatives of all fire and rescue service staff. Part 4 will give the Secretary of State powers to establish negotiating bodies. However, I should make it clear that, as with other reserve powers, we do not intend to make use of them if a satisfactory outcome is achieved as a result of the current discussions through the NJC machinery.
  Ms Joan Walley(Lab): Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about

  53
  how clauses 31 and 32 will be implemented, given that we will have a new negotiating body, but it is still not exactly clear what the regulations will be and what guidance he will be giving in respect of those regulations? I should have thought that we would not want to end up with some kind of unique industrial relations monster, whereby negotiated agreements might not be proper because the Government might have a veto through the regulations and the guidance that he proposes to introduce. Will he give us some reassurance about how that might work?
  Mr. Raynsford: Many commentators felt that the current arrangements were probably a unique industrial relations monster that needed change. That view was widely shared on all sides, which is why Bain recommended a clearer, more straightforward and more inclusive negotiating framework; why our White Paper endorsed that; and why we have put these reserve powers—I stress that they are reserve powers—in the Bill. In the meantime, both parties to the existing agreement in the NJC undertook to renegotiate the framework in the NJC. They are currently in discussion. so the position that we have adopted is that we will wait and see what proposals they make. If those proposals meet the criteria spelled out in Bain and the White Paper, we are likely to be more than happy for them to be brought into force and for us not to use our reserve powers. If we have to use our reserve powers. we will obviously consult more widely before doing so, and any details can be made public at that point.
  The Bill also allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance to any negotiating body established voluntarily or by powers under the Bill, to which that body must have regard. The Government have a legitimate interest in the outcome of pay negotiations in terms of their impact on wider public sector pay policy and the operation of the fire and rescue service. The lack of clarity about the Government's legitimate concerns in such negotiations under current arrangements became all too clear during last winter's industrial dispute. By issuing our requirements in advance of negotiations, employers and employee representatives can seek agreement in full knowledge of the Government's expectations.
  Part 4 of the Bill also makes provision in respect of pensions. Existing provisions under the 1947 Act are carried forward, but with two important changes. The first recognises the importance of a more diverse work force, with women as well as men serving as firefighters; secondly, there is scope for changes to deal with some of the difficulties that fire and rescue authorities face in meeting the cost of pensions.
  Part 5 of the Bill replicates existing provisions to ensure the effective supply of water for the purpose of fighting fires.
  Part 6 deals with supplementary powers. In particular, it gives firefighters powers to do whatever they believe is necessary and reasonable in dealing with a fire, road traffic accident or other emergency. For example, a firefighter might need to gain entry to premises or a vehicle, or to prevent a member of the public from entering an area for their own safety. The Bill also includes powers to obtain information and to investigate the cause of a fire.
  54
  The Bill abolishes the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. Bain concluded that the CFBAC was failing to provide the strategic advice that Ministers require. He recommended a new structure to bring clarity to the roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups. We have made good progress in establishing the new structure. The practitioners forum and the business and community safety forum are both up and running and bring together respectively the "providers" and the "users" of the service.
  I hope to announce shortly the membership of the high-level group, which I will chair, to be known as the fire and rescue service sounding board. Hon. Members will note that the Secretary of State is required to consult on the exercise of his order and regulation-making powers under the Bill, including those matters for which the CFBAC acted as statutory consultee in the past.
  Part 6 also replicates the existing offence of giving a false alarm of a fire and creates a power for the Secretary of State to make payments to advisory bodies. It also includes a provision to repeal the Fire Services Act 1947, along with other consequential matters.
  Part 7 deals with general and miscellaneous matters. In particular, it devolves the fire and rescue service in Wales to the National Assembly for Wales and provides for pre-Royal Assent consultation for the purposes of making orders and regulations under the Bill.
  Mr. Roger Williams rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Williams: Can the Minister provide some guidance on the devolution aspects of the Bill? Clause 59 states, in respect of parts 1 to 6, that
  "reference to the Secretary of State"
  will be substituted by
  "a reference to the National Assembly for Wales".
  The Secretary of State is also mentioned in respect of pensions, but I thought that they would remain a reserved and thus non-devolved matter. Will the Minister clarify whether that is the case?
  Mr. Raynsford: It is our intention entirely to devolve responsibility for the fire and rescue service to the Welsh Assembly Government.
  The challenges of the 21st century require a modern fire and rescue service that is better able to protect the public and save more lives. It should be a service that places greater emphasis on preventing fires and takes greater account of today's risks in deploying its resources. It should also be a service that is working closely with local communities to identify and eliminate risks, particularly those affecting the most vulnerable. It should be a more efficient service where fire and rescue authorities work together to underpin national resilience and to support each other in facing a range of challenges. The White Paper set out the Government's vision for a fire and rescue service—a vision that has been widely welcomed and endorsed, most recently by the Select Committee. The Fire and Rescue Services Bill is crucial in delivering that vision, and I commend it to the House.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond(Con):I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Fire and Rescue Services Bill because the Bill is granting to the Secretary of State too many powers to intervene which is against the thrust of the Government's stated approach to modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service and will undermine local accountability; because the approach to introducing new regional structures for the fire service is based on the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions, most of which are inappropriate for this purpose and are not sufficiently accountable in the absence of elected regional assemblies; and because some key measures to promote fire prevention, particularly requirements for greater use of sprinklers, are not strong enough or are absent in the Bill.
  As the Minister said, the Bill is the final part of a package of measures making up the Government's response to the agenda set out in Sir George Bain's report, published in December 2002. Given the existence of a string of reports dating back 20 years, the catalyst for action at this time was clearly the damaging fire dispute that rumbled on through 2002 and into 2003. Happily that dispute has been resolved, with the apparent acceptance by all sides of the agenda for change in the fire service for which Bain has called.
  As the Minister pointed out, the pace of change is challenging. Some of the most significant elements of that agenda are already well advanced: integrated risk management plans are being developed, and the national fire and rescue framework has been published in draft form and is out for consultation. Tight timetables apply to both. Primary legislation to update the statutory framework in which fire and rescue services operate—which has changed very little since the Fire Services Act 1947—was always anticipated and was welcomed by Conservative Members, but this Bill goes much further.
  The 2002 pay claim by the Fire Brigades Union was seized on by the Government as an opportunity to force through radical change in the focus and ethos of our fire and rescue services. The Government repeatedly set out their case that abandoning prescriptive response standards and placing greater emphasis on the community fire safety role would enhance public safety, while generating enough savings to finance a reasonable pay settlement for firefighters. The Government's key claim was that modernisation would reduce the number of accidental fire deaths in the home, and would save money that could finance the pay settlement by focusing on prevention and improved fire safety and by tailoring the deployment of firefighting capacity better to reflect risk to human life.
  I am afraid that the Government's claim that the modernisation programme is primarily about saving lives is shot to pieces by their own downgrading of their public service agreement target for accidental fire death reduction. In their 2000 spending review, the Government committed themselves to reducing the number of such deaths in the home by 20 per cent., from a baseline of the average between 1994 and 1999, and to achieving that by 31 March this year—just 10 weeks away. Last summer that target date was changed to 31 March 2010, a change described by the Select Committee—rather politely, I thought—as "surprising".
  56
  While the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was immersed in a frenzy of activity last summer—with the integrated risk management plans, the preparation of the Bill and the drafting of the national framework prior to consultation, all in the name of reducing the number of accidental fire deaths—Ministers were quietly abandoning their agreed targets. They have now effectively admitted that the end result of the modernisation programme—the national framework, the integrated risk management plans and the Bill—will be the slipping from 2004 to 2010 of the date for the achievement of the 20 per cent. reduction. According to my calculation, that means that the Government's new target will be met this year with 10 per cent. more deaths than under the old target. That is unacceptable from a Government who claim to put community safety at the top of the agenda.
  Andrew Bennett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the targets, but he could attack either of two sets of targets—the original ones, or the new ones. What is really criminal is this: the original targets were so badly conceived and badly thought out that it was clear that the service lacked the risk management analysis that would have provided good targets. Surely the hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the fact that the targets of the past were guesses plucked out of the air, rather than being based on—for instance—the demographic figures that the Select Committee obtained from the Minister.
  Mr. Hammond: I understand that the original target was agreed in the spending review of 2000. I suspect that the Treasury would reject the notion that it was parcelling out money to Departments on the basis of targets plucked out of thin air. I think that the time to raise that objection was during the spending round.
  Mr. Gummer: Would targets not be much more credible if they were set for a date on which the present Minister was likely to be in power? Has my hon. Friend noticed that for environmental and fire targets alike, dates are constantly set so far forward that it is unlikely that the present Ministers would be in their posts, even if their Government were to continue? The real sin is for Ministers to set targets that they will never have to meet, but that someone else will.
  Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. One cannot help but notice that the original target date is a mere 10 weeks away. Although the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has been one of the most enduring members of the Government—he has remained in the same place since 1997—I suspect that even he does not expect to be in his post in 2010. [Interruption.] I hope, for his sake, that he will not be in the same post in 2010.
  One is tempted to ask why the Government have changed the target date. Helpfully, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), answered that question in a Standing Committee debate in October 2003, when he said:
  "we extended that date to … 2010 because the earlier date was not achievable."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 21 October 2003; c. 4.]

  57
  He went on to assert that the new target was more realistic. It is a pity that the Government did not think of that when the targets were set during the spending review, but at least the Under-Secretary came clean. When the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire gave evidence to the Select Committee, he allowed his customary intellectual rigour to desert him momentarily—if I may say so—by trying to argue that pushing the date back from 2004 to 2010 did not represent a relaxation of the target.
  Let me be absolutely clear. We support the objectives of maintaining optimum effectiveness and efficiency in our fire and rescue services and ensuring that they are able to deliver their traditional role to the community and deal with the heightened risk of terrorism while focusing on prevention at the same time. We support the abolition of a prescriptive national response standard and the introduction of local flexibility to match the deployment of resources to locally identified risks. We support the ending of anachronistic working practices, discipline procedures and career paths. We positively welcome the recognition of the wide-ranging role of the service by the creation of new statutory duties on fire and rescue authorities to perform the many essential rescue and support tasks that they have carried out in practice for many years, over and above their obligations under the 1947 Act. We emphasised our support for those measures throughout the fire dispute, and I do so again today. Throughout that period, however, the Government expressed their intention to reduce national prescription and thus allow more local control and flexibility.
  The Bill will grant sweeping powers to the Secretary of State not only to set output targets, but to dictate how they must be achieved. It gives powers to merge existing authorities to create new combined fire authorities and to appoint members to those authorities for the first time. It gives powers to impose negotiating bodies on employers and employees in the fire service and then to give those bodies guidance that they will be obliged to follow. It gives powers to acquire, own and operate equipment and to provide services, and to require the supposedly independent fire and rescue authorities to use that equipment and purchase those services from the Secretary of State on the terms that he dictates. It gives powers to give a fire authority responsibility in the geographical area of another authority, whether the second authority agrees or not. It also gives powers to intervene in the micro-management of an authority and to order it, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out, to do or not do any specified thing. It even gives powers to the Secretary of State, which I am told that no Secretary of State has enjoyed since the end of the second world war, to intervene in the management of a specific fire or incident and to deploy his judgment over that of the professional senior fire officer on the scene.
  Critically, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to impose the national fire and rescue framework. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister drew up the document and although the Bill will give it statutory status, it will not be subject to any scrutiny by Parliament. The document lays down in considerable detail a prescriptive framework that covers every aspect of the organisation, management, operation and indeed ethos of our supposedly locally accountable fire and
  58
  rescue authorities. The authorities will be required to follow the framework, and the Secretary of State will report periodically on the extent to which they are doing that.
  Crucially, the comprehensive performance assessment audits of fire service authorities will take into account the extent to which they adhere to the Secretary of State's agenda, as set out in the framework.
  All that sits extremely uncomfortably with the Government's stated objective of decentralisation to create a primarily community-based service. It is odd, indeed, that alongside the welcome abolition of national response standards, they are introducing a regime that will allow them to control directly from Whitehall the organisation, structure, employment practices, collaboration arrangements, procurement, training and human resources policies of every fire and rescue authority in the land, and even to take direct control of a specific fire or incident. To many Opposition Members, that looks like a step backwards, not forwards.
  The Government's rhetoric during the dispute was of local empowerment, flexibility in delivery and the withdrawal of Whitehall from the running of fire services. Somewhere along the line, those good ministerial intentions gave way to a more familiar Whitehall instinct: to manage a wholesale reorganisation of the fire service in structure, role and ethos from the Deputy Prime Minister's Office.
  Even more alarming is the importation into the fire service debate of the flawed concept of the English regions. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister believes that joined-up government means propping up one policy area by compromising another. To be frank, so long as his obsession with his regional agenda manifests itself in him running around the country publicly denouncing his Labour parliamentary colleagues as "liars" and privately infuriating the Treasury and his Scottish colleagues by telling anyone who will listen that the creation of elected regional assemblies will be a catalyst for the scrapping of the Barnett formula, the only damage he is doing is to the Labour party and the campaign to flog his regional white elephants to an already sceptical public.
  Mr. Raynsford: Had the hon. Gentleman been at the meeting in Manchester, of which he gave a somewhat misleading description, he would have heard the only contribution on the fire service coming from someone who announced himself as a former firefighter from Merseyside, who warmly congratulated the Government on proposing the regionalisation of the fire service if an elected regional assembly is voted for in the referendum. Had the hon. Gentleman been there, he might have taken a different position.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister, who was at the meeting—I am assured that he tugged urgently at the Deputy Prime Minister's sleeve as he inflicted damage on what was left of Labour party unity—will know that it was an all-ticket event. Some people who would have liked to attend were not able to do so.
  Andrew Bennett: Where does the hon. Gentleman's party stand on the Barnett formula? Is he firmly committed to it for ever more, or does he want to review it?
  Mr. Hammond: I suspect that if I strayed into a debate on the Barnett formula, you would rule me out of order,

  59
  Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps when we have an opportunity to debate again—as I am sure we will—elected regional assemblies and what the Deputy Prime Minister has been telling audiences up and down the country in private at least, we can explore that matter in more detail.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend also think about the remarkable fact that when the Mott MacDonald report looked into the regionalisation of the fire service, it surprisingly enough landed on the position that it just happened to be true that the natural way to organise it into regions was to follow those regions that we already had? Is he surprised that regions that were created for quite different reasons—I was part of their creation—turn out to be exactly the regions that are suitable for the reorganisation of the fire service?
  Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I shall address in a moment. If he looks carefully at the Mott MacDonald report, he will see that nowhere does it claim that the existing regions with Government offices are operationally the most appropriate regions for the organisation of fire and rescue service. It limits its claim to suggesting that speed of implementation, administrative convenience and financing considerations would be facilitated by using those existing regions.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that any consultant who makes his living from delivering reports to the ODPM would not need very well tuned antennae to realise that, if he is asked to report on the optimal configuration of any service, deciding that nine English regions is indeed the optimum might be likely to favour him for further work.
  Mr. Raynsford: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away on such flights of fantasy, may I put two points to him? First, the Mott MacDonald report indicated that an optimal solution for cost-effectiveness might have been just three super-regions, but there were obvious concerns about whether that was a sensible way forward. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the Civil Contingencies Bill and the question of regional resilience planning on the basis of the regions as created for Government offices by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). There is an obvious logic in the fire service relating to other emergency planning for other reasons. Consistency is clearly advantageous.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister is right: consistency is advantageous, but whether consistently applying the wrong boundaries is right, I am not sure. The Mott MacDonald report considered only three options. I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) to underscore the Select Committee's conclusion that—I think that I am right in saying—although the financial case for nine regional control rooms may have been made, there has been no attempt to make a service delivery case for that configuration, which further undermines the
  60
  Government's claim that modernisation is about saving lives and delivering a service rather than simply saving money.
  Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, by mirroring the so-called regions on which the Minister is so keen, in the south-west we will end up with a lack of clarification on delivery? After all, it is a region stretching from the Isles of Scilly to Mickleton in Gloucestershire, which is nearer to Gretna Green than to Penzance, with different requirements in the conurbations of Gloucester and Swindon from those in the more remote areas of Devon and Cornwall and a further mix of areas that have a high percentage of retained firefighters, such as Devon, and those that do not.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right; I take his point. It is questionable whether a single control room can effectively provide a service across 23,000 sq km, which is what the south-west region, the largest in England, comprises. I suspect that people living at one end of that hugely extended geographical region feel that they have been deprived of their local fire and rescue services.
  Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman will know, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is sitting next to him, that we have an alternative model in Gloucestershire that has considerable merit. However, one problem with it is that there are three different forms of accountability: the fire service is in local government control, the police have their own authority and the ambulance service has its own trust. How could that model be made more accountable by bringing those services together?
  Mr. Hammond: Although I dared to level a criticism at the Mott MacDonald report, I am not about to suggest that in the space of a few minutes I can review all the options and come up with the best solution. However, there is a question mark over the process that has been undertaken. Effectively, the Mott MacDonald report considered only a very limited range of options. The key question that needs to be in our minds as we consider this matter is that posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal: has anybody demonstrated that the Government office regions are the optimal configuration for delivering our fire and rescue services in future?
  I was making a slightly light-hearted remark to the effect that I really do not mind the Deputy Prime Minister charging around the country obsessing about the English regions if all he achieves is to damage the campaign in favour of them and to damage the Labour party. But when that obsession spills over into a matter as important as our fire and rescue services and the safety of our communities, the Deputy Prime Minister's antics are no longer a laughing matter.
  That is not to say that the Opposition do not recognise the arguments in favour of collaboration between fire brigades and the case for some areas of activity, especially those relating to anti-terrorism response, to be handled at a higher level than the

  61
  individual fire and rescue authority. I say to the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire that that is virtually self-evident: it makes perfect sense from an operation viewpoint. Had the Government taken what I suggest is the obvious and natural route of imposing statutory duties on independent local fire and rescue authorities to deliver services and to do so efficiently, effectively and economically, and then provided encouragement and support for those fire and rescue authorities to collaborate voluntarily in the combinations that were most effective and most appropriate to their individual local circumstances, they would have had our support—but they did not. Instead, the Government have made the huge and unsubstantiated leap to the politically convenient conclusion that the organisation of fire services should be based on the existing English Government office regions, without producing a shred of evidence to support that conclusion.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but has he spoken with the Conservative spokesman on homeland security, the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who seems to think that the Government have been very tardy in responding?
  Mr. Hammond: I have indeed spoken with my hon. Friend. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the key point to emerge from the discussion is not whether a higher level of organisation is needed for certain purposes, particularly anti-terrorism response. but whether the unit of organisation that the Government have chosen is the appropriate one or an arbitrary one for that purpose.
  In fact, judging by the material that the Government have produced and the Select Committee's review of it, the rationale, such as it is, for regionalisation appears to lie mostly in the financial savings that the ODPM believes can be generated by regionalising control rooms. That view is based on the Mott MacDonald report, which considered only three options. No serious attempt has been made to review the geographical boundaries that are most appropriate, nor have I noticed a flicker of recognition of the absurdity of a system that will deliver one control room for 2.5 million people spread over 8,500 sq km in the north-east region, and one control room for 8 million people spread over 19,000 sq km in the south-east. Effectiveness in delivery of a critical public service on which the safety of the community depends is being subordinated to the political agenda of the Deputy Prime Minister, who insists on seeing a regional solution to every problem.
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has made it clear that if any of the English regions choose in a referendum to have an elected regional assembly, he will establish a regional fire authority for that region using his powers under the Bill to create a combined fire and rescue authority for a Government office region without the normal requirement, set out in clause 2, that any amalgamation of fire and rescue authorities must be shown to be in
  "the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness".
  62
  Any combination of authorities must meet that requirement unless it is a combination into an authority that covers a Government office region, in which case, there are no hurdles to be cleared and no defining criteria.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is not going to chance his agenda to the vagaries of a referendum. Regionalisation by stealth is already upon us in the fire service as in planning, housing, learning and skills and apparently now the police. He has imposed on fire and rescue authorities across the country a regional management board structure which was initially billed as a light touch strategic planning unit helping to ensure an adequate scale of response to the new terrorist threat, but which, it has become clear, will quickly usurp the real freedoms and independence of local fire authorities. The Minister will be empowered to direct different authorities within a region to specialise in different fields. He will be able to direct them to operate beyond their own boundaries and to allow another fire and rescue authority within theirs.
  The regional management boards will take over procurement, training, human resources and other senior management functions. Inevitably, the existing brigade structure will wither, and we predict that it will only be a matter of time before the Secretary of State uses the powers that he is taking in the Bill to create fully integrated regional fire authorities. As elsewhere in the Government's regional agenda, the Government are taking powers and accountability away from local people, and are moving them upwards to a more remote, less accountable tier of regional government. The Minister has effectively admitted that if authorities escape that fate, it will only be because they are deemed to have moved so far in the direction of regionalisation on a voluntary basis through compliance with his national framework that the final step of formal amalgamation has become irrelevant.
  The Minister will find that as integrated risk management plans will probably produce requirements for the redeployment of appliances and fire station closures, local communities—already sceptical about modernisation, which they think is a euphemism for cuts—will be less willing to accept decisions that are made further away. The Government are fundamentally confused about what they are seeking to achieve.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hammond: Well, they want a community-focused, civilianised service operating at local level and emphasising improved fire prevention and community safety—which, as the Select Committee notes, will require close liaison with other local services and will be best provided and managed at local level—while at the same time they appear, quite understandably, to want a more military-style, heavyweight response to potential terrorist threats, including high-capability, specialist mobile teams for urban search and rescue, decontamination and similar work. Such units have to work on a wider basis than that provided by a fire authority, and we accept that that is sensible. However, that aspect of fire and rescue services work, vital as it is, will only ever account for a tiny percentage of their role. The Government appear to have abandoned the local structure and local control that would be the optimum

  63
  for the large majority of the new services' work, which will be community-focused, and instead have chosen to subject them to a regional structure in the name of anti-terrorist resilience, based on regional boundaries that are irrelevant and largely inappropriate to their operational needs.
  Mr. Davey: In many ways, the hon. Gentleman is underselling his argument. The draft national framework deals not just with anti-terrorist activities but with issues such as training, control rooms, procurement, personnel and human resources and specialist services such as fire prevention.
  Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I mentioned those issues a moment ago. Conservative and, indeed, Liberal Democrat Members are extremely familiar with the nature of the assurances that have been given by the Government in their seven years in office. The Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box, introducing a Bill that includes sweeping powers of intervention and huge centralising measures. He says that the Government are never going to use them—they are simply reserve powers that they need for a rainy day. The truth is that, we just do not trust them to use those powers only in the limited areas that the Minister has tried to suggest to the House. When we read the supporting documents, it becomes clear, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly said, that the regionalisation of the service extends far beyond anti-terrorist activities.
  Jim Knight: Is it not the case that the things that the hon. Member Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned are things in relation to which an economy of scale could be achieved? That would be welcomed by council tax payers, who are now being given separately itemised precepts for fire authorities. Operational decisions, by contrast, can be perfectly adequately organised on a divisional basis by divisional commanders within a regional structure.
  Mr. Hammond: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. If the structure of fire brigades is emaciated following the withdrawal of functions to the regional tier, the brigades themselves may wither, and the case for merging them will become unstoppable. I suspect that that is the Minister's medium-term intention.
  Mr. Gummer: The savings would be more credible if the Government could give any details of them. However, they have said specifically that they could not give details of the savings, either in personnel or in overheads. Surely this is a chimera.
  Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right. I do not want to misquote the Select Committee, but either the main body of the report or one of the evidence statements draws attention to the history of projected savings, and the fact that they are less than those originally predicted at the time that the amalgamation of local government units takes place.
  64
  The structure proposed by the Government may save a bit of money on control rooms, but the evidence is disputed—[Interruption.] Yes, it is disputed. If the Minister reads the evidence in the Select Committee report, he will see that commentators with first-hand knowledge of such matters dispute the savings to be made. There will be huge transitional costs and there will be many redundancies in the discrete control rooms that have to be shut down.
  Mr. Raynsford: I understand the hon. Gentleman's paranoia and his general view of regionalism, but on the specific issue of the costs of control rooms, the figures have all been spelt out. I must tell the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that the figures have been made available to the public. They show that the average cost of handling a call in London is £18, but it is £168 on the Isle of Wight, so it is simply not credible to say that there is no scope for savings.
  Mr. Hammond: If that is the Minister's attitude, he will want to do something about policing services in rural areas. Of course, we accept that unit costs of activities will be higher in areas where populations are sparse or isolated. However, the Mott MacDonald report did not include a careful analysis of the transitional costs, such as the cost of closing down existing control rooms and making their staff redundant, which are needed to achieve the proposed long-term savings. We cannot expect staff in the existing control room in Cumbria to go down to Manchester every day to work in the new regional control room—substantial redundancies and relocation will be involved. Whatever the structure imposed by the
  Minister achieves in relation to anti-terrorist work—I make no comment on that—it clearly will not support or enhance in any way the delivery of community-based fire and safety roles, which the Government have put at the heart of the function of modern fire and rescue services.
  Beyond the overarching questions of structure, control and accountability which are at the core of the Bill, there are other issues that call for further explanation by the Under-Secretary in his winding-up speech. The catalyst for the whole process was the industrial dispute in 2002–03. The Bill's provisions on industrial relations, Ministers' reserve powers and the way in which they intend to use them are crucial. Clause 31 gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to create one or more negotiating bodies for the fire services. Only contracts negotiated by a body thus constituted would be enforceable under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Clause 32 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue those negotiating bodies with guidance to which they must have regard in their deliberations. In other words, he sets up the negotiating bodies, then tells them what to do.
  The draft national framework makes it clear that contingency planning cannot be based on the assumption that military support on the scale provided in the winter of 2002–03 would be available again in the case of a national strike. Given the current overstretch of the armed forces, the further cuts looming on the horizon, and the possible privatisation of the RAF specialist fire and rescue capability under the airfields

  65
  support services private finance initiative, we must assume that only limited military support would be available to maintain public safety in a future industrial dispute.
  Ensuring the safety of the public must be the Government's principal concern in this matter, and it must also be the House's principal concern as we scrutinise the Government's proposals. If the Government cannot guarantee military back-up to ensure public safety in the case of a national strike, they must demonstrate how they will use the powers that they are granting to themselves to eliminate the risk to public safety posed by strike action in the fire and rescue services of a type and nature that would place public safety at risk.
  If the Bill reaches Committee, we will want to understand in detail how the Minister envisages using the powers in clauses 31 and 32. The powers are clearly not reserved powers because he has already said that he regards the prospect of voluntary agreement between the parties on new negotiating machinery as remote. If, as Conservative Members suspect, he intends to use those powers to fragment and control the negotiating process to ensure that negotiations with middle management, which we might previously have thought of as the senior operational ranks, are conducted separately from negotiations with rank and file firefighters, he may be able to convince us that he has a robust plan for ensuring that cover would remain available at an acceptable level to ensure public safety during any reasonably foreseeable future dispute. If we get there, I look forward to having that debate with him.
  Mr. Raynsford: When we get there.
  Mr. Hammond: It is probably unwise to take the House's decision for granted.
  The Minister told the House that he was incorporating into the Bill all the provisions, bar the one that allowed him to impose pay and conditions, of the Fire Services Act 2003, and those provisions form clause 29. I hope that he is slightly uncomfortable about incorporating wholesale powers to direct the use and disposal of equipment and premises on a permanent basis. At the time, the Minister told the House that those provisions were short-term, backstop measures strictly related to the immediate prospect of renewed industrial unrest in the service. [Interruption.] If, as I did only a couple of hours ago, the Minister consults the record, he will find that that is what he said.
  We also need the Minister to clarify the Government's approach to local negotiation of conditions, which has traditionally occurred within the fire service. Clause 32 appears to rule out local negotiations on pay—for example, London weighting—and conditions of work. If that is so, he is contemplating a wholesale further erosion of the independence of individual fire and rescue authorities. Perhaps the Under-Secretary who is responsible for fire safety can clarify that point in his winding-up speech.
  There is considerable concern about clause 19, which provides for a charging regime. Under the 1947 Act, fire authorities have been able to charge for duties other than their statutory duties—that is to say for everything that they do except for extinguishing fires. It is, however,
  66
  very rare that fire authorities levy a charge for extracting accident victims from the wreckage of their cars. The Bill extends the statutory duties of fire and rescue authorities to include road accident attendance, yet the prohibition on charging for fire attendance has conspicuously not been extended to cover the new statutory duty in relation to road accidents. The power to charge for a statutory function is directly at odds with the general exclusion of such charges in the Local Government Act 2003. [Interruption.] The Minister is mumbling that he said in his speech that there would be no change to the status quo, which is that fire authorities are not allowed to charge for their statutory functions.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I made it clear in my speech that any changes to the status quo would be made only after consultation. I gave that clear undertaking and hope that he will accept it.
  Mr. Hammond: I am not sure whether "after consultation" satisfies me. The Minister knows that I am a reasonable person and his reassurances usually satisfy me, but not that one.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to give a categorical commitment in his winding-up speech that the Government will not allow charging for road accident extraction. There is a fear that as part of the agenda of extracting savings from modernisation—I have read the Bain report and noted Bain's enthusiasm for charging as a source of revenue—the Government have a hidden agenda to transfer on to the motorist through higher insurance premiums the cost of road accident rescue work by charging for it.
  The Minister has clearly given himself the power to do that under the Bill. Unless we receive that assurance from the Under-Secretary in his winding-up speech, he will cause alarm to England's 27 million hard-pressed motorists, who have come to expect that they will be treated as nothing more or less than this Government's milch cow.
  Mr. Raynsford: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. As he knows from reading the Select Committee report, I made it absolutely clear in my evidence—the Committee clearly endorsed this view—that we were being cautious about that whole area. It is one of the few areas of the Bain report that we had not wholeheartedly welcomed, because we could see real risks of the possibility of charging leading in some cases to perverse outcomes. That is why we have adopted an extremely careful, pragmatic approach, and said, "No change to the status quo without careful consideration."
  Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for that, but I do not think I heard the categorical commitment that I seek, which is that the Government will not allow charging for road accident extraction.
  Mr. Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for at least trying to extract a commitment from the Minister, and I share with his concerns about charging. However, will he go into detail as to the support that there might be among Conservative Members for certain aspects of charging? I am thinking in particular of the London fire brigade, which, as has rightly been pointed out, would

  67
  have an important part to play in relation to civil contingency matters. There may be important training that the fire brigade can carry out for which it is currently prohibited from charging. That would obviously give great benefit, not just to fire brigade funding, but, more importantly, to the community at large.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, because the other side of the coin is that fire authorities are allowed to charge—some do so—for consultancy services that they provide, quite properly, to large businesses, designers of commercial premises and so on. They set their charges for that. Under the regime in the Bill, the charges that they can make for such non-emergency work will be limited to cost recovery, taking one year with another. So, there is an issue and I know that the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority in particular considers that it has a marketable brand in fire consultancy, which it would like to be able to exploit. That matter will probably be considered further in Committee.
  The Bill provides, as now, for the appointment of fire service inspectors. There has been much debate, during the dispute and since, about the role of the fire service inspectorate. It would be helpful if the Minister fleshed out for the House the Government's current intentions, which are not discernible from the Bill. [Interruption.] I asked the Minister specifically for his current intentions. The White Paper is seven months old.
  The Minister has made clear his intentions to use the powers under clause 28 to impose a uniform communications system on all fire authorities. Will he confirm that the Firelink system that he proposes is based on the TETRA—terrestrial trunked radio—technology, which has run into huge public resistance over the siting of masts for the police system? If so, does he have any concerns about the vulnerability that comes from imposing such a controversial system—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, and I am grateful to him for that clarification. Perhaps there will be some elaboration in the winding-up speech.
  On pensions, the Bill largely replicates the current provisions while enabling the introduction of a funded scheme. The Minister knows that the pension crisis is probably the single greatest threat to the financial stability of fire and rescue services—at least a quarter of the budget of large fire authorities will be going on pensions within the next couple of years. Will he tell the House what thinking lies behind the pensions provisions, and what plans the Government have to defuse that time bomb, which is ticking under the service?
  A significant number of provisions re-enact provisions of the 1947 Act. Is the Minister entirely satisfied that an opportunity is not being missed to update those provisions to deal with 21st century challenges? For example, clause 47 re-enacts the provisions with regard to false alarms of fire, but does not extend them to deal with false alarms in respect of other types of emergency with which the fire and rescue services will now deal as statutory obligations.
  Similarly, in relation to powers of entry, I note that the Bill does not give firefighters the power, which they tell me they need, to break into premises to prevent the
  68
  outbreak of fire where that is imminent. The provisions in clause 36 prohibiting the employment of police seem—perhaps this is accidental—to exclude the possibility of a fire authority entering into contractual arrangements with a local police force to discharge some or all of its road traffic accident duties, although it would be able to enter into such an arrangement with a private sector provider.
  All those areas can be further scrutinised and amended, but the regionalised structure, operating within a prescriptive framework dictated by the Secretary of State, which the Government are proposing, cannot. The bureaucratic regional management boards; enforced amalgamation of functions between authorities; the imposition of regional control rooms with huge transitional costs, even where authorities have responded to the Deputy Prime Minister's exhortations and already established joint control rooms; and the Secretary of State's ability effectively to control—through the powers in the Bill and through the mechanism of the comprehensive performance assessment audit procedure requiring conformity with the national framework—every last detail of the operation, management and even the ethos of a fire and rescue service are not susceptible to refinement or amendment. They go to the heart of the Government's approach to the challenge of creating a 21st century fire service.
  In our view, the Government's approach is entirely wrong. Instead of reinforcing the existing authorities, as well as encouraging genuine and voluntary collaboration between them in the discharge of their functions so that the existing structures could respond appropriately and flexibly to the new statutory duties and challenges being imposed on them, the Government have chosen to embark on a wholesale reorganisation of the service—exactly the kind of restructuring that Bain explicitly cautioned against. [Interruption.] Yes he did.
  At the same time, the Government have downgraded targets for reducing both accidental fire deaths and deliberate fires, and introduced the red herring of English regional politics to the equation. We will be left with a fire service contorted into a shape dictated by the Deputy Prime Minister's agenda for the English regions and convulsed by structural and organisational change when it should be focusing on an operational response to the new challenges of defending public safety that the Bill places squarely on it.
  By the Government's own admission, all that change and upheaval will deliver more, not fewer, accidental fire deaths over the next six years as they backtrack on the targets that were already in place. The objective of creating an efficient fire and rescue service that can deal effectively with traditional and new threats, as well as community fire safety and prevention, is sound. In the Bill, however, and in the other parts of the package, it has become distorted to the point of destruction by the centralising instinct of the Whitehall machine and by the Deputy Prime Minister's regionalising instinct.
  I therefore urge the House to support the reasoned amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and to send the Government back to the drawing board to produce a new Bill that is focused on the needs of our local communities and shorn of the Whitehall control and the regional dogma that pervade this one.
  6.8 pm
  Andrew Bennett(Lab): I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate—but having listened to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for 51 minutes, I must say that I am rather disappointed that he did not have more to say about what he would do were he in office. In particular, a few remarks about looking at the fire service and trying to achieve a consensus that would last at least a few years would have been far better than all that carping.
  I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments on the targets. He seems to assume—this is a mistake that I would often accuse the Government of making—that once a target is set it is achieved. The key thing about cutting the number of deaths in the next few years is not the target but the reality, so I stress to him that if we have a target that cannot be achieved, it is better to be honest about that than to hope that some miracle will occur to allow us to reach it.
  I welcome the Bill, which is well designed and will serve the country well. I also welcome the Government's commitment to a modern fire service.
  When the Select Committee's inquiry took place, I was impressed by the fact that a great deal of evidence came in that was supportive of what the Government were doing in broad terms, but questioned some of the detail. I believe that the Select Committee's report is a useful document, and I place on record my thanks to our two advisers, Jeremy Beech and Tony Taig, for the help that they gave us. I thank all those who submitted evidence to the Committee and all those who allowed us to subject them to questioning. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister, who greatly enlightened our final sittings on the Bill.
  We must recognise that the fire service has a good record. It has considerably reduced the number of deaths and injuries as a result of fire. I accept that there are a few blips, including arson, particularly in schools, where we have not done as well as we should. However, we must recognise the dedication of those who work in the service and the fact that they have done extremely well. We have only to make the comparison between the number of lives that are lost because of fires—about 350 to 380 a year—and the 10 times that number that are lost on the roads, to recognise that we have achieved a great deal.
  None the less, we cannot be satisfied with the present level of deaths, serious injuries or the loss of property as a result of fires. If we are to go forward, we must move from an emergency service into a service that is involved in prevention. All the emphasis in recent years has been placed on trying to get fire engines to fires a bit more quickly, but it is clear that in almost every incident, that would not make that much difference. With a kitchen fire—a chip pan fire, for example—the key factor is how quickly somebody telephones the fire brigade rather than trying to deal with the incident themselves. On the whole, the problem highlighted to members of the Select Committee was that almost half of those who die as a result of fire are dead before anyone contacts the fire station or the control room. It is the people who would be in that group whom we must try to rescue, and the only way to do that is to move successfully into the introduction of prevention measures.
  70
  All the evidence showed that sprinklers can play an important part, especially in schools, although some open-plan designs and other factors must be considered. Sprinklers are particularly important in accommodation for the vulnerable, including the elderly and those with learning difficulties or mental health problems. Another factor is the still significant number of elderly people who smoke in bed. If lighted cigarettes get on to bedding, there is little chance that the fire brigade will be able to do anything—but if there is a smoke alarm that sounds within the building, and a sprinkler system is in place, there is a chance that something can be done. I argue strongly that building regulations should be reviewed quickly so that sprinklers are installed in far more of the buildings that accommodate such people. Those who are responsible for housing associations that provide accommodation for the elderly should examine the idea of putting sprinklers into existing properties.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Would the hon. Gentleman add houses that are in multiple occupation to his list of buildings that should have regulations about sprinklers?
  Andrew Bennett: Yes, I would include those premises in my list. I am assured that it is becoming increasingly possible to retro-fit sprinklers into some buildings. I understand that there is slight hesitation on the part of the industry, because at the moment, I believe, we have the amazing achievement that there has not been a fatality in any building where a sprinkler has been in place. However, that is because most sprinklers are in industrial buildings, and there is a slight worry that if they were installed in more difficult buildings the record might not be so good. Perhaps we should give them a different name. The idea that fires can be damped down by the use of a sprinkler system seems to be an extremely good one.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman will know that in addition to sprinkler systems there are misting systems, which are easy to retro-fit in places such as care homes.
  Andrew Bennett: I accept that. I do not claim to be an expert; I claim only that I have read and listened to a great deal of evidence on these issues.
  It is prevention that is important. We heard good evidence from Merseyside and from authorities elsewhere about getting wired smoke alarms into place, and installing battery-powered alarms where wired ones cannot be placed. We must ensure that in some dwellings 10-year batteries are used, and are fitted in such a way that an enterprising seven-year-old, with the use of a ladder, cannot remove the battery to use it to power a Christmas toy, or anything else.
  It is clear that we need to put work into those areas. There was a strong plea to the Select Committee from the fire officer for Cornwall, Mr. Howell, who drew attention to the danger of candles. He said that many people wanted to use candles in domestic situations but did not take into account the problems of draughts, curtains and flimsy material. It is important that the prevention message is put across. Merseyside has one of the best records in that respect, and it appears that it has rather more money at its disposal than some other fire

  71
  authorities. It is important that support be given. A great deal of the money that is provided appears to be allocated on the basis of what was given the previous year and the year before that. Money is provided on the basis of the existence of docks and other industries, without modern circumstances being taken into account. We must examine the formulae for the allocation of money.
  In addition to prevention we must take account of new problems and introduce imaginative solutions. The end-use directive on cars is turning out to be a farce. It will cost a lot of money if people burn cars. It would be a much more imaginative approach if some fire authorities and local authorities were to provide a small sum to encourage car owners to take their vehicles to a place where they could be disposed of properly. To pay a small sum to someone to bring in the vehicle will be much cheaper than sending a fire engine to deal with a fire. Even if the car is not burnt out, it will eventually be necessary to haul it off the embankment or wherever somebody has pushed it to get rid of it. We need an imaginative approach.
  I was disappointed when Conservative Members questioned the need to get people from the ethnic minorities into the fire service. Their presence will be important in some areas if we are to get prevention measures to work, because people from ethnic minorities can explain problems in terms that will be acceptable to others in those communities. In the course of a different inquiry, into social cohesion, the Select Committee went to Oldham. We were worried about some things, but we were impressed by the way in which the local fire service had recruited people from the ethnic communities, who were able to do much more of the talking to people from their own communities.
  It is important also to get many more women into the fire service, especially in the prevention role. I know of someone who was resistant to the fitting of a smoke alarm in their hall because it spoiled the decor. I suspect that someone with a little more sensitivity than some men have when it comes to decor might have had a better chance of persuading that individual to have the smoke alarm fitted. This is a dangerous area, but I suggest that a more balanced work force within the fire service would work better.
  I do not know why the Government are so slow to get rid of the archaic disciplinary procedures, which everybody thinks are crazy. They must go, and I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will tell us when that will happen.
  I am disappointed that we have not heard more about the retained service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), to agree, but I hardly remember him mentioning the retained service. When people employed as firefighters are not fighting fires, which is most of the time, they can undertake prevention measures, but the difficulty for the retained service is that when its members are not fighting fires, they are at their workplace. When the Minister appeared before the Select Committee, he pointed out that they could
  72
  introduce an ethos of fire prevention into those workplaces, but the retained service requires further consideration.
  We must give greater recognition to employers with such a public-spirited attitude that they will let their employees have time off to act as retained firemen. We should also recognise the considerable role played in the retained service by many self-employed people who give up their time. More consideration must be given to how we turn the retained service into both an emergency service and a prevention service.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sorry that I did not have time to mention every single aspect, but will the hon. Gentleman underline the fact that there is a 20 per cent. shortfall in the number of retained firefighters? Unless that shortfall is addressed it will be impossible to deliver the modernisation programme, certainly in rural areas.
  Andrew Bennett: I accept that point.
  The next issue is rather delicate. It touches on some of the changes that are needed in the fire authorities—that is, in the people who serve on those authorities. With the abolition of bodies such as the Greater Manchester authority, we ended up with fire bodies for a whole metropolitan area. They were, in a sense, second-hand authorities. We put this point to Jeremy Beecham of the Local Government Association. The trouble has been that in many of those areas—this includes the proposals that the Tories put forward for some of the joint boards where they introduced new unitary authorities—it is not the most dynamic councillors who join the fire authority. A leader of a council looks round and knows that he wants key people in education, social services and so on, and in order to keep the political boat sailing, he thinks, "So-and so has to go somewhere. Let's send him to the fire authority."
  Angela Watkinson: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with that. As both a former member of Essex county council and a former member of Essex fire authority, I claim to be in some small way dynamic. He must understand that every county councillor performs several roles, and would not serve exclusively on one committee or authority.
  Andrew Bennett: I thought the hon. Lady was on the county council when the council was the fire authority—in other words, the file authority was a main committee of the county council. In my view, we get good fire authorities in that situation, and because they are part of the county council, they get the support of the other officers of the county council as well. The arrangement works well. I am concerned about the situation that has developed in quite a few places where unitary authorities were removed from those counties and a joint board was established, with some members from the county council and some from the unitary authority. I am also worried about the situation in the metropolitan areas, with a certain number of people coming from each of the councils.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting the retention of the county councils, which is implicit in his comments about county council structures. Which does he think is the better

  73
  system—the present system, where there is some democratic accountability with elected members, or the system proposed in the Bill, where the Secretary of State has power to appoint almost half—49 per cent.—of the members?
  Andrew Bennett: In the three northern regions, the best solution would be for the elected regional assembly to be responsible for the fire service. That would be a first-class way of taking matters forward. My plea to those who appoint people to fire authorities is to make sure that they send some of the most able people. It is a significant challenge to the country to get the fire service working well.
  On pensions, the Government must sort out the issues quickly. The present situation is a legacy of fire authorities that thought it was easier to pension people off than face difficult decisions, and now the bill is coming in.
  I am not confident that the Audit Commission has the matter sorted out, either. We must introduce more urgency into that process.
  As for the regional agenda, control rooms can work perfectly well in that framework, provided we get the new technology so that if someone phones in to report a fire, they do not have to say where it is—that information will come up on the screen, because the cell system that operates with mobile phones makes it possible to identify where every phone call comes from. That is fundamental to making the regional control rooms work.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I would not want him to be misleading, although I accept that he is not doing that deliberately. Where I live, which is a very rural part of Gloucestershire, my phone comes up with three different exchanges on different days of the week, so how would the fire authority he directed to the fire in such a case? The system might work in an urban setting, but it will not work very well in a rural setting.
  Andrew Bennett: I do not want to get into the technical detail, but it is essential that the information gets through to the regional control.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham(Lab): Has my hon. Friend considered joint control rooms for the fire and ambulance services? How would that work in an area such as the west midlands? From time to time such ideas have been bandied about.
  Andrew Bennett: I have listened to the arguments about joint control, but the fire service has convinced me of the benefits of a separate fire service control.
  On charging, some difficult questions need to be asked. The suggestion from the Opposition that the motorist would pay is a red herring. Serious questions arise with regard to animals; in some situations the fire service has difficulty dealing with them. It is easy to get a cat down from the tree for an elderly lady without charge, but if it is a matter of getting a prize bull out of a slurry pit—I cannot think of anything much worse than trying to do that—and significant expense might be
  74
  involved, the question arises whether it would be preferable to shoot the bull humanely. There are issues that need careful consideration.
  Mr. Davey: I that hope the Minister will think about that.
  Andrew Bennett: I hope that the Minister will reply. I do not expect him to get into the slurry pit, but I expect a reply.
  I welcome the Bill. Some improvements could be made in Committee, but it is high time we had a fire service that is both efficient in emergencies, as the service is today, and highly efficient in preventing fires.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey(LD): The House is doubly grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), first for the balanced report that his Select Committee has produced—I hope that he does not see too much of my speech as based on some of his Committee's analysis—but also for taking on in a frank and brave way the fact that some councillors, not necessarily on the types of authority about which he was specifically talking, may not be of the same calibre as other councillors. His mailbag may cause him to regret making that statement, but it has a kernel of truth, and those with some honesty will recognise that.
  I shall spend most of my speech criticising the Bill, and the Minister would not expect it to be otherwise; after all, we are the constructive and effective Opposition. But I want to put it on record that we broadly welcome the overall thrust of the ideas behind the Bill—the need to modernise the fire and rescue service—a point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). I think the Minister will admit that throughout the recent dispute, we gave the Government broad support and agreed with the Bain review that certain measures needed to be introduced urgently; they had been put off by previous Governments for far too long. To the extent that the Bill meets that agenda, it is welcome, particularly the emphasis on fire prevention, which I think has broad support. Updating the Fire Services Act 1947 is vital, as is modernising work practices, and putting the saving of lives at the forefront of our policy has to be right. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made much of the change in the target. I think the Government feel some embarrassment about that, and perhaps the Minister could have regretted the fact that the Government got the target wrong more publicly in the first place, but the hon. Gentleman went rather too far in his analysis, suggesting that the Government would downplay the objective of saving lives. The fact that the Bill has that at its forefront gives the lie to that rather cheap analysis.
  The problem with much of the Bill is that it goes against the Government's stated aims. The Government, in a number of their documents, most recently in the "Draft Fire and Rescue National Framework 2004/05", stress the importance of developing local solutions for local needs. The document sometimes uses great rhetorical language—

  75
  that one size will not fit all; that there is no national blueprint, and so on. The thinking behind the integrated risk management plans, at the centre of the work, is that local discretion and flexibility are key. But when one starts to look at the details of the Bill, one sees the sticky fingers of the Secretary of State all over it, in clause after clause.
  The Minister will try to defend that by saying that those are reserve powers, but I have never seen so many reserve powers in a Bill. When we debated other Bills, such as the Greater London Authority Bill, the Government took the same approach, as they did on the local government finance regime and capping. But these reserve powers tend to be used rather too frequently. The Minister suggests that the Government do not want to use them very often, but some of the nods and winks that one gets from reading the draft framework suggest that the Government may be looking to use some of the reserve powers rather more quickly than they have on previous occasions, and that is a major concern.
  The other concern is on the approach to regionalisation. The Minister is well aware that Liberal Democrats have a different attitude to regionalisation from Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. We have no problem with the idea of elected regional assemblies; we support them, and we have argued that the Government should go faster and deeper. But there is a huge problem with the way in which the Bill approaches regionalisation, as set out in the Conservative's amendment and in ours, and that is that it uses completely the wrong boundaries. That was debated earlier: the boundaries for the Government offices for the regions were not designed for this purpose, and that is a major problem. Moreover, although the Bill puts fire prevention at the top of its list, in some of the measures that are required to promote fire prevention the Government are being rather slow, and I shall come to the issue of sprinklers later.
  I shall now deal in more detail with the regional aspect. The Government's intention on regionalisation is not clear from the documents. The Minister tried to clear this up in his opening remarks, but, if anything. he has left some of us more confused. There do not appear to be any real principles in either the draft framework or the White Paper on how that move should go. The Minister seems to be suggesting that the Secretary of State—again—will decide whether the local fire authorities are doing the job that the Government want, and if not they will regionalise. That is not a principle. That is not some sort of criterion that we can look at objectively and say, "Okay, we understand what would happen and how the move would develop." It is far too random. We do not know at what speed it will develop, so there is a degree of uncertainty, and that is not good for planning or for developing the integrated risk management plans which are so important and which have cross-party support. It is not clear how the regionalisation will happen in those areas that will not have a referendum on elected regional assemblies.
  When it comes down to the details, it is unclear how the regional management boards that are described in a little more detail in the draft framework will relate to local authorities. Yes, they have the six tasks that are set out in the draft framework, but how they will relate to
  76
  the local fire and rescue authorities is not clear. The Government need to say much more on that, because if we are to have true accountability, we need to understand where the buck stops. Will it stop with the regional management board over the next few years, or with the local fire and rescue authority? After all, it is the local fire and rescue authority that will be setting the council tax precept, so our voters will want clarity on that. Will the regional management board be able to demand resources from the local fire and rescue authorities in its areas and force up the council tax in certain areas, with no accountability to the people in that area? So far, we do not know the answers to the key questions, and the Government must be a little clearer.
  When the regional management board goes about deciding something like the regional control centre, how will the decision be taken? If one local fire and rescue authority says, "Hey, regional management board, we would like it in our area," and another says it would like it in its area, what criteria will apply? Will the Minister give a clear indication when he replies that that decision will be taken on the basis of the Government's published criteria, not by some political process that is not transparent? We need to be clear how such decisions will be taken.
  Our fundamental problem with the Government's approach to regionalisation is that it appears that they are prepared to see the development of regional fire and rescue authorities in the absence of elected regional assemblies. We have no problem with regional fire and rescue authorities where there are elected regional assemblies. There is a lot of sense in that. The key thing though is that there be democratic accountability for the decisions; for the way in which taxes are levied to pay for the services. In many ways it could improve quality, transparency and efficiency. We accept that part of the Government's agenda. But we are worried that the Secretary of State will be able to come to the House with an order for those areas that do not have elected regional assemblies and say, "I want combined fire and rescue authorities on a regional basis," and then set up another regional quango.
  Mr. Gummer: Has the hon. Gentleman thought that those areas most likely to vote for an elected assembly are those where the region itself is most sensible and most clearly correlates to local feeling, and those regions that are least likely to be a sensible unit are those that will be least likely to vote for a democratic system? In that circumstance, will not the Deputy Prime Minister be forcing on the most inconvenient area a non-democratically controlled system simply because he has got the region wrong?
  Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my argument. My concern throughout our debates on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill was that the Government are accepting the boundaries that the right hon. Gentleman's Government produced for completely different reasons. I know that the Minister is worried that regions outside the three northern regions—for example, the west midlands, the south-west and the south-east—are unlikely to vote for a regional assembly because their boundaries are so bizarre and reflect no regional identity or community that could conceive of itself as a region.

  77
  If the Secretary of State imposes fire and rescue authorities on regions defined by the current boundaries, and boundary reviews are carried out for those regions—as will be necessary if there are ever to be elected regional assemblies, because on the current boundaries many of them will never vote for them—a huge waste of public money might be involved. For example, regional control rooms could be set up to serve all the millions of people who live in the south-east. In future, people may look at that region and say, "This won't work—no one is going to vote for an elected regional assembly for the south-east, so we need to break it up into two regions." The response will be, "Hold on—we've got this new all-singing, all-dancing, expensive fire control room, so may be we won't redesign the regional boundaries." Giving the Secretary of State the power to impose regional fire authorities in certain regions might prejudice a future regional boundary review, which would be completely wrong and would go against democratic reforms of the sort that the Government say they want to introduce.
  Mr. Raynsford: I put three considerations to the hon. Gentleman. First, he chose several regions to illustrate his thesis that, on the current boundaries, people in regions other than the northern regions will not be attracted to vote for assemblies. Does he not recognise that the eastern region—East Anglia—has a real sense of cohesion, although the evidence from our soundings suggests that at the moment it has little appetite for an elected regional assembly?
  Secondly, we have obviously made it clear that we are committed to establishing a regional framework only where there is a vote in favour of an elected regional assembly. The reserve powers are to ensure effective regional co-ordination on matters such as anti-terrorism preparation that have to be dealt with if the voluntary regional management boards do not deliver.
  Thirdly, I know that the Liberal Democrats would love to throw everything up in the air and begin to reconsider all the boundaries, but will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is possible to proceed quickly, as he urges, to establish the new arrangements for the fire and rescue service, while opening up an inevitably protracted and difficult discussion about boundaries, which, whenever it has happened in the past, has resulted in years of utterly fruitless debate?
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Davey: I shall deal with the Minister's points, then give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that he wants to help me in answering the Minister.
  The Minister accuses Liberal Democrats of trying to have it both ways. That is not so. We have no argument with the Government's quickly putting in place tough measures to deal with the terrorist threat, but as I told the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, their proposals on regionalisation in the absence of an elected regional assembly go much further than that. There is nothing wrong with regional management boards considering the terrorist threat and ensuring proper co-ordination is in place quickly, but we do not support the Government in going much further than that. Our position is entirely consistent.
  78
  The Minister keeps saying that the provisions on regional management boards and regionalisation outside areas that have a referendum are simply anti-terrorist measures, but it does not say that in the Bill or in the draft national framework. In fact, as I suggested to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, the Government are saying that if local fire and rescue authorities do not proceed very quickly—within the next quarter—along the Government's lines, these measures, which go way beyond terrorism, will be imposed. Either the Minister has not read his own draft national framework or he is not being completely transparent with the House.
  Mr. Gummer: The eastern region contains both Caister-By-Sea in Norfolk and Rickmansworth in Hertfordshire. How can there be, as the Minister suggests, connections of any kind between, for example, Luton and Trimley St. Mary in my constituency? That shows just how remote from reality he is. I do not think that he has been to the eastern region at all. Most people there would find it inconceivable to be lumped together in that way. After all, it only exists because there is nowhere else to put Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.
  Mr. Davey: I am not sure that there is nowhere else to put Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, but I agree that the eastern region is not the same as East Anglia. That is what the Government are trying to pretend, but the more they try, the more they dig themselves into a hole. [Interruption.] The Minister suggests from a sedentary position that I should stop digging, but I am afraid that the Government have a lot of questions to answer, and if they do not, it is they who will be in a hole.
  What does the Minister intend for combined fire authorities this year? Clause 2 gives him many new powers to create those authorities, but requires them to have their own budgets, separate from those of local councils, and they will have to build up reserves in order to operate separate financial accounts. As far as I am aware, he has not clarified, in this House or elsewhere, the potential impact on council tax rises and the position that the Government will take in respect of capping. As he knows, fire authorities are already under severe pressure as a result of the impact of pension rises and wage rises, and requiring combined fire authorities to build up reserves could lead to large council tax increases. He suggested that the new reserve requirements could be phased in, but will he cap authorities if, in trying to meet his requirements, they annoy him in relation to council tax?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that on Friday I wrote to all fire and rescue authorities—they will probably have received that letter by now—to provide helpful advice on issues such as reserves and revenue contributions towards new dimension work, about which authorities have felt uncertainties that might lead them to take an unnecessarily cautious view of the need for provisions in their budgets. I hope that once he has seen that letter he will realise that we are dealing with the matter. We

  79
  expect fire and rescue authorities, like other authorities, to budget prudently and not to impose unreasonable council tax increases.
  Mr. Davey: The Minister is right—I was not aware of his letter. Will he make arrangements for it to be placed in the Library? It is germane to the debate on Thursday week about the local government finance settlement.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned transitional funding. Some of us have been unhappy with the Government's approach to giving help to those areas that are trying to modernise.
  The Minister knows that during the debates at the time of the dispute, Liberal Democrat Members kept raising that issue. We argued that some areas where modernisation had already happened, especially rural areas that rely mainly on retained firefighters, could not generate the same sort of savings as many urban authorities. Yet the Government are not managing their transitional funding to give extra protection to those fire authorities. Instead, they use the current allocation in the revenue support grant, which is clearly inappropriate. The Minister will say that that is under review, but it will affect authorities this year.
  Mr. Raynsford: In agreement with the Local Government Association.
  Mr. Davey: That does not make it right. Some authorities will be under severe financial pressure. The Government knew that because we warned them time and again, but they have done nothing about it.
  Mr. Raynsford: Here we go again. The Liberal Democrats argue both that we must act quickly to get money to fire authorities—we intend to do that—and that they want a new formula to take account of the variations. We have discussed that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, with the LGA, and it was accepted that there could be no agreement on an alternative formula in the immediate future. The priority was therefore to ensure that the interim or transitional payment was made to fire authorities early in the coming financial year so that they could have it at the earliest opportunity. That is another example of the way in which one cannot have it both ways: one must either act swiftly or have endless debate and talking shops, which the Liberal Democrats love, and no action. We believe that it is right to take action.
  Mr. Davey: I am afraid that the Minister has outlined exactly what the Government are doing. The issue has been debated for more than a year. The Government have had time to deal with it, but they are not bothered. They keep telling local fire authorities to hurry up and setting them artificial deadlines, but they cannot get their act together. The House will therefore hold the Minister to account about the matter, which is causing genuine problems on the ground.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I wonder whether my hon. Friend might tempt the Minister to go further on the subject of the transitional arrangements. The calculation in Devon is that the agreed 16 per cent. pay rise
  80
  translates into a 20 per cent. increase because of the number of retained officers How is an authority meant to resolve that?
  Mr. Davey: I cannot answer that question because the Government have not given us the figures and the flexibility to do so. I am afraid that my hon. Friend must tell his constituents that the Government have again let Devon down because they have not been able to deal with an issue that we brought to their attention. I raised the matter when the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on the White Paper on 10 June, and he promised that there would be compensation for such authorities. He did not say that there would be difficulties because the Government could not get agreement on changing the RSG. He stated in the House that there would be compensation. [Interruption.] The Minister says that there will be compensation, but I have read his draft national framework document—I am not sure whether he has. On page 31, under the heading, "Distribution", it states:
  "The Government will consider proposals for changes to the formula in the light of the working group's conclusions. Any changes to the formula would come into effect for 2005/06 at the earliest."
  The changed formula will not be ready this year; it might be ready next year, if we are lucky. The Government are dragging their feet while requiring the local fire and rescue authorities to get a move on. It is one rule for the authorities and another for the Government. The Government, not the Liberal Democrats, are trying to have it two ways.
  Let us consider the retained firefighters, who will suffer from some of the problems that I have mentioned, such as the transitional arrangements and the new financial regime for combined fire authorities. They tend to be the problems that affect rural areas, whose forces may suffer in the next year or two. I am disappointed that the Bill does not strengthen the role of the retained firefighters; indeed, it is hardly mentioned. We must remember that retained firefighters provide 60 per cent. of the fire cover in this country.
  As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, we do not have a shortfall of full-time firefighters—it was 0.06 per cent. when I last examined the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures. People are queueing up to become full-time firefighters, but there is a 20 per cent. vacancy rate for retained firefighters. One would believe that the Government had already dealt with that urgent issue and produced action plans that were included in the Bill. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister mentions the improvement of the pay settlement.
  I have a letter from Derek Chadbon, general secretary of the Retained Firefighters Union. It states that although the implementation of the pay settlement may be beneficial to some retained firefighters, others are having their pay cut. The 7 per cent. increase has not been effected because the Government are awaiting some modernisation. That means that other elements of pay have been changed. If the Minister has examined the matter, he knows that the formula is complex. Derek Chadbon tells me that for some retained firefighters the new deal of which the Minister is so proud will mean a reduction of 10.45 per cent. in pay. The Government

  81
  should be worried about that problem, but it appears nowhere on the agenda and the Minister did not mention it.
  The Minister and the Government must pay much greater attention to the needs and demands of retained firefighters, who should be at the heart of modernising the fire service in many parts of the country.
  Jim Knight: I am interested to know what the hon. Gentleman proposes including in the Bill to deal with the matter. Does he believe that legislation is the answer to everything? I acknowledge that the Minister did not say much about retained firefighters in his opening remarks, but he was introducing a Bill. What legislation should the Government pass to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman identifies?
  Mr. Davey: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Select Committee report, one of whose seven proposals for dealing with retained firefighters' problems requires legislation—namely, entitlement to paid leave. Existing legislation provides for that for councillors, magistrates and school governors but not retained firefighters. The Government could introduce that if they chose.
  Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the potential cut in pay for retained firefighters. Does he know that that is largely due to the extent of activity in retained fire stations? Some smaller, less busy fire stations will have a pay rise but some of the busier fire stations, especially one in Newton Abbot, which is one of the busiest retained fire stations in the country, will experience an effective cut.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend may be right, but the pay formula for retained firefighters is so complicated, despite the reforms, that I should not like to give him a categorical assurance that he is correct. Given his expertise, he is probably right.
  The Government could examine other matters to do with retained firefighters. Again, I refer the Minister to the Select Committee report, to which I hope the Government will respond urgently. The Committee states that, although a review will take place—notably at the end rather than the beginning, when it should happen, of the process—it will not report until the summer. The usual delays will occur. The Committee proposes seven ideas that the Government could implement now before the review reports.
  The seven proposals are uncontroversial. One proposes a national recruitment campaign, along the lines of that for the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. Another suggests faster processing of applications. It can apparently take more than eight weeks for an applicant to secure a medical appointment. Another proposes leading by example—the Government and the public sector could encourage staff to undertake such roles. A review of jobseeker's allowance guidelines is also suggested. I have already mentioned entitlement to paid leave. The Committee also proposes incentives to fulfil fire prevention targets in the retained firefighters' compensation package. The Government could therefore do several things now in the Bill and without legislation. I am disappointed that the Government have not gone further on the matter, which is central to the modernisation of much of our fire service.
  82
  I shall comment briefly on part 2, which deals with functions. I want to make several points that may appear minor but which are important.
  One of the very good aspects of this part of the Bill is that it introduces a role for fire authorities to promote fire safety in their area, which is to be welcomed. Part 2 also confirms the role of fire and rescue authorities in respect of road traffic accidents, but there is no provision for their having a preventive role in that regard. Does the Minister think that they could take on such a role jointly with another authority? Perhaps they could link up with the highways authorities, for example. Will the Minister tell us why that has not been proposed? I am merely asking the question—this is not necessarily a criticism of the Government—and the Minister might well have a proper answer to it.
  In regard to the wider comments that I made earlier, I am concerned that the Secretary of State can give many directions to any and every fire and rescue authority, yet the Bill does not make clear whether any resources will be provided in relation to those directions. We can envisage a situation in which the Secretary of State is telling the authorities to do this, that and the other, all of it having to be paid for by the local council tax payer. We need to understand how resources will follow those directions, if that is to happen at all.
  An omission from part 2 that surprises me is that there is nothing about the potential for developing the co-responder role. Such a provision could fit into parts of this part of the Bill, but they do not refer to the matter specifically. In the debates that we had before the publication of the White Paper—and, indeed, even within the White Paper itself—there was general agreement that the co-responder role ought to be developed and that it should be made obligatory for fire and rescue authorities to train their staff for such a role. I was disturbed to see that that had not specifically been included in part 2.
  In regard to the Select Committee report and the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the other real omission is of provisions relating to sprinklers and misting systems. I know that the Government are undertaking research into this, and that the Minister talked about the review of the building regulations that is going on. I also know that he is minded to make some moves in this area. When he gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was eloquent on the matter, saying that, in regard to reduced insurance premiums, it was possible to envisage a payback on the installation costs of sprinklers within as little as five years. It is pretty clear, therefore, that their installation represents a sensible move.
  I am therefore surprised that there is nothing about that matter in the Bill. The Minister may say that the Government will look at the cost-benefit analysis and technical details and report on them, but I believe that the House should use the Bill to ensure that there is a requirement on the Government to introduce regulations in due course. Yes, they can specify the detail of, but we want to ensure that they are forced to act. Parliament should place a duty on the Minister to come to the House in due course with regulations relating to sprinklers. We do not want this to be up to the review or the Whitehall Department; we want it to be done within a specified timetable, so that the

  83
  Government do not escape their responsibility. They must come to the House and provide that important fire prevention measure.
  There are many other things in the Bill that I could talk about, including the Government's failure to introduce the hoped-for removal of the disciplinary proceedings or the reform—even the tearing up—of the "grey book". Also, the pension provisions in the Bill are pretty broad; it is not clear what the Government are going to do about pensions. We have seen last July's consultation paper, but there is no timetable attached to the provisions. Pensions are fundamental to budgets and to reform, and the Government need to say a lot more than they did in the national framework document, which was simply that they were reviewing the financial arrangements for funding firefighters' pensions. That was very helpful last December, but this issue has been around for a long time and it is fundamental to the budgets—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says, pensions represent 25 per cent. of the budget of most fire authorities. Even though the Government's modernisation agenda has reached this stage, we still do not know what their real thinking is on this issue.
  A noble objective underlies the Bill. It is to modernise and reform the fire service, at long last, with the saving of lives at the forefront of that aim. We will therefore not oppose the Bill tonight. However, because of our concerns about centralisation and the approach to regionalisation, among other things, we shall not be able to vote for it if there is a Division. We shall support the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives, although it is not as good as the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats and other colleagues. None the less, it makes some valid points, and we look forward to joining the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight and to working with them to improve the Bill in Committee.
  7.5 pm
  John McDonnell: Given this week's parliamentary timetable, I suppose that the debate on this Bill is the relative calm before the storm. If we had been asked to predict that 18 months ago, however, we would have expected it to be part of the storm. That demonstrates how the debate has now moved on to the practical reform and modernisation of the fire service. The Bill has been welcomed across the Chamber, and I welcome it because it sets out a coherent basis for the future of the fire service. We have been arguing for that for some years.
  All I want to do at this stage is to pose a number of questions about some elements of the Bill, many of which have already been mentioned. Clauses 1 to 4 relate to the proposed structure of the fire and rescue authorities. My understanding from what the Minister has said is that we shall, as far as possible, abide by the principles of subsidiarity and decentralisation, and that that will match up with the proposals for regional government, which have had broad support from many parties in the House. However, the Bill goes slightly beyond the view expressed by the Minister in regard to intervention when no regional assembly structure exists, and not just in relation to imposing solutions to tackle terrorism. Clause 2(2)(a) states that if
  84
  "it appears to the Secretary of State that for the purposes of this Act, in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area",
  he will have the power to impose such an authority. That is not just a reserve power; he will have quite a strong power. I recognise that that might be necessary at some stage, but such a power should be linked as clearly as possible to directly elected members sitting on the boards.
  I share the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who expressed reservations about indirectly elected members and appointed members, and about—how can I put this diplomatically?—the quality of the interest that they would display in their engagement. We have experienced that in the past, particularly in relation to joint boards after the abolition of strategic or regional authorities. I cite our own example of the Greater London Authority. Many good members served on the joint boards relating to the services that were devolved to the authority, but there were also many who were there under sufferance, often because—let me put it as diplomatically as this—there was nowhere else for them to be placed. We should reassert the concepts of subsidiarity, devolution and what we now describe as localism, linked to direct elections.
  Clauses 1 to 4 also deal with the process of consultation. When there are objections, there is the potential for a public inquiry. I would suggest that, when the Standing Committee meets to consider the Bill, it might be Better to include a requirement for such an inquiry, rather than simply the potential for one. In those circumstances, the inquiry might well obtain greater support overall.
  Part 2 deals with the new thrust of the service towards prevention rather than just reaction. We all welcome the recognition of the new practices, and the existing best practice that has been followed by many fire authorities around the country. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the need for enhanced investment in prevention. I shall return to the issue of sprinklers because it has been mentioned so often. My own example is that, when the Yarl's Wood fire took place, the Government acknowledged the importance of installing sprinkler and misting systems in certain institutions. Within 48 hours of the Yarl's Wood fire, the Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency was required to install sprinkler systems.
  I gained from that requirement an understanding of the Government's commitment to and appreciation of the importance and significance of the safety benefits of sprinkler systems. Given that it was acknowledged in that small instance, I agree with Members on both sides of the House about the importance of introducing new building regulations. Improving public investment in sprinkler systems will be critical to the future prevention role of fire services.
  It has been pointed out that the additional investment in prevention promised by the Government over the coming three years amounts solely to £5 million per annum—[Interruption.] Does the Minister want to comment on that?
  Mr. Raynsford: That figure of £5 million has, I think, been circulated by the Fire Brigades Union, and it is

  85
  simply inaccurate. We have a £43 million budget for fire prevention, including the work of the arson control forum. I announced in my speech that £9 million of allocations are due to be made tomorrow on arson control alone. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the actual allocation is much greater than £5 million.
  John McDonnell: What would be helpful for all Members, as we progress further in this debate, would be a note from the Minister on the breakdown of that money. How much of it is genuinely additional, where will it be invested, and how effective does he think it will be? That would clarify a number of questions.
  With regard to road accidents, clause 7 recognises the work that is undertaken by many of our fire authorities. In my constituency, our fire station is located next to the M4, near to the M25 and the A40. Much of its time will be spent on RTAs—road traffic accidents. In that regard, the Bill provides an opportunity to bring forward measures that are part of the Government's overall programme for addressing road safety generally. Rather than waiting any longer. an opportunity to include such measures in the Bill might be provided in Committee. With further, rapid consultation, perhaps across parties, in the next week or two, amendments could be brought forward to assist in that. I am sure that the firefighters will have proposals at hand with which to advise the Minister.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that an opportunity exists for the Minister, possibly working with the Department for Transport, linking up with the Highways Agency and the transport police, to work on prevention of road traffic accidents? We must not miss that chance.
  John McDonnell: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to make that statement. Clearly, that would provide a new direction in which the fire service could be actively engaged. Those who have the onerous responsibility of prising people out of cars and dealing with the deaths associated with road traffic accidents have many suggestions about how progress can be made on the road safety agenda that the Government have started to implement.
  In addition, I am not averse to examining how some costs of road traffic accidents could be borne by measures that impact on motor insurance. The health service imposes charges on those involved in road traffic accidents, which contribute to the direct cost of such accidents. A financial incentive that not only reduced accidents but perhaps increased income, which could be spent on the prevention of road accidents, would be worth examining.
  Under clauses 9 to 12 the Secretary of State takes powers to respond to particular emergencies: again, the example of terrorist attack is given, which is completely understandable. Are there problems, however, with the existing collaborative arrangements and the joint planning that is already undertaken? If so, can those be drawn out so that we can have a wider debate on the matter to understand the rationale for this change? My understanding at present is that the collaborative arrangements that have been established—untested, gladly—have largely proved satisfactory.
  86
  Clauses 16 and 17 relate to the discharge of functions by others and the ability to enter into contractual arrangements with others to provide specific services. I am grateful that the Minister has clarified for the record that that does not relate to privatisation. There is no intent to remove services from the public sector—firefighter functions can only be delegated to another fire and rescue authority within the terms of this legislation. There may be questions, however, when absolute clarity is needed on the range of functions that we so define, to ensure that they cannot be contracted out and cannot in any way be construed as services with the potential to be privatised.
  Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State powers of intervention to require contracts to be entered into for certain services. Why does the Bill include that requirement? If the Secretary of State is to take such powers, there must—if we are abiding by the principles of subsidiarity under this Bill—be a firm justification. Clause 19 contains the reassurance that the Government are not widening the existing powers for charging, but, as I said, a wider debate than that is necessary, particularly in relation to road safety. The Local Government Association, however, has pointed out in its briefings that there seems to be some conflict with the Local Government Act 2003, which gives local authorities more flexibility. That issue needs to be addressed, because there is some overall confusion.
  Clause 21 is the key reference to the fire and rescue service framework and its introduction. Many people across the fire service welcome the opportunity that that provides to debate that framework because such debate is encouraging and democratic. However, concerns have been expressed—some were addressed in the Select Committee report—about the rush to implement new procedures without their being piloted. The Select Committee advised that there should at least be some public education to raise the level of debate and to overcome any misgivings about, for example, the effect of a potential reduction in the speed and numbers of firefighters sent in response to 999 calls; possible cuts in vital rescue and fire control equipment; plans to reduce responses to automatic fire alarms; and cutting down on responses to automatic fire alarms, not just in office blocks but in flats where people live.
  The key question for all Members is how we monitor the implementation of the framework by individual fire authorities. Clearly, elements of the Bill give power to the Secretary of State to intervene if a fire service authority is failing, but more information on what criteria will trigger the Secretary of State's intervention in a failing authority would be useful. More importantly, the Secretary of State has a duty under the Bill to report back to Parliament on the framework. It would be helpful to have further information on how that report will be undertaken. Will it be a published report that will be debated on the Floor of the House, whereby actions can be determined by Parliament to overcome any weaknesses or problems that are identified during the implementation of the framework?
  Again, clause 28 deals with the organisation of facilities and the Secretary of State's powers to provide services directly, and it relates to what is described as

  87
  civil resilience. I should like clarity on how the Secretary of State will use that power. When will it be used? What is the definition of the grounds on which it will be used? Is it linked in some way to the Civil Contingencies Bill and, if so, how? What are the different gradations of anxiety or concern that will trigger the Secretary of State's implementation of that power?
  With regard to clauses 31 and 32, on the new negotiating bodies, the Minister told us—he can intervene if I have got this wrong—that consultations are now taking place on establishing the new negotiating structure. Fine. Under the Bill, we propose that a new structure will be established. However, the Secretary of State will retain the opportunity—the power—to set out guidance and advise the negotiators, but I am not sure on what: the parameters of the discussion, or the desired outcome?
  Mr. Raynsford: As I made clear in my speech, there was a lack of clarity during the dispute last winter, about the Government's position in relation to the line taken by both parties. We believe that it is right that the Government should have a mechanism, not to dominate, but to express our perspective on, matters that have a considerable impact on both the service's effectiveness and costs. The provision is intended to allow that involvement in the process.
  John McDonnell: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that intention could be more directly defined in the legislation? The current drafting could lead to a suspicion—we are not suspicious people—that defining the parameters and providing guidance may well enable the Government to determine the result of those negotiations. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, so we have a negative on the parliamentary record. I am grateful to him for that. Not being a suspicious person, I accept that assurance—others may not. He has told us that the legislation will soon lapse that enables the Secretary of State to impose a settlement on negotiations, but issuing guidance and setting the parameters of negotiations comes very close to the Government becoming directly involved in those negotiations and dangerously close to a power of imposition. That is why exceptional clarity would be welcome in the Bill.
  On clause 33, on pensions, all hon. Members have pointed to the urgency of the need to resolve the financial situation in respect of fire service pensions. Some 15 years ago, I was involved in the same conversation in pressing on central Government the need for them to take action on the pensions crisis that was developing in the London fire brigade. I do not support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that the pensions crisis has resulted in some practices evolving in the fire services. It has been argued that those in the fire services have not managed their service sufficiently well, that they have let too many people go early and that they have paid out too much in pensions as a result.
  The reality is that, for many years, fire authorities have been pressing the Government for intervention to assist them with their funding crisis. They have been
  88
  caught between a rock and hard place. When they have looked for Government support, they have been denied it; when they have been forced to consider increasing council tax precepts, they have been threatened and, indeed, capped in some instances. We all need to address that long-term problem. I am pleased that the Government are considering that, but they need to do so with a sense of urgency and without undermining the conditions of existing pensioners or those of existing employees entitled to the pension. We have safeguarded their position, and I would not want the benefits of a future scheme to be undermined.
  Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems with changing pension arrangements is that we live in a world where those people who go into the fire service will not necessarily have a whole career in front of them? Unlike the police force, where some additional help seems to be provided for people who cannot complete anything like their full term, such people in the fire service are particularly vulnerable to changes in any future pension provision. More particularly, they gain no real benefit from staying in the service for any great period of time. So we have to ensure that those in that group are protected.
  John McDonnell: In the past, we have acknowledged that certain services are provided by public servants who put themselves in jeopardy and who have a different working life from others. For that reason, we have designed pension schemes to accommodate their needs and, in return, to ensure that we can recruit and retain those people with the best qualifications who are dedicated to providing that service. Any fire service pension scheme must recognise, as all hon. Members have done time after time, the dedication of the firefighters who provide us with that excellent service and the jeopardy in which they put themselves every day. For that reason, we need to ensure that their pension scheme is protected and that it recognises their working life, which is different from that of many of us who do not work in that physical and physically threatening environment.
  My final point relates to funding issues. I repeat the concerns that have been expressed in debating either the dispute or the reform of the service. I do not believe that the funding that will be required to modernise the fire service can come from off-setting savings elsewhere. That is why the Government have provided for some transitional costs. I am concerned that we need to monitor those transitional costs closely over the coming period. My understanding is that the demands that we are placing on the service cannot be met wholly from the savings that can be achieved.
  I place the onus on the Minister: if necessary, we will require a regular report to the House on whether the implementation of the new framework and structure is being successfully implemented. If costs are a problem and the transitional costs do not accommodate all that we want to achieve in the modernisation process that we have now signed up to, we should, if necessary, debate that on the Floor of the House, and I am convinced that the Minister would find cross-party support in any fight or battle with his Treasury colleagues.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. John Gummer(Con): I refer the House to my declaration of interests.
  I have another declaration to make: the older people become, the more liable they are to be endangered by fire, and I represent the constituency with the oldest age group in England, so I have a particular interest in that respect. What is more, I will soon be old enough to represent them effectively.
  The truth is that, if the Bill were presented as a business plan for the future of an important national company, every shareholder and director would have serious questions to ask about the information on the basis which they were supposed to act. It grieves me to have to suggest that to the Minister, who, in always sitting through debates, is an admirable and most polite Minister. I believe that he genuinely wants to hear what others have to say. However, I hope that he will not mind if I do not spend much time saying what is good about the Bill, except to say that there is a necessity for such legislation. He is right that the Government and previous Governments of both parties did not approach the matter early enough, so we have to be reticent in our criticism. He is also right to suggest that we need to make radical changes.
  My problem is that the facts by which the particular changes are promoted do not stand up. That is why I tabled a number of questions to the Minister. I have to say, however, that he took refuge in one of the oldest of all ministerial tricks. What often happens when a Minister is faced with perhaps a dozen and a half questions, none of which he can answer adequately, is that, instead of answering them one by one, they are grouped together and a generally inadequate answer to the general series of questions is given. The Minister therefore avoids being pinned down on any one particular question.
  It is important for the House to understand how that is fundamental to our whole debate. I wanted to know what the savings were.
  Andrew Bennett rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment. I have some important points that I want to put to the Minister and if the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) is rising to suggest that I might have used the same technique in the past, well perhaps I did, but it does not mean that I cannot remind others when they do the same.
  Andrew Bennett: I am certainly aware that the right hon. Gentleman used the same technique, but I would have thought that he was now clever enough to realise that he should have trickled his questions in one at a time.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the number of days between the point at which I had to table the questions and today's debate were not sufficient for the trickling process to take place. I therefore asked a range of questions, which were not, I thought, unreasonable. For example, I asked what financial benefits the Minister expected would accrue to the Treasury, to Suffolk county council, to taxpayers and to
  90
  council tax payers in Suffolk from his plans to regionalise the fire service. What was the answer? Deep in the series of comments, answer came there almost none. The answer provided said:
  "It is not possible to provide a meaningful breakdown of the respective benefits these savings will bring to central Government, individual citizens and localities, but all will benefit from a reduction in the £6.63 billion annual cost of fire to the economy in England and Wales."
  I did not need to be told that we would benefit if there were a reduction. I wanted to know whether there would, in fact, be a reduction and whether the Government would—for many of the reasons mentioned already by right hon. and hon. Members—say what benefits would be accrued. We all know that there would be costs, but I wanted to know whether the benefits would be directed to those who would carry such costs.
  The Minister knows full well what happens in the Government. Just as after the last war, any bit of land over which there was an argument was taken over by the Soviet Union on the basis that it provided an easy answer, so in the Government, the Treasury takes any bit of money that is lying around. We know that. I gave the Minister the opportunity of saying—I mentioned the Treasury—that it was all going there, but he could not even tell me that. What business, shareholder or director would agree to a considerable change in the structure and mechanisms for payments and the way of running the staff of any organisation, without knowing something about the figures? I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has disobliged me by failing to provide the figures, so I cannot say to my constituents that, despite their concerns, they would benefit from paying less. Because the Minister cannot tell me the savings, I shall have to tell my constituents that I suspect that they will have to pay more. That is usually true when Governments will not reveal the precise amount of savings.
  What did the Minister say? On several occasions, he said that we must "move forward". The difficulty is that moving forward suggests that one knows the direction in which one is going, but the Minister does not seem to know that. Let us consider his views on the eastern region, which he considers to be a homogeneous and easily identified region with a strong sense of self-identification. I was surprised. I asked him what discussions he had had with the county council, the district councils, the Suffolk fire service and the Suffolk police service and wondered how he had reached his interesting conclusion. The truth is that he did not have any discussions at all. He has not discussed the matter with any of those bodies. I understand from my friends in Norfolk that the same is true there—no discussion with anyone.
  Mr. Bellingham: I have spent much of the morning talking to the Norfolk fire service and the Government have made no effort whatever to ascertain the views or comments of the people at the sharp end—the people on the ground.
  Mr. Gummer: It is even worse. The Minister has not talked to the county or the district council, yet the county council is in his pocket. It is a Labour-driven county council. One would have thought that a word or

  91
  two was appropriate there: we could understand leaving Norfolk out—it has happily gone back to Conservative control, as will Suffolk at the next election—but the right hon. Gentleman might have talked to his friends—but not a word. I understand that Ipswich district council has had no discussions; indeed the Minister has not talked to anyone. He has not even talked to the Fire Brigades Union in either county, or the Retained Firefighters Union. He has not done much talking or, indeed, listening, which worries me considerably.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the House the benefit of the full answer that I gave him, which made it clear that the representative of the fire authority in Suffolk attended a meeting, to which I invited all fire authorities in December to discuss those very issues?
  Mr. Gummer: I did not think that the Minister wanted to be reminded of that part of the answer. When asked whether he had had detailed discussions with all those people, I discovered that
  "all aspects of fire modernisation are discussed when we meet interested parties from time-to-time in the course of our Ministerial duties"—
  over tea, perhaps, when there is an opportunity to have a word or two to the hand-picked ticket-holding people who attend such meetings. However, the Minister continues:
  "The Chief Fire Officer for Suffolk"—
  not the district councils, the Fire Brigades Union or the Retained Firefighters Union—just the one person—did not have an interview with the Minister, but he was lucky enough to attend
  "the Fire and Rescue Service seminar on 3 December 2003 addressed by the right hon. Nick Raynsford MP and Phil Hope MP, and officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expect to visit the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service shortly."—[Official Report, 15 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 862W.]
  We do not hear whether the chief fire officer had any discussions; all we hear is that he had to sit down and listen to the decisions that had already been taken and are now before the House. The date, 3 December 2003, means that even if the poor man had had a chance to say something, it would not have made any difference because the decisions had already been taken. I know that because the Minister told me later in response to another question that it did not matter that he had not talked specifically to counties in the eastern region because the decisions taken applied to "all regions equally well".
  In other words, before discussing it with the regions, he has concluded that the decisions are so common to everyone that it does not matter whether those involved are in Cumbria or Essex: it will still work. One size fits all.
  Richard Younger-Ross: It is called the Big Conversation.
  Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that that advances our debate, but sadly I have never understood the hon. Gentleman to advance any debate.
  92
  I still believe that the Minister is trying to force an answer on the nation—
  Mr. Raynsford: No.
  Mr. Gummer: Very well, he is not trying to force it, but he is taking powers to do everything, and to make other people do his will in respect of every item. If he were the only Minister in this Government doing that, I would be less worried; but whenever an issue is presented to the House, the Government's answer is to centralise it, because the man in Whitehall knows best.
  When the Government get into a mess with the health service, what do they do? They centralise it, put more power into the Minister's hands, take power away from the localities, ensure that everyone does what the Minister thinks should be done. When the Government experience difficulty with education, what happens? The Department lays down yet more regulations and targets, and gives yet more teachers yet more forms to fill in. Now the Government are doing the same with the fire service. We are going to tell everyone exactly what to do unless everyone voluntarily does exactly what we want beforehand—although the Minister will not tell people exactly what the Government want until it is discovered that they have not done it. Then they will be told to do it, and to do it before a date in May.
  The Minister is very interesting on this. He is usually so genuine about these matters. Now he is asking everyone else to hurry up, but when it comes to the issue on which we all agree that he promised to be quick—the disciplinary issue—he admits that he has not met his own target. Indeed, he has not met it in respect of two crucial issues—discipline and a reduction in the number of deaths from fire. Why is that? I will tell you why, Mr. Deputy Speaker: it is more difficult than he imagined. He will not understand that the same is true of the people whom he is telling to do things: their task, too, will be much more difficult than he imagines.
  I ask the Minister to think again. I ask him to explain the position to my constituents in Orford, on the edge of Suffolk. They have their own fire station, and have a good relationship with those who work there. They need to feel confident that a system that serves the people of Luton with equal care has been subject to a sensible division. They need to believe something that I do not understand.
  Mr. Raynsford: I will convince them.
  Mr. Gummer: I think the Minister will find that rather difficult. They are asking themselves what is the region to which he has accorded these powers. It is, in fact, a region established by the last Government to make it easier to administer national priorities through a regional office. That was a compromise that fitted most of the Departments that then had regional organisations, but it did not happen to fit the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which had a different regional organisation. That was partly because it was quite difficult to exert MAFF's individual, direct influence in distant areas, not least the far south-west. I remember keeping open an office down in Truro simply because it would have been very difficult to deal with it as other Departments dealt with other regions.

  93
  I do not think that the Minister has thought fully about whether the specified regions are the right ones, if the service is to be regionalised. It is surely not logical for him to say that because they are the regions that he has decided to use in another context, it is convenient to use them in this context. I am not even sure whether he has thought this through in the context of terrorism and similar civil issues. In any event, it does not strike me as sensible to say that what has been decided in that context should apply to the fire service.
  We must ask whether Mott MacDonald has been sold a pup. I suspect that it has been told to produce something that merely meets a series of financial requirements. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who suggested that it was difficult for a consultant not to know what the Deputy Prime Minister wanted. The Deputy Prime Minister wants better reasons for regionalisation than he already has. He must find something for the regional offices to do; he must find a reason for the regions. We know why that is. First, he is politically and personally committed, for reasons that he has never found it easy to explain. Secondly, this is the only way in which the Government can surmount the difficulty in which they have landed themselves with a half-thought-out devolution proposal.
  We must ask ourselves whether these regions fit the provision of fire services. I do not think that the Government have argued their case for any one of them, and I believe that we can argue the case against most of them. It does not fit the south-west, it does not fit the south-east, it does not fit the eastern region, it does not fit the west midlands, it does not fit the east midlands, and most of us would say that it does not fit the other regions either; but it is just possible that someone might support it there.
  In those circumstances, why are the Government shoehorning the whole nation into a system for which they know no one will vote? That certainly applies to at least three quarters of it. Otherwise they would already have announced referendums—but they have announced them only in areas where they think they have a hope of winning. They know that they have no hope of winning anywhere else, so what are they doing? They are removing democratic control from people. partly to encourage them to vote for a different form of democratic control because that is what they want.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend represents a very rural part of the eastern region, while I represent a very rural part of the south-west. Has he thought of the danger posed to those in rural areas? It is more expensive to provide a fire and rescue service there, simply because of the distances that fire tenders and officers must travel to deal with the odd incident.
  Mr. Gummer: I have tried to concentrate on a fundamental fact that the Government should be proving to us, rather than our proving it to them—that these regions in these forms represent a sensible solution. I do not think that the Government have even tried to do that. They have simply assumed first that regionalisation will save money—and, as I have pointed out, they will not tell me what money and from whom—and secondly that it will be more efficient. They assume that the regions are the right regions, but they have not been able to argue that case either.
  94
  I have a positive dislike of the regional system, for a series of practical reasons. First. regions are bound to be dominated by their urban centres. There will be less concern about rural areas. Secondly, there will be no democratic control over the regions and they will, by their nature, set priorities. If they do not get together to set them properly, the Government will come along and say "Do it". Of course they will then set the priorities, which will be seen through the same urban eyes that enable the Minister to believe that Rickmansworth has anything in common with King's Lynn. It is that urban view that is such a mark of this Government, and so offensive to those of us who live in the countryside.
  There is also a small practical matter. We assume that all this will work well, because we will all use modern technology.
  I heard somebody suggest to the Minister that the system would work beautifully because it would be clear where people were ringing from as the number of their mobile or local telephone would be shown on the system. I hope that that will work, because the system will not have a fail-safe mechanism. At present, if the machine does not show up the number, our local control centre knows that there are two Tuddenhams, two Harlestons, two Cloptons, an Aldborough and an Alborough in pretty close proximity.
  The Minister thinks that technology is perfect and that everything always goes absolutely right, so there will be no difficulties at all. I just wonder about that, as do my constituents—that is the important thing. We need to have confidence in, and connection with, the system. The Minister has not given us confidence because he has given us neither the relevant figures nor an argument for the structure that he proposes.
  Andrew Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: In one moment.
  The Minister is not giving us a connection with the system because he tells the people of Suffolk that if they do not vote for a regionally elected authority—they do not even have the chance to do that at the moment, because he knows that they would not vote for it—they must understand that the regional management organisation will tie their local fire authority hand and foot. If it does not, the Minister will come along and tell it to do so, because that is the purpose of the proposal. He will not allow an authority to do anything that it wants to do if that does not fit in with his scheme for the region; he has told us that, and he will take powers to achieve it. I believe that he is being honest when he says that he wants to make the system efficient—but he, and not Suffolk, will make the decisions.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have listened patiently to the right hon. Gentleman for a long time. He is usually a thoughtful contributor to debates, so it is unusual that he is building a completely preposterous case on the basis of his total failure to analyse the Government's proposals. For the record, there is no proposal whatever to regionalise the fire and rescue service in the eastern

  95
  region. There is a proposal to establish a regional management board to deal with the elements of the fire service that are best handled on a regional basis. He knows that there are detailed figures on control rooms in the Mott MacDonald report. He accepted that there was some sense in the anti-terrorist provisions, but he may not have accepted that we have strong evidence showing that there will be real benefits if we
  "integrate common and specialist services",
  such as fire investigation,
  "introduce regional personnel and human resource functions…develop a regional approach to training"
  and introduce regional procurement. Those items are listed in the "Draft Fire and Rescue National Framework 2004/05" as the work that in our view, is best organised regionally. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now accept that all his local service delivery—fire stations and so forth—will remain local, and the responsibility of his local fire authority.
  Mr. Gummer: But the Minister gives himself away. First he says to Suffolk, "Training will be regional, because we do it better that way." Secondly he says, "Personnel will be regional, because we do it better that way." Thirdly he says, "The way you operate together won't be a choice you make; it'll be decided by us, and it will be done regionally." Each of those aspects develops a robust arrangement of regional management. It is not truthful—if I may put it as bluntly as that—for the Minister to say that he is not regionalising the fire and rescue service, yet then to list a series of aspects of the service that he is regionalising. He can say that he is not regionalising all the service or taking everything away, but he is still removing from localities a series of important decisions that until now, they have made. The case for that removal has not been proven. The fact is that the Minister will be able to interfere every time that he decides that something should be added to the regional list. That is why the proposal is wrong
  Mr. Edward Davey: I wish that the situation were as good as the right hon. Gentleman suggests—I am afraid that it is even worse. As I said before, the draft national framework says:
  "If insufficient progress has been made, the Government will consider the use of its statutory powers to combine Fire and Rescue Authorities".
  The Government will not create a special regional fire authority with a specific number of powers and leave a local fire and rescue authority, but will combine the authorities. Their plan, as shown in clause 2 of the Bill and the national framework, is to regionalise.
  Mr. Gummer: I always remember a Member of the House who complained that I described her views as in favour of "killing babies" when she was really in favour of "terminating pregnancies"; she thought that if one changed the words, everything was okay. The Minister is doing a similar thing. He thinks that because he is not saying at the moment that Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire shall have a regional system and no local fire services, he is not
  96
  regionalising. That is disingenuous, because he is taking away from each area a series of their present powers and telling them that if he does not like the result, he can amalgamate services under the Bill. Is he taking the power to amalgamate because he has no intention of amalgamation, or because he has every intention of amalgamation? Is he doing that because he will amalgamate on a whim? The only factor for deciding whether an amalgamation will take place is whether he thinks that a service does not otherwise meet requirements. He, not the locality or the elected authority, will decide. What will matter is not what my constituents think, but what the Minister thinks.
  The Minister is taking a series of powers that in any other circumstances would be considered to be draconian. If he does not intend to use any of those powers, why does he not say, "I'm not going to take them"? If he takes them he must intend to use them, so he must intend to say to local fire services, "You have significantly reduced powers under the Bill. What's more, if we don't like the way you use those powers, we can amalgamate you—and the only proof that we will have to show is the fact that we, as Ministers, think that you need to be amalgamated." Although that is not regionalisation at once, the regionalisation of many powers will issue a threat to local fire services that they will lose the rest of their powers unless they do what the Minister says. Therefore, the services would be regionalised in fact, because they would have to obey what the Minister said through the regional management structure.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: When the Minister intervened on my right hon. Friend to say that there would not be an East Anglia regional fire authority, he was careful to say that there would be a regional management board. It is inconceivable that the board will not threaten to use the powers that the Secretary of State will have. Clause 22(2) says:
  "For the purpose of securing that the authority acts in accordance with the Framework the Secretary of State may by order require the authority…to do something;…to stop doing something"
  or
  "not do something."
  If that is not an extreme power for the Secretary of State, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. The truth is that the Minister would have been more helpful to the House if he had said, "We're going to have this regionalisation, and we're not going to fiddle about," and then told us what he was going to do. Instead, he is creating circumstances in which he may set up regionalisation, and half doing that, then making sure that everyone knows that he will wholly do it if they do not do precisely what he says. That is the same thing as doing it. This is a serious matter. The Bill will remove another level of local competence and decision making, and take away the local connection between paying the rates and running the services.
  I shall finish with three short points. [Interruption.] The Minister does not like hearing this, because Conservative Members have shown that he has failed to explain the basis on which his whole policy stands to the

  97
  satisfaction of any sane and reasonable person. First, I return to his explanation of an aspect of the Bill that reveals his problem. He explained that he had been unable to meet his target on fires because of the large increase in the number of burnt-out motor cars, which was caused by the large increase in abandoned vehicles.
  Rather than do something about that increase in abandoned vehicles, however, he decides to change the target—[Interruption.] There is a perfectly simple way to do something about the increase. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who made it clear that there are ways to tackle the problem.
  Once again, the Government, faced with the realities of their policies, will not put into operation the mechanisms by which those policies will be achieved. Last year we failed to meet the European targets for the packaging directive. The Government could have done that, but they failed to do so because they would not take action. This year, we yet again face a failure to meet a large number of our environmental targets because the Government will not take the necessary measures. In the case of abandoned vehicles, the Minister excuses his failure not by saying that he was unable to convince his colleagues in the Government that they should have done what other Governments in Europe did, but by saying that although it is terribly sad that there are many more abandoned vehicles, it has nothing to do with them.
  What has changed? People have discovered that they are responsible for getting rid of their old vehicles and that the Government caved in to the pressures of the motor industry by failing to do one of the two things open to them to do. First, they could have told the polluter to pay by insisting that the industry paid the cost of the final resting place of the vehicles it produced. Secondly, if the industry could not afford to do that, the Government could have paid the cost themselves. Instead, they landed the cost on the poorest in the country by telling those who have a clapped-out motor car, which they need in the countryside to get to work, and can afford nothing else, that they should pay for getting rid of the vehicle. Then the Government are surprised when the vehicle is burnt out and abandoned, so pushing up the cost of the fire service.
  Instead of solving the problem, the Government put off the target. They cannot meet the target, but instead of going solving the problem, they change the target. That is a universal element of this Government. They put the targets up and, when they do not meet them, they change the targets rather than their policy.
  My second point is about retained firefighters. As I understand it, the Minister has not talked to any local retained fire service in the country about the subject. That is not true just in the east of England, but in the rest of the country as well. Yet we in the countryside rely on those people for our fire protection. It is a disgrace that he spoke so little about the retained fire service and that he has done so little to negotiate and discuss with it about how it sees the fire service continuing. The Minister has a 20 per cent. shortfall It will be more than that if he continues to ignore the retained fire service as he has done during the changeover.
  Thirdly, the measure is another example of the attack on the county councils. It is yet another way of removing from them democratic control over their policies and programmes. It is building up to the moment, which will
  98
  come, when the Government say, "We don't need the county councils any longer because they don't deal with planning." They tried to stop their planning role in the House of Lords by getting rid of the county councils' consultative role in such matters. They had to give way on that, but they are slowly, in every single Act, trying to get rid of county councils.
  Mr. Raynsford: Who got rid of Berkshire?
  Mr. Gummer: If we vote for a regional assembly we will not have county councils. If we do not vote for regional assemblies, our county councils will lose their powers, so we may as well not have them. [Interruption.] That is the Government's policy. Education will be directed from the centre, as will the fire service and the police—[Interuption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I cannot have a running commentary from the Government Front-Bench spokesmen. It is extending speeches that are already going on quite a long time. We are averaging more than 26 minutes for Back-Bench speeches, which is severely curtailing the opportunities for other hon. Members to participate.
  Mr. Gummer: Lastly, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remind the Government that they risk the vengeance of rural communities by their constant refusal to listen to them, to talk to them, to hear what they say, to support their county councils and to give them the opportunity to make their decisions for themselves locally. That is what the Government are doing. That vengeance will be wreaked on them first in the district councils, such as they are, this year, and, secondly, in the county councils, such as they are, next year. When the new Conservative county council in Suffolk comes into power, it will refuse to do what the Minister wants it to do if it is bad for Suffolk. He will then have to use his powers and show what his Government are really about—the regionalisation of the fire service. It is only a pity that the House was not told that at the beginning.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. David Drew(Lab/Co-op): I am delighted to participate in the debate and intend to talk about what is actually in the Bill, although I could talk at great length about how loyal I am, on most occasions, to Gloucestershire county council, being a former member of it.
  I have four lines of inquiry to pursue, but I shall do so at no great length because many of my points have been already been raised. The first is that I largely welcome what is in the Bill; the second is to question some parts of it; the third is to consider things of possible concern; and the fourth is to qualify some aspects of how the Bill may work in practice.
  In welcoming the Bill, I believe it is clear to anyone—hopefully even those who will vote against it—that, unlike the Fire Services Act 2003, which was vested in an immediate dispute, some form of fire legislation is long overdue. We have had a number of White Papers. One did not see the light of day, which saddened some of us because it set the trend for moving the fire service away from being largely a reactive service to one that did

  99
  much more preventive or—dare I say it?—proactive work. Firefighters in Gloucestershire are as one in welcoming that move. They want to talk to people in schools and old people's homes. They want to work with other parts of local government, whether that be on crime and safety or an element of criminal justice, and with other forms of the public service. For too long, they have felt excluded and somewhat in a box, which meant that they were restricted in what they could offer.
  I am not saying that that would be a slightly easier job. It requires different skills of the sort possessed by people who are now attracted into the fire service. I am not talking pejoratively about those people who served in former generations of firefighters, but about a new breed of firefighters that is joining the service. There are more women and more people from the ethnic minorities, and more people are doing shorter periods of service. All those people are affecting the nature of the provision of that service. One way they would like to do that is to go out and talk to people, and to work in a partnership with them. That links directly to the integrated risk management plans. Unless firefighters are able to go out and talk to people, and to put in place something with communal attitude that allows them to pull together, the plans will merely be words on bits of paper rather than meaningful forms of action.
  So I very much welcome the Bill. The Government are to be congratulated on introducing the legislation.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: In an intervention, the hon. Gentleman—my parliamentary neighbour—spoke of the great success of the tri-service agreement at Quedgeley. He is thus acknowledging the great popularity and success of our Gloucestershire fire service. Does he think that the people of Stroud would welcome its transformation into a south-western regional fire service?
  Mr. Drew: I will pick up exactly that point when I turn to my second line of inquiry. As somebody who is a bit of a regionalist, I have no problem with the setting of regional strategies. It has much to commend it because of all the problems with boundaries. We have a particular problem in Gloucestershire because although we are in the south-west, we are adjacent to the south-east and the west midlands, and we are not a million miles from Wales. We are always in a dilemma about whom we would work with most closely. I do not have a problem as long as there are cross-regional strategic discussions about guidelines on the sort of things that need to happen at a level where it would be impossible for one brigade to operate. There are several sensitive locations in our county. GCHQ is one, and there are a number of nuclear power stations. They all require additional co-operation across brigades. Nobody wants to mention it, but if there were an incident, we would need not only people from different fire brigades but all manner of services from different parts of different regions. I take that as read.
  I am concerned that the proposals could be taken as a step on a slippery slope to delivery of service at a regional level. The tri-service model to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a good one. Like him, I have visited the call centre on several occasions, and it seems
  100
  to be bedding down well. I hope that we can genuinely consider the advantages that it provides for the locality before we rush to take firefighters to a more distant call centre in Bristol, Exeter or even further west. All that would cause me considerable concern. I therefore hope that there is full monitoring of the tri-service emergency call centre in Gloucestershire—and of the one in Wiltshire—before we do anything dramatic.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, one criticism of the firefighters has been about the lack of piloting before deciding to go towards the centralisation of the call centres. Questions need to be asked about that. Although we have received some assurances that the proposals are not about regionalisation of service delivery, we need further such assurances.
  Another possible concern has been alleviated by the good approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Could the Bill have been seen as revenge for a very long and nasty dispute, which could have resulted in further curtailment of firefighters' ability to take action and a heavy- handed laying down of their role? Nobody in this day and age can be anything but aware of the need for greater co-ordination. We must recognise that individual brigades, let alone individual services, cannot be immune from other pressures—whether that is the threat of terrorism, massive flooding or something like foot and mouth. All such incidents require changes in the way in which the services operate—today, let alone in the future.
  The concern was that we could have had a much more centrally directed force, which would tell people who worked for it exactly what their role would be. I did not want that, because I think that there is benefit in engaging the local community. We should particularly bear in mind how firefighters have served this country well. I do not like the idea of rewarding public servants—even when we disagree with them in a dispute—by taking away the means by which they want to represent themselves and their ability to do their jobs effectively. I am pleased that we have not gone down such a route; things could have been a lot worse. We must recognise that there are sensitivities about the fire service. One does not have to be paranoid to realise that it was worried that a big stick would be waved over its head. Let us hope that all that has been cleared and that, as I said at the outset, firefighters—just like all those I have talked to—can get on with what they want to do.
  On the issue of qualification, what is missing? The question of sprinkler systems has been well covered by other hon. Members. We need to pull together in a detailed format the demands that we are placing on firefighters when they go out and try to prevent unnecessary fires and accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned how they could be proactive in work with road traffic accidents, and so on.
  There is also the issue of maintaining services in rural areas. We have considered, somewhat sceptically, the decline in the ability to provide an effective service at a rural level. There has been much criticism—certainly from the Opposition—that what has been proposed either ignores the real problems or could make matters worse. It would be helpful if we identified the biggest single problem with retained stations: getting people to serve in them. The main reason for that is the change in

  101
  the nature of people's working lives. Allied to the geography, that has resulted in very few people living and working in a place where they can respond to calls in the amount of time necessary to remain in a retained force. We must try to do something about that.
  We could extend the numbers dramatically so that there were always times at which people were available. We could pay retained firefighters a greater retainer so that they could be available when they would otherwise have to work in order not to lose money. All those things come down to cost and will be difficult to pull together. I therefore welcome the review, which I hope will come up with some genuine suggestion on how we can enhance the role of the retained service.
  We must also try to improve relations between retained and full-time services, because they are not good enough. I know that many FBU members serve at retained stations, and that is to be welcomed, but relationships are still very poor. Often, retained and full-time service representatives are not ready to sit on the same negotiating bodies. Their pension arrangements, which I have dealt with, are very different too.
  Richard Younger-Ross: What the hon. Gentleman is saying about why it is difficult to have retained fire officers in rural areas is exactly right. Is not the logic of his comments that we require full-time fire stations in rural areas and retained officers and stations in more urban and suburban areas?
  Mr. Drew: That is a neat suggestion, but I am not sure how the full-time firefighters in Stroud would like the idea of being replaced completely by their retained colleagues, although there is a retained firefighters pump at that station.
  Jim Knight: My hon. Friend makes good points about retained firefighters and the problems in rural areas arising from people living and working in different places. Does he agree that that underlines the importance of an approach based on fire safety and risk management? In some rural villages in my constituency there are high concentrations of second homes and many of the residents commute out, so the villages have very few people in them during the day, with the result that at night, when the retained firefighters come home, the risk is different. In addition, installing sprinklers in thatched buildings, which have been the subject of some serious fires in Dorset, would be a positive step to take when the Government review building regulations.
  Mr. Drew: All those are laudable aims, which I hope will play a part in the review.
  When taking the service forward, we have to address key issues. We cannot afford to alienate full-time members of the service by pretending that their job can be done in a very different way, but nor can we offend members of the retained service, because they are vital. The staff of several stations in my constituency could never be replaced by full-time firefighters. The only alternative to retained firefighters would be to close the stations and try to patrol their area from the larger town, some distance away. That is not what any of us want to happen. We have to get out there and recruit. and we can do that by acknowledging that the nature of the work has changed and giving people more incentive to join.
  102
  Overall, the Bill is welcome, although I have no doubt that some criticisms will be levelled in Committee at the way in which some elements of it will work. We might want the Government to take some additional matters into consideration even before they receive the results of their review—for example, provisions relating to sprinklers and how to establish building regulations and use legislative means to ensure that difficult issues are not ignored. Too many people have already lost their lives to fires.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. David Amess(Con): I have the honour to be joint-chairman, with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), of the all-party fire safety group. I may be biased, but I think that it is a splendid all-party group: our meetings are extremely well attended and the contributions are well informed. The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire would have addressed our seminar today, had it not been for the difficulty in doing that and addressing the House at the same time.
  I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said about regionalisation. The House is well aware of the Opposition's view on that matter. Communities faced with the threatened closure of the local fire station are greatly concerned that there will not be proper consultation because of regionalisation. I was greatly concerned to hear one chief fire officer say today, "People are not as afraid of fire as they are of crime." I think that there is something in that comment, and I hope to touch on that during my speech.
  During my time as a Member of Parliament, my admiration for the fire services has grown, for poignant reasons. When campaigning in the '80s, I went into a garden where a constituent who was well known in the area was on fire—I know it sounds incredible, but he had fallen into a bowl of paraffin. Most of us would not be prepared for such a sight and I probably did not react in the best possible way—if one is not used to such things, one goes into a state of shock, much as one wants to help. Although I did get help and the fire brigade was summoned, the man had 95 per cent. burns and I attended his funeral the day after I was re-elected. My admiration for the way in which the fire service dealt with that tragedy will live with me for ever more.
  In another terrible tragedy that occurred in the '80s in my then constituency, firefighters attended an incident at one of our schools in which four youngsters locked themselves into a hut in the playground and were burned alive. How the fire officers coped with that tragedy, I do not know. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) was on Essex county council at the time of another incident. We ran a campaign to put smoke detectors in a challenging housing estate but unfortunately, the batteries were removed from one of the detectors and a whole family was wiped out.
  When I moved to my present constituency, I took part, perhaps naively, in a march to save our local fire station in Leigh. On that march, I was assaulted. One fire officer allowed my assailant to escape, but another

  103
  caught the assailant and he was duly dealt with. To the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who is to reply to the debate, I say that I much regret the bad publicity and bad reputation that some of our firefighters accrued during the dispute, because I have the highest regard for the wonderful work that they do.
  During our seminar, the view was expressed that the best way to eliminate fire death, injury and damage is by preventing fires breaking out in the first place—no one could doubt that—and that any attempt to improve fire safety must target resources. I—a Conservative Member of Parliament referring to the Fire Brigades Union—am anxious to be assured that the Government's motives are not dominated by the desire to achieve cuts in costs. If emergency fire cover is to be more flexible and more focused on safeguarding lives in future, we must be confident that the fire protection measures in our buildings are up to scratch. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) feels very strongly about sprinklers, and I share his concern, but he will know that our American guest speaker told those attending our seminar today that 16 per cent. of sprinklers in the city of Boston, I believe, do not work properly. Wonderful though sprinklers can be, they must be properly serviced.
  The seminar also arrived at the view that sensible fire safety design was essential and that there should be appropriate product specification.
  That would also mean ensuring that fire protection is installed correctly and maintained in good working order—I have already mentioned the problem of batteries being removed from smoke detectors. A mature framework is needed in which active and passive fire protection systems can work in concert instead of being in competition with one another, as they are at the moment.
  I do not want to condemn the Bill, as it includes some good provisions. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has convinced me of the merits of our reasoned amendment. I accept that the primary aim of the Bill is to reduce fire deaths and injuries, of which there are respectively about 600 and 16,500 a year. The House will applaud the introduction of a new statutory duty requiring the fire and rescue services to do more to prevent fires in the first place in addition to being prepared to extinguish them. The services have done their job magnificently in the past, but increasingly they need to look at ways of tackling 21st-century fire risks. Their effectiveness and public safety are likely to be enhanced by fire safety education, fire prevention schemes and local partnerships. Such activity is at the heart of community fire safety. The other main planks of the reform agenda are sensible. For instance, it is reasonable to allow a fire authority to vary levels of emergency response at different times of the day according to the fire risks posed.
  We have heard a great deal about what fire officers have said about the Bill. I am delighted that Mr. David Turner, chief fire officer for Essex, is leading a national fire chiefs group to co-ordinate the response to the Bill. It would be a lengthy undertaking to compare the Bill with the Fire Services Act 1947, but fire officers are concerned about who would be in charge when two
  104
  different brigades attend a fire, as happens from time to time. Chief fire officers hoped that there would be flexible provisions allowing for the generation of income from, for example, training courses for the public. However, provisions in the 1947 Act will still apply.
  Concerns were also voiced in the parliamentary seminar about houses in multiple occupation. The definition of an HMO in the Housing Bill is intricate. The old definition in section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 and the case law arising from it are notorious for their complexity. The new definition is a gallant attempt at improvement, but I wonder how well it will work in practice. There was also concern about the details of training, but I accept that they will be announced in the autumn. Section 30 of the 1947 Act states that the senior fire officer present at a fire is in charge, and can direct resources accordingly. The all-party group on fire safety, however. believes that the Bill does not state who would now be in charge of directing available resources.
  There was also concern that people were getting on a bandwagon, with many individuals offering to conduct fire safety risk assessments. People attending the seminar felt strongly that only qualified staff should be allowed to undertake registration and accreditation. I shall certainly support the reasoned amendment. The Bill is well intentioned, but I have great concerns about regionalisation. I repeat that the general public are afraid of crime, so I hope to goodness that in future they will be extremely afraid of the threat of fire.
  8.33 pm
  Jim Knight(Lab): I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as a director of the Fire Protection Association and chair of the fire protection council. I am also a patron of the National Fire Sprinkler Network and, as a fellow officer of the all-party group on fire safety, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess).
  I very much welcome the Bill. If it had not been for 9/11, the ensuing civil contingencies and the strike, it might not have been introduced and it would have been difficult to secure parliamentary time to discuss the issues that it covers. However, it is overdue for many other reasons as a replacement for the Fire Services Act 1947. It is fitting that we are finally putting into statutory form the duty of fire and rescue services to undertake fire safety functions, attend road traffic accidents and perform other emergency tasks that we expect them to perform but which they have been undertaking on a discretionary basis.
  It is, however, important that the Bill is more than an update of the 1947 Act, and, equally, that it should be more than a reaction to both 9/11 and the fire dispute. Modernisation of fire and rescue services should be genuine, and the emphasis on fire safety and prevention is a welcome modernisation that all hon. Members should support.
  The Bill is straightforward, but I shall address two issues. The first, regionalisation, has been discussed at great length by some Members this evening. I reject the alarmism of the Opposition parties about centralisation, which is appropriate given the changing nature of both the threat to this country and civil contingency requirements—the Secretary of State should have

  105
  reserve powers to direct our emergency services as appropriate. It is important that the House keeps a watchful eye on how those powers are used, so it is appropriate that the Bill says that the Secretary of State should regularly report to the House. I remain comfortable with those powers given the context of the debate and Government policy on, for example, integrated risk management planning, which is all about taking a much more localised view of risk and what response is appropriate from the fire and rescue services.
  I support regionalisation in principle. I was a strong and passionate advocate of regional government in the Committee examining the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. Many of the members of that Committee have popped up in this debate, such as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire and the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). They were the front-line stars of that debate, and it was with some regret that I heard some of the same arguments being regurgitated over and over again this afternoon.
  I support regionalisation in principle because it provides greater flexibility of response to major attacks, which we must be prepared for and allows flexible planned responses across fire authority areas. The population is strung out around the edge of my county, Dorset, which is thinly populated in the middle. It is therefore appropriate that we have strong relationships with Somerset and Wiltshire, which border Dorset. It is equally true that we need a strong relationship with Hampshire, which is not in the south-west region, and I welcome the provisions that require fire and rescue services to develop their relationships with other authorities. The Bill does not specify that an iron curtain will fall around each region, and it is clear that relationships should extend across borders where that is appropriate.
  The House should acknowledge the economies of scale that are achievable through regionalisation. I am sure that the level of council tax concerns every hon. Member, and we all get our ears bent about it by our constituents. In many constituencies, the precept for fire authorities will be identified separately for the first time this year, and I am sure that our constituents expect us to do what we can to achieve economies of scale through policies such as regionalisation to decrease precepts. There have already been discussions about regional procurement in the south-west, and it is appropriate that they should take place in a strategic context, which is possible only through a regional management board structure.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for a south-west regional fire authority, does he think that his constituents in South Dorset would pay a higher or lower precept if their fire authority remained as Dorset fire authority rather than becoming part of a south-west regional fire authority?
  Jim Knight: That is clearly a key question. I suspect that the cost may rise as the new system is implemented, but I am confident—otherwise I would not stand up and advocate it—that there would be significant savings over the medium and long terms. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen the table in the Select
  106
  Committee report listing the different costs of regional control rooms. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the contrast between the unit cost of £18 in the London control room and some £136 in the Isle of Wight. We must examine possible savings very carefully and go forward on that basis.
  I shall voice some of my concerns about regional control rooms shortly, but, over the medium and long term, I think that we can look forward to savings.
  I have concerns about the implementation of regionalisation, and especially the introduction of regional control rooms. I have spoken to the control staff who operate the Dorset control room and to members of the Fire Brigades Union about their concerns in Dorset. Following my discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister, I have been able to alleviate many of their anxieties, but there was considerable concern about the loss of local knowledge through the introduction of regional control rooms. As I understand it, the new software that is coming on stream, combined with the European directive on mobile telecommunications networks, means that it will be possible to pinpoint highly accurately where a call is coming from, even if it is coming from a mobile phone. I was concerned that only a cell would be identified, but I have been reassured by my right hon. Friend the Minister that that will not be so.
  That leads me to concern about how the software is implemented. Dorset introduced extremely up-to-date software for its control room and it took it three years to iron out all the problems in that software. Given the importance of the reliability of that software, I ask my right hon. Friend to give us some reassurance on how that reliability will be tested and how the software will be implemented to ensure, given the tight time frame, that the operation can be carried out reliably.
  I am concerned also about integrated risk management plans. We must ensure that a regional control room can account for the mosaic of such plans that will make up the region. We must also ensure that the software, the operators or however the response is co-ordinated in that control room can account for different approaches, and certainly operate across borders of fire authorities even if such authorities have not been formed.
  I have in mind especially automated fire alarms, which have become a significant problem, given the number of false alarms which are causing a real drain on fire authorities. In Oxfordshire, Somerset and elsewhere there is discussion about not responding to automated fire alarms, which I find a most disturbing prospect. If we have different authorities within a region sharing a regional control room, each with a different policy on, for example, automated fire alarms, there is potential for some confusion. That is one area in which I would like to see the Government be more prescriptive about what policy is required. It convinces me that we should accelerate the process that leads towards regional fire authorities, much against the wishes of the Conservative party.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I have heard from the fire authority in my area that it, too, has concern about automatic fire alarms. I have also heard talk about non-

  107
  response. The authority's proposal is that there should be a £250 charge for repeat offences. That is not for the first time or the second time, but when a call is made three or four times. At least the authority could recoup some of its cost for call-out.
  Jim Knight: I, too, have heard the notion of charging for attendance. One of the groups that works with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister has a task-and-finish group that is considering automated fire alarms. It is chaired by Ken Knight, the commissioner for fire and emergency planning, London fire brigade. I have had discussions with him about the approach that should be taken.
  Much can be learned from the issue of burglar alarms. The police had a problem with many false alarms some years ago. The burglar alarm industry got together with the police authorities and chief constables to agree to a protocol and a resolution of the problem. That involves the regular maintenance of burglar alarms and an agreement whereby the police will attend the premises as long as the alarm is regularly maintained by an accredited maintenance engineer.
  Something similar could be worked out for automated fire alarms.
  The hon. Gentleman should not forget that one of the main offenders in respect of false alarms from AFAs is the national health service. Some people say it is all down to nurses making toast. That can be overplayed, but there are simple ways of dealing with the problem—first, by checking the siting of the smoke alarm and making sure it is not located too close to a toaster, and secondly, by replacing the smoke alarm with a heat detector-based alarm system, so that instead of the smoke activating the alarm, the heat caused by a fire would activate it, in the same way as a sprinkler works.
  That leads me neatly to the next issue on which I wanted to comment, and one that has not been touched on at all, I am happy to say: water supply. That may not seem a contentious issue. I am pleased to see that among the responsibilities of water companies is the responsibility to provide a water supply, to provide it at nil cost for emergencies, to provide it through fire hydrants and to provide it at adequate pressure. I know my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of a problem concerning water supply for sprinklers. In some areas there is insufficient pressure in the water system to allow the sprinkler system to work effectively. That is a major stumbling block to spreading the use of sprinklers, with the fire death savings that could be made as a result.
  As has been said, no one has ever died in this country in a fire in a building with a sprinkler system that has been properly maintained. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), but as long as such a system is properly maintained, it is more than 99 per cent. reliable. We should grasp any opportunity that the Bill provides to make sure that fire sprinklers work properly and safely.
  Some two and a half years ago I convened a meeting between members of the National Fire Sprinkler Network and Water UK to facilitate a discussion about the problems of pressure in the water supply. We
  108
  thought we had reached an agreement but, sadly, Water UK seems to have backed off from that agreement because of concerns about people taking water supply illegally out of a sprinkler system to avoid paying the bill from their water meter, and all sorts of spurious reasons which, to me, do not stack up, given that when a sprinkler is activated, a loud noise alarm goes off outside the house. If someone wanted to fill their kettle from their fire sprinkler, they would not do so at risk of a loud noise and a light going on outside. I ask the Government to speak to the water industry, see whether a voluntary agreement is imminent, and if not, take powers in the Bill to ensure that the supply of water for sprinklers can be arranged.
  In summary—I would like to allow others to contribute to the debate; I do not want to hog the limelight, as others may have done—I welcome the Bill. I will make every effort to ease its progress, as I am asked to do, but I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), would respond to the points that I have raised.
  8.48 pm
  Adam Price(PC): The Bill, as the Minister said, devolves substantial powers to the National Assembly for Wales. I intend this week to vote against one Bill that devolves powers to Wales. To do so twice would be a little churlish for a nationalist party, so we shall support the proposals on Second Reading.
  It is interesting to note that the Fire Brigades Union in Wales is an enthusiastic advocate of the Bill. It has been writing to Welsh MPs urging us to support the Bill. I have not seen the FBU recently acting as cheerleaders for the Government, but it welcomes the proposals—in large part, I think, because with devolution, there will at least be a shield from any regressive proposals that may emanate from Westminster in future. We welcome the devolution aspect of the Bill.
  But for Wales, devolution does not end at Cardiff bay. It has to work right down into local government. It would be a matter for the National Assembly, but I would not want to see the creation of an all-Wales national fire and rescue service. The three combined fire authorities in Wales, created by the previous Conservative Government under local government reorganisation, do not have the same connection with the localities that they serve that the previous county-based fire authorities had, and in saying that, I echo some of the comments made by other hon. Members.
  Having observed the debate and as a keen supporter of elected regional government in England, I believe that one of the dangers is that elected regional assemblies will be seen as the basis for the attrition of the powers of local government; that rather than decentralising from Whitehall they will arrogate to themselves the powers that exist at local level One reason why we succeeded in Wales, although by a narrow margin, in winning the referendum was that we allayed precisely those fears among local government networks that an elected, convincing assembly in Wales would not be a Trojan horse to deprive local government of its powers.
  It is interesting, listening to the debate in England, that the Bill eliminates one of the tensions that exists within new Labour. The tension between the desire to

  109
  decentralise and promote local innovation and flexibility on the one hand and on the other a desire to push through modernisation of public services, sometimes impatiently, through recentralising power, was well presented by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). That tension is right at the heart of the Bill.
  There is a new currency to the debate, because we are told that the new localism—to use that new shiny phrase—will be the theme of the Government's third term. We have had a speech from the Home Secretary, a pamphlet from the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, and in the last few days, speeches from the right hon. Members for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) and for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on the new localism. There is clearly a consensus that there is a strong case for devolution in the case of fire and rescue services. A fire authority that is accountable to its local community and has the power and resources to respond to local concerns is, in theory at least, likely to be more responsive than a fire service that is driven by central diktat.
  We have seen in the debate and in last year's measures, that there is an unresolved tension in Government policy. Last year, albeit with the sound and fury of the fire dispute in the background, we had the Fire Services Act 2003, which, for a period, centralised powers in terms of conditions and gave wide-ranging powers in relation to the use or disposal of property that are carried forward in this Bill. On the one hand we had a centralising measure; on the other hand, in the Local Government Act 2003, we repealed a provision of the Fire Services Act 1947 that required fire authorities to have the permission of the Secretary of State to close a fire station or to reduce the number of full-time firefighters.
  We saw that tension last year, we see it in the Bill and we have heard it in the debate tonight. The real question that needs to be answered is whether these measures will create a fire service that is more or less responsive to local need. Some of the reserve powers that the Minister has claimed will be used only in extremis are drafted very broadly, as has been said. Clause 22 allows the Secretary of State to require the authority to do something, to stop doing something or not to do something. That is certainly a first for me.
  I have never seen a clause drafted that widely. Perhaps the Minister can tell me what is the difference between stopping doing something and not doing something. The clause goes on to refer to the "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" of the fire and rescue authorities. Apparently, fire authorities could be required to close stations or to vary the numbers of staff in particular stations. Those are micro-level decisions about operational effectiveness. Other broad, centralising provisions include compelling a fire authority to use particular equipment and services. then making it pay for the privilege.
  Regionalisation has led to widespread concern not only in the Fire Brigades Union, but in the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, which states that more research is needed on regionalisation and argues that there is a lack of focus and detail as regards the timing of any future regionalisation, which deserves more scrutiny and clarity. That was echoed by the Local Government Association. I fear that this is another
  110
  kneejerk response to a complex problem. Restructuring is always a popular solution in government because formal structures are among the few things that politicians have direct control over and can change. Restructuring and institutional change is often presented as a straightforward solution to a complex problem, but we saw the problems that it created in Wales during the creation of the 22 new local health boards. The Haskins review of the rural agencies in England gave the same kind of simplistic response.
  Institutional restructuring is often a recipe for more organisational chaos or inertia: it seldom illustrates the real causes of poor performance. Public services are much better improved through incremental, adaptive change through interactive processes that directly involve practitioners, professionals and service users in shaping the end result, but the Government's proposals for the fire service were ill thought out and rushed through with little opportunity for practitioners to be involved in the process. That was partly because the FBU was alienated by Bain, which it saw as a fait accompli. As a result, one of the main institutional bodies in the fire service was not involved with the review that is the basis of the Government's proposals. Now, the FBU is asking the Government if, instead of rushing through these proposals, they will allow local pilots to take place to evaluate the results of different solutions more effectively and to establish best practice more incrementally.
  On pay and pensions, will the Minister confirm that it is intended fully to devolve the pay negotiation and pension elements of the Bill to the National Assembly for Wales? That would allow the Welsh Assembly Government to create under the Bill a separate negotiating body in Wales.
  That would be a departure from current practice. I am sure that the FBU in Wales would welcome it; my party certainly does. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the intention.
  On behalf of my colleagues in the Scottish National party, I want to draw attention to a few provisions on pay and pensions that affect Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that in clauses 33 to 35, which refer to the "Secretary of State", the provisions are devolved to the Scottish Executive? The Bill does not make that clear.
  The Secretary of State is required to report annually to Parliament on the national framework. Will the Minister confirm that the National Assembly for Wales will not be required to report to this place and that the debate on the Welsh national framework will happen where it should—in the Assembly?
  9 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham(Con): I declare my interests, although I am not sure how they are relevant to the debate.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) who speaks a great deal of sense. Although he is a nationalist, I am sure that he is also a Tory at heart because he shares many of our ideals. He was right to mention a perverse contradiction in Government policy. They promote localism, yet there is often a desire and a drive for increasing centralisation. In the context of the Bill, the

  111
  Minister has spoken of trying to centralise pay bargaining, yet in the health service, he is trying to move in the opposite direction.
  We have had a good debate, which gives me a chance to pay tribute to the Norfolk fire service. It does a superb job of serving the local community and its professionalism and commitment is unsurpassed. I have visited King's Lynn fire station on several occasions and I am always impressed by the professionalism of the men in Norfolk's fire service. We must not forget the retained service, because there are several retained fire stations in west Norfolk, including Terrington St. Clement, Great Massingham and the Dersingham-Sandringham station. There is an esprit de corps and camaraderie that one must witness to understand it fully.
  Many retained firefighters are former military men and women. They might take umbrage at some of the Minister's remarks about the fire service not being representative of society as a whole and his belief that we should embrace an agenda of inclusiveness and diversity. I do not especially want the fire service to be representative of society as a whole; I want it to sort out fires, save lives and rescue people from car accidents. My constituents want the same. They do not want the fire service to be used for social engineering and political correctness. Of course, it would be a good idea to get more blacks, Asians and women into the fire service, but surely what we need are dedicated and committed people. They will not be representative of society as a whole because the service is uniformed and people join it for special reasons: because they want to be part of a service that is dedicated and committed to the local community. Many will be former military people, and if we begin talking about quotas or going on about the diversity agenda, it will simply undermine morale in the fire service.
  Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to recruiting firemen—retained or otherwise—is that they should fit in with the existing fire team so that they do not present a threat when they deal with fires? Any other consideration of gender or political correctness must be thrown out of the window.
  Mr. Bellingham: I agree. If people have to deal with an appalling motor smash, for example on a motorway, and work as a team in the most impossible conditions, surely selection must be on merit alone.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is a fire service college at Moreton-in-Marsh and I have seen at first hand that when fire officers approach a difficult fire, in smoke-filled premises, with appalling visibility, each fire officer relies on the other absolutely for his life and to save lives. Recruitment must therefore be done on merit so that the best and most suitable person for the job is appointed.
  Mr. Bellingham: That is my philosophy and that of the Opposition. Unfortunately, however, it is not the philosophy of the Government, who are obsessed with social engineering and political correctness.
  Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: No, I must press on because other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken for a long time.
  112
  There are some plus points in the Bill. There is a need for change and for more emphasis on prevention, as the Bain report outlined. Furthermore, I entirely accept that terrorism does not respect county boundaries. I am pleased to see in the Bill the emphasis on smoke alarms. I did not know the statistics until the Minister pointed out that 24 per cent. of households do not have such alarms, and that, if they did, 150 more lives would be saved. That is of interest to me because I represent an ageing community, and elderly people are more vulnerable to house fires than younger people. Having smoke alarms fitted is absolutely vital. I was not a Member of Parliament when the former hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, Michael Colvin, and his wife were tragically killed when their house in Hampshire burned down, but I understand that that could have been prevented if a smoke alarm had been fitted. I think that that incident brought home to everyone in the House the crucial need to have these devices fitted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a very good speech, in which he flagged up a number of important points. I hope that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) will comment on them when he winds up the debate. My hon. Friend mentioned the overstretch in the armed forces and the fact that the green goddesses are to be decommissioned in the near future. He also referred to the privatisation of the airfield support services through a private finance initiative scheme. He asked whether the military would be able to provide the necessary support to the Government if we had another dispute on the same scale as that of last winter, in the light of the changes that are to take place. I hope that the Minister will address that question.
  The Bill gives rise to other grave concerns. It is a centralising measure. under which the Government are going to grasp huge extra powers in relation to appointments and procurement, giving rise, as the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr pointed out, to an authority having the power to go into another authority's area, even though there might be a disagreement on the ground over whether it should be allowed in. The power will also be created to intervene in the management of a specific incident. The powers will be more far-reaching than those that were in place during world war two. The Bill contains a substantial centralising agenda, second only to its agenda of regionalisation. The sub-plot underlying the entire Bill is the move to regional structures.
  I also want to say something about control rooms. There has not been proper consultation on this matter. I have spoken on the telephone this morning to the assistant chief fire officer of the Norfolk fire service, as well as to a number of other fire officers. They were being very tactful and careful in what they were saying to me, but it was perfectly obvious that there had not been proper consultation. In Norfolk, 22 people work in the control room. The Minister said that there would be no disruption to such work, but that is nonsense. We are talking about 22 very hard-working men and women—professional fire officers—who are probably going to lose their jobs and who are very worried about their future. Of course that is a blow to morale.

  113
  Other significant problems will arise from the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out the challenge presented by multiple place names. A number of villages in Norfolk have very similar names to villages elsewhere in East Anglia—Aldborough, Hanworth and Grimston, for example. Local knowledge is therefore going to be very important. As the assistant chief fire officer pointed out to me, members of staff in the control room often start their career working on the appliances. They go to fires and get to know the communities intimately. They understand the challenges presented by particular villages, streets, trading estates or factories where there might be a fire risk.
  Those are the people who end up in the control room. submit that that local knowledge is vital in providing the professionalism and response that is needed.
  Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: No, there are many other Members who want to speak.
  I do not see how regional control rooms can replicate that local knowledge. We have heard the Minister talk about modern technology, but I am not yet convinced that modern technology will be any substitute for the local, intimate knowledge that such people have. What we are seeing is creeping regionalisation: first, in the control rooms; then in fire safety, risk procedures, training and procurement. It is ironic that just as integrated risk management planning is being introduced, and just as fire authorities are leaping free from one part of central control and being able to put in place local plans to fit that local agenda, they must embrace the regional agenda. All the progress being made in terms of advancing the local agenda will be subsumed under regionalisation.
  I therefore believe strongly that what we are seeing is an agenda to regionalise fire services. If we look at the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" we see that that must be the case, because the Government make it absolutely clear that they are talking about proposed UK fire authorities and regional management boards. I agree that some areas, such as anti-terrorism, contamination and airport security, require a greater degree of co-operation. What I suggest, however, is that we have a framework in which we keep in place the local structures but try to build critical mass in some areas of expertise. In that way, expertise can be shared across counties, as is already the case in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire and with several bi-service and tri-service projects. We must try to encourage local initiative, local pride and the ability to adapt to local needs, not an over-prescriptive approach.
  If we go down the regionalised route, we will see the end of local democracy in the county councils as we know it. We will see the end, for example, of Norfolk and Suffolk county councils. We will see much more power concentrated in the region, which will mean more bureaucracy, more cost, and less control given to local people. Ultimately, although the Government are rightly determined to save more lives, regionalisation is not the best way to go about it. That is why I shall support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's amendment.
  9.12 pm
  Angela Watkinson(Con): I shall make my speech much briefer than I had planned, in the hope that others will be able to speak.
  I want to comment on the Fire Services Act 2003 and its impact on the current situation. This Bill comes hot on the heels of that Act, which was passed as a result of the industrial dispute about pay. The result of that dispute was a pay award of 16 per cent. over three years, financed by savings. We should bear that phrase "financed by savings" in mind. Four per cent. was paid immediately, and 7 per cent. was promised last November. In fact, only 3.5 per cent. of that has been paid so far, and firefighters to whom I have spoken recently have no idea whatever when the rest of the pay award will be received.
  The Act also gave the Secretary of State powers over the conditions of service of fire brigade members, powers over the use or disposal of property—fire engines and fire stations—and unprecedented powers of intervention. It gave firefighters little or no more than a rise in line with that of blue-collar workers, excluding overtime, which they could have expected without a strike. The firefighters did not come out of it well at all. The aftermath of the strike, and what was seen by most firefighters as a highly unsatisfactory outcome, left morale at a low ebb. It is essential that this Bill be dealt with sensitively, and do nothing to harm the fragile process of restoring that morale, which is essential to the efficient operation of the fire service.
  Before the strike there were 40 applicants for every job, of which only four were suitable. If morale is not restored, the fire service could go the same way as teaching, the police service and nursing, with a gradual diminishing of the number of people who wish to pursue those careers.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) have referred to the need for more ethnic recruitment and for more women to go into the fire service. I know from my service on the Essex fire authority that there are some ethnic, cultural and religious groups to whom the fire service is not an attractive job; it does not appeal to them at all, partly because it involves getting dirty. I should like to make a plea that if there are to be more women in the fire service, they must be recruited to the same standard as everyone else. To sacrifice high standards on the altar of political correctness would be most inadvisable, because it is essential that every qualified firefighter have the appropriate strength and ability to do the job. Firefighers work in very close-knit groups—the watches—and each relies on the others in life-endangering situations. If one member of a watch did not have sufficient grip strength, for example, and could not hold on to someone in an emergency, the possible outcome is easy to understand. For that reason, the fire service needs a recruitment policy that is open to anyone who can meet those standards, and whether applicants are of a certain gender or ethnic group should be irrelevant; it is attracting recruits of the right quality that is important.
  The Local Government Association—a body with which I do not always see eye to eye—has stated that collaboration should be voluntary, not compulsory, that fire authorities must be able to maintain control of

  115
  local services and that the additional costs of regional arrangements need to be considered, as they will be borne across the whole fire modernisation programme. The arguments against regionalisation have been well rehearsed in the debate, so I will not add to them now, but I should like to ask about the relatively new additional responsibility for fire services: dealing with terrorist threats. One has only to recall the role of the New York fire department in dealing with the terrorist attacks on the twin towers to know how important that is, and there is a clear need for strategic planning in unprecedented emergencies such as that. For that reason alone, I can understand the benefits of regionalisation, but not for the whole spectrum of duties that fire services undertake.
  I should like to ask the Minister to throw some light on the cost of new dimension training—for example, for massive decontamination incidents, where firefighters could be on continuous duty for days at a time. That will have considerable cost complications. Where will the funding for such specialist training come from?
  Part 3 has caused most alarm to serving firefighters in relation to setting up the national framework, the draft of which was published on 11 December last year and replaces national standards of cover for fire risk. Following the integrated risk management review, standards should be set according to local knowledge and circumstances. However, given the recent history of industrial disputes in the service, firefighters are concerned that that review will result in a reduction in the level of service either by station closures or by the removal of fire engines—and, therefore, in an inevitable increase in response times, which could cost lives. Would it not have been wiser to pilot a service based on integrated risk management in certain areas first, and to assess the results carefully before introducing a blanket policy? The effect of such a change is bound to differ between rural and metropolitan fire authorities, and between those that are efficient and those that are less so. I hope that that point will be picked up and examined closely in Committee.
  Firefighting is not just a job; it is not done solely for the money. There are many easier ways of earning an equivalent income without involvement in life-endangering situations. During the last strike, which caused considerable hardship to those taking part, it was clear that firefighters felt that the Government, if not the general public, undervalued them. The whole exercise was hugely damaging to internal relations in the fire service and the public it serves. The changes proposed in the Bill—they will become law because the Government have a large majority—must be consulted on in a genuine and meaningful way. I hope that any objections will be given a fair hearing and that amendments will be considered, so that the good will among serving firefighters, which was holed below the waterline last year, can continue its tentative recovery.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire(Con): No one can seriously be against the modernisation, rationalisation and restructuring of the fire service, when nothing has been done to it since the Fire Services Act 1947, and we now live in a very different world to that in which we—
  116
  or at least, some of us—found ourselves in that year. The threat of global terrorism is relatively new to us. Some hon. Members pointed out in the debate on the Civil Contingencies Bill last week that not enough had been done about that, so how can the same people stand in their places tonight and fail to say that something should be done quickly about that problem by means of this Bill, too?
  The Bain report suggested that we were talking about a new approach by the fire services to reduce the number of fires and save more lives. As far as it goes, that is good, and the whole House would support it. I do not have time to pray in aid the comments made about the Bain report and the White Paper, but they do not entirely support everything that appears in the Bill.
  The Minister will not be surprised to hear—he and I have discussed it across the Chamber many times before, and no doubt will again—that my main concerns are centred on regionalisation and its impact on a rural community such as the one where I live in Devon. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) that a rational case can be made for regional control of some sort in respect of a national emergency. However, in respect of the day-to-day running of fire services throughout the country, I see no need to use the fire services to fulfil part of the Deputy Prime Minister's dream of carving the country up into nine administrative regions.
  People, particularly people in the west country, are concerned that all the talk of rationalisation and regionalisation is a cover to make up for the vast amounts of money that the Government have had to pay out as a result of the fire dispute last year. I am particularly concerned about something that the Minister said about the question of accountability. which other Labour Members also spoke about this afternoon. Local accountability is something that people in remote areas are particularly keen on. I do not subscribe to the view that taking firefighters—in Devon's case, retained firefighters—away from their local communities and having one large administrative centre covering an area from the Isles of Scilly to Gloucester does not involve some loss.
  I spent some time recently at the headquarters of the Devon fire and rescue service, met chief fire officer Paul Young and his excellent team, and saw at first hand how the operations room works. I saw how they could pinpoint the location of a fire within seconds. No village name needed repeating, because the drivers knew exactly where the village was. They also had the mechanisms to tell the drivers exactly what sort of fire it was. While I was in the control room, a fire broke out in a timber yard, so they knew what vehicles and equipment to dispatch to it. There might have been inflammable liquid of some sort of ammunition there. The retained firemen had that sort of local knowledge.
  I question whether such knowledge could be preserved if the area covered by the firemen were extended.
  It is feared that more than 160 fire service jobs could be lost. According to the Western Morning News last week, when challenged about the issue a spokesman for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said:
  "We are encouraging fire authorities to redeploy staff into other roles. We want to emphasise fire prevention, educating more vulnerable people in the community into the dangers of fire, and how to prevent them happening."

  117
  The spokesman was also quoted as saying—this is rather more worrying—that
  "local knowledge was no longer relevant to the job".
  He said:
  "The world is not that local any more and the technology exists to find callers even if they don't give their position."
  I question whether that is true in an area such as Devon, where there is rural population sparsity. I also agree with the county council network of chief fire officers, which states:
  "Simply stating that a Fire Authority which has fewer than 700 people is inefficient without supplying any argument to support this, verges finely between simplistic and arrogant. We can easily furnish evidence that smaller Authorities, many of which are linked to County Councils, outperform much larger fire brigades, frequently at a lower expense.
  The Minister will know of the good work done by the Devon fire authority, and what it has achieved so far. The total number of fires is decreasing, with an expected year-end result of 55.2 per 10,000 of population. That is a decrease of 9 per cent. on 1999–2000, and is well below the national average in that year. The number of primary fires—those involving damage to property—is also decreasing. The number of accidental dwelling fires is falling, and the number of malicious false alarm calls has steadily decreased. All those are good stories from a fire authority that knows the county in which it operates.
  There is a feeling in our part of the world that we are always at the losing end. We have a feeling that, unfairly, too many of our post offices are being closed. We have a feeling that our pubs are closing, even if they are not closing in great numbers. We have a feeling that our magistrates courts are closing, and that we have lost local connections as a result. Now we are being told that we may lose the local accountability of our fire service, which is to go to a wider region. That, too, is questionable.
  Devon fire and rescue service claims that the
  "reality of savings in rural communities is doubtful".
  Additional complications are involved in the delivery of a modernisation agenda in an authority like Devon, as a significant number of retained firefighters operate there. Nothing in the Bill so far deals with such concerns.
  Another result of the Bill will be—as we have heard—a far greater concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. There is a contradiction here. While arguing that they are providing more accountability as part of their regional and localised programmes and ceding power to the new regional assemblies, the Government are taking power back to the centre, giving the Secretary of State powers that he has never enjoyed hitherto.
  There is a further point, about the budgets. I understand that on Friday the Minister sent a letter to the fire authorities, saying that he envisaged budget increases in single low figures in the next financial year. The Devon fire authority thinks that he meant about 5 per cent., but has endorsed a 16 per cent. pay deal over a period of about 18 months. Where does that leave us in Devon? We are left with a pretty stark choice. A spending increase of 5 per cent. would already result in significant cuts, and the authority is convinced that the Government may intervene to cap any increase in excess of that.
  118
  In fairness to the Minister, I must say that the Bill contains much that is good, but it raises many questions that it does not answer.
  That will be the job of those of us who serve on the Committee. I support the reasoned amendment because I believe that the Bill does not go far enough or explain enough as it stands—and I look forward to the opportunity of going through it clause by clause at a later date.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Roger Williams(LD): I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister for being slightly late for the beginning of the debate. I was delayed by a small incident which, luckily enough, did not require the fire and rescue services. In the two minutes or so that I have available, I wish to touch on two issues: devolution; and the way in which fire services and ambulances may act as co-responders, especially in rural areas that feel vulnerable in the event of an emergency.
  We support the aspects of devolution and the processes for that in the Bill. I feel that the parliamentary draftsmen have found an elegant way to achieve that—there are several ways in which it can be done—because clause 59 says that a reference to the National Assembly for Wales should be inserted in the Bill where a reference to the Secretary of State is made in parts 1 to 6. However, part 4 relates to pay and conditions and will set up pay negotiating bodies. I had the impression that such matters would remain reserved, so I wonder whether clause 59 should refer to parts 1 to 3, 5 and 6. Perhaps the Minister will reply on that matter.
  I can best express my next point by referring to an incident that happened in Knighton, which is a remote rural part of my constituency. A gentleman collapsed on the pavement one night but was able to ring the emergency services. However, local general practitioners now provide no out-of-hours cover and the out-of-hours service operates from 20 or 30 miles away. Additionally, the local ambulance service was attending to another person in Hereford, which is 30 miles away, so there was no one to attend to the gentleman who could perhaps have saved his life. However, retained firemen were on standby in Knighton at the time, so if there had been a system of better understanding between the ambulance service and the fire and rescue service—especially one that covered defibrillators—the gentleman's life could have been saved. I hope that the regulations in the Bill will allow the National Assembly for Wales and the Secretary of State in England to find a solution to the problems that are faced especially by rural areas that feel vulnerable to such emergencies because they are without the cover of fire and rescue services or ambulances.
  I support the Bill, which will probably do more good for the fire and rescue services in Wales than for those in England.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown(Con): I am delighted to be able to wind up this important debate. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), my hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for North-West

  119
  Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and other hon. Members who paid tribute to their local fire services and the bravery and heroism of our firefighters throughout the country—we all owe them a debt of gratitude.
  There is much to welcome in the Bill. Many of the speeches in our good, hearty and well informed debate have paid tribute to the principle behind the Bill: to modernise the fire service in the wake of the Bain report of December 2002 and the fire strike of last year. There is clearly a need to enact more permanent legislation than the Fire Services Act 2003. We especially welcome the standardisation of communications, the provisions on pensions and the provisions on water supplies. We give a qualified welcome to the powers of entry in an emergency, because they should not be used in a draconian manner. We welcome the provisions on fire alarms and the pre-commencement consultation, provided that that is genuine.
  We can welcome the Bill's principle and various bits of its detail. However, I shall start with a question from Professor Ann R. Everton, who is a professor of law at the university of Central Lancashire and one of the most knowledgeable people in the country on fire law.
  She starts by saying:
  "Can so enormous a programme of reform ever be effectively pursued? More particularly, can it ever be effectively pursued at the rate at which it is currently being driven?"
  The Bill has been produced in an enormous amount of haste, without proper consultation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk told us how neither of their fire services was consulted on this huge change. If we are to introduce such a change, it is remiss of the Government not to consult the knowledgeable and longstanding chiefs of those important fire brigades properly.
  We would all say "Amen" to the prospect of reducing the 300 deaths a year and the 11,000 injuries that the Minister mentioned. That must be an overriding objective.
  Andrew Bennett rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was coming to the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to him and his Select Committee report. He will be interested to know that I will quote it because it makes interesting reading.
  Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: In a minute. First, I want to welcome some of what the hon. Gentleman had to say. On the composition and recruitment of the fire service, it is important to recruit as many retained firefighters as possible, especially in rural areas. His report makes useful recommendations on that. Much has been said about the make-up of those whom we recruit. In my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, I said—backed up, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—that it is important to have the most suitable person for the job. I accept that in some areas of the country that will involve different ethnic groups.
  120
  Although I would encourage the recruitment of women, having seen the job that firemen do in detail at the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-Marsh, I know how difficult and physically arduous it is. Trying to lift a hydraulic opener, which opens a vehicle's roof and windows to get people out of a car, is physically arduous. Going into a smoke-filled room and carrying out people who may be unconscious is difficult and arduous. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster was right to say that we need to recruit women and men on the same basis.
  Andrew Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman has read our report carefully, he will know that people have been proposing changes to, and the modernisation of, the fire service for more than 30 years, and nothing has happened. It is surprising that he now complains that change is being done in haste.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is clear from talking to a number of experts that the change has been done in haste. There have been many reports, studies and one thing and another, but they have not been implemented wisely. There is still plenty of scope to amend the Bill. There will be plenty of discussions in Committee to see how we can improve it. It is a bit like the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, however, because it has been introduced in haste.
  The hon. Gentleman did the House a great service in his report. To back up my argument that the Bill is being implemented in haste, the report says that the national framework, which the Government talk about, was implemented in far too much haste. In addition, the Government promised the £30 million supplement for the pay award more than a year ago, but it was only introduced in December. They promised the disciplinary regulations in December—the so-called grey book—but we still have not seen them. We would have been interested to see some of the secondary legislation that goes with the Bill, but there has been little of that. Those are good examples of how the Bill has been implemented in haste.
  There is a great deal of centralisation in the Bill. A cursory look at it reveals just how very centralising it is. Clause 10 concerns
  "Directions relating to particular fires and emergences";
  clause 13 is entitled "Reinforcement schemes"; clause 17 is on
  "Directions as to arrangements under section 16";
  clause 22 is headed
  "Intervention by Secretary of State".
  Although I quoted clause 22 in an intervention, I shall do so again. Anybody who doubts that this is a centralising Bill need only look at clause 22; it is the best example of the legislation's centralising nature. It states:
  "For the purpose of securing that the authority acts in accordance with the Framework the Secretary of State may by order require the authority—
  then we have these three marvellous conditions—

  (a) to do something;

  (b) to stop doing something;

  (c) not to do something."

  I wonder sometimes why we pay parliamentary draftsmen huge salaries. Many of us could have drafted a better clause. Effectively, the clause states that the

  121
  onerous framework can be implemented at the whim of a Secretary of State. Under clause 23, that will be tested by the best value regime.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal raised the issue of regionalisation in his very powerful speech. I shall not be able to go through it in detail because it was quite long, and time is limited. We know that it is the Government's intention that there should be nine national fire centres by 2007. I thought that the Minister was dissembling to my right hon. Friend, who asked whether there were powers in the Bill to create an eastern region fire service, resulting in his Suffolk fire service ceasing to exist. The Minister said that the Government have no intention of doing that but that there will be a regional management board. If that is not dissembling, I do not know what is. Such a board will threaten my right hon. Friend's Suffolk fire station.
  I represent the Fire Service College in Moreton-in Marsh. Clause 30 states that a central training institution may be established. Will the Minister confirm that that institution will be the Fire Service College in my constituency? I shall be seeking—I wish
  that he would listen to what I have to say—an Adjournment debate on the college because things are not going very well there. There has been no permanent chief executive for the past year, and the college is likely to make a loss for the second year running. It cannot continue while running at a loss. Since the last chief executive prematurely retired, before which the college made a profit, things have not been going well. I should like the Minister's assurance that—perhaps in a separate debate—we will be able to examine those matters in greater detail.
  The tension between localism and regionalism was expertly expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. Under a county council structure, fire services are democratically accountable locally and they know the rural areas that they cover. Many hon. Members have quoted the figures on page 32 of the Select Committee report. If one examines them carefully, one sees that the column starts with London, where of course costs are likely to be low, and ends with the whole of the Isle of Wight, where of course costs are likely to be higher. Costs rise as one goes down the table because the areas are more rural. People like their local structures and fire services.
  What a waste of the £3.6 billion that has been spent on a tri-service call centre in Gloucestershire, given that it is to be altered or abolished. [Interruption.] If the Minister, who is chuntering, is to abolish or alter that centre, will he find the funds for a regional call centre?
  The Government's dream is regionalisation— everything has to be regionalised: housing, planning and now the fire service—regionalisation, so that people can sit in an office many miles away, not understanding the problems in the local area. Will that make a better service? I doubt it. Professor Everton is right to say that we should make haste slowly. I urge the Government to consider carefully what they are doing. If they do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, we will turn an excellent service into one that is far more difficult to operate, as has happened to many of the other public services that have had legislation visited on them by this Government. I say to the Government in the Latin, "Festina lente"—make haste slowly
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I shall endeavour to deal with the points raised in this important and good debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Before responding to some of them, I will remind the House why a new approach to a modern fire and rescue service is required.
  Despite the high standards of performance of our fire service and the dedication and bravery of our firefighters in responding to fires, too many lives are still being lost, especially among the most vulnerable in our society. Although raising awareness of fire safety has made a difference, 357 deaths and 11,000 injuries occurred in 2002 alone.
  The independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain called for a new risk-based and preventive approach. We responded to that report with our White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service", which was published last summer and which set out our vision of a modern fire and rescue service—a service that will save more lives and create safer communities; that is proactive in preventing fires and other risks alongside performing its traditional firefighting role; that is committed to change and will adapt to changing circumstances, such as the new threat from terrorism; that is well managed and effective with institutions that support its role and purpose; and that supports the Government's wider social agenda.
  The report of the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) broadly welcomed the Bill and its reforms. Despite some reservations, during today's debate a broad consensus supporting the thrust of the Bill has been expressed on both sides of the House. It is a shame that Opposition Members do not feel that they can vote for the Bill as well as speak in support of it in the Chamber.
  One of the first and major accusations that the Opposition have levelled is that the Bill is too centralist. It will put our new national fire framework on to a statutory footing: that responds directly to Sir George Bain's observation that for too long successive Governments had not provided the service with the correct strategic direction. That is precisely the point that we have tried to address. The national framework represents a contract between the Government and the service, for the first time setting out our requirements, what authorities should do to meet those requirements and the support with which we shall provide them. At the start of the debate, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked when we would introduce the new discipline regulations—a small but crucial point. That was one of the undertakings in the national framework. We shall publish the regulations in early spring—on target.
  The national framework focuses strongly on working in partnership. We are anxious to hear the views of all concerned on the draft framework as we proceed with the consultation process. Let me be clear: the framework is not about being prescriptive or dictating to authorities how they should run their service. It is neither centralist nor interventionist.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) complained about the powers that can be used to intervene if that is needed. My right hon. Friend the

  123
  Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire emphasised that those would be reserve powers, to be used as and when needed. It is important that public authorities meet the expectations set out in the framework, because failure to do so might have an impact on national strategies to deliver essential emergency response services. The Bill therefore rightly includes provisions that allow for such intervention where authorities are clearly failing, but I assure the House that those intervention powers are very much a last resort. We are working with local authorities to ensure that we can overcome any barriers to meeting the expectations, and of course we will have regard to the intervention protocol that we agreed with the Local Government Association when considering how best to address poor performance.
  A second theme embraced by Opposition Members is the fact that the Bill would lead to major regionalisation. That appears to be their new béte noire or paranoia. It used to be Europe—mention that and everyone would jump up like puppets on a string. Now the word "regionalisation" has exactly the same impact. I was pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for South Dorset (Jim Knight) supported an appropriate level of regionalisation for the fire services, as indeed did the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) in some of her remarks. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), as well as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), were against the concept of regionalisation. The hon. Member for Kingston and
  Surbiton sat on the fence—the Liberal Democrats are very much in favour of a regional approach to policy, but they decide not to support it when it matters.
  To make it clear, we are not regionalising the service, except in areas where voters themselves choose to have an elected regional assembly. The Opposition oppose the referendums, and are no doubt campaigning against those regional bodies. We have spelt out very clearly—I refer Opposition Members to page 31 of the White Paper—that there are national, regional and local functions and responsibilities to be delivered by the fire services at different levels. The hon. Member for Cotswold said that regional management boards were a form of regionalisation. We said that they were not—they would be introduced in areas that do not have elected regional assemblies. He called that dissembling, but it is not, because in the national framework we spell out in words of one syllable the functions of regional management boards. My right hon. Friend intervened on him to make that point, yet still he said that there would be regionalisation in areas, even though that is clearly not the case.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman sets great store by the regional management boards, but the Secretary of State has reserve power to elect 49 per cent. of the members of those boards. If the hon. Gentleman
  124
  genuinely wants those boards to work properly and democratically, why are they not properly elected full stop?
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that if they were directly elected he would support them, which sounds like a bid for an elected regional assembly in the south-west. If he wishes to campaign on those grounds, I urge him to travel to Newcastle, Manchester and Yorkshire to press his case.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister has carefully ignored the principal point made by most Members who spoke about regional management boards. It is simply not appropriate for the boundaries governing the organisation of the fire and rescue services to be the same as the boundaries of the Government offices for the regions. He has not addressed that point at all.
  Phil Hope: I was going to come to that. I find it entertaining that Opposition Members, who have lost the argument about whether we should have a regional structure and what should happen afterwards, should divert the argument into a big debate about boundaries. The Liberal Democrats usually pursue such causes. If in doubt, we have been told, we should have a review and kick the problem into the long grass. On the one hand, we are told to get on with the job, but on the other to hold a review to stop that. We simply will not accept such advice. The Bill also makes provision, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) pointed out, for the devolution of fire services to the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Executive, which is an important step in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman is right that fire services in Wales will be much better off as a result of devolution to the Welsh authorities.
  The unacceptability of regional control rooms was a subsection of the Opposition's argument on regionalisation. Those control rooms were introduced as a result of the Bain review, which was followed up by the Mott MacDonald review. They made it quite clear that the cost of regional control rooms and their efficiency and effectiveness far outweighed the drawbacks that Opposition Members talked about. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made an important point about shared and tri-service control rooms, particularly in his constituency and region. I accept those difficulties, but the concept of national resilience against the threat of global terrorism, which the hon. Member for East Devon discussed, was not identified as a priority when the proposal for shared control rooms was introduced. We need to make sure that we get benefits from regional control rooms, and we want to incorporate best practice.
  Again, I refer to the draft fire and rescue national framework, in which we say:
  "The Government accepts the conclusions of the research done by Mott MacDonald that improvements in control room efficiency should be achieved by amalgamating fire control rooms".
  However, we go on to say that we will
  "seek to build on the lessons of the three existing shared control rooms and integrate them as far as possible into the new system."
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset also raised a concern about regional control rooms, and his particular point is whether we will have the necessary

  125
  technology. I assure him that the Government will support and fund the development of those regional control rooms to ensure that they have the most modern communications technology. The regional management boards in those areas will develop common procedures to deal with the issues that he discussed.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk claimed that local knowledge is an important feature of their local control rooms, but we expect global positioning systems and other uses of new technology to deal directly with the problems that they have identified.
  Resilience is a key function of regional work for the fire service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the question of when we might intervene if the quality of service were not sufficient. It would not be practical to put a definitive list of emergencies in the Bill, and if we were to do so we could run the risk of not covering all possible threats. By taking a power to create new duties by order, we retain the ability to respond to changing events. On that issue, the hon. Member for Upminster made a point about cost. I assure her that the Government are meeting in full the cost of equipment for the new dimension of fighting terrorism and that every firefighter will receive basic training to operate that equipment. We are investing some £188 million over the next two years to achieve that outcome.
  Prevention was the issue that caused hon. Members most concern, and I am pleased to say that every hon. Member spoke in favour of the measures to promote fire safety. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who gave some good examples of the tragedies that can occur when we fail to prevent fires, emphasised that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the importance of education in schools and work with young people. Those hon. Members were right to make these points.
  Some hon. Members raised particular issues about sprinklers. We recognise that sprinklers have a part to play in fire safety, but we have undertaken extensive research on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers, which indicates that sprinklers are not cost-effective for universal installation in residential dwellings. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said that that would not be the right direction to move in, but that we might want to target the use of sprinklers where people are most vulnerable, such as homes for children and for the elderly. Houses in multiple occupation, which carry a high risk, were also mentioned.
  I regret that, in the time available, I cannot cover all the points about pensions, although I must say to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire that pensions are a reserved matter. The Welsh Assembly will be able to make regulations, but it will not be able to influence primary legislation.
  In conclusion, a year ago the independent review of the fire service set out a challenging agenda to create a modern fire and rescue service, and the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" responded to that
  126
  challenge. It sets out the Government's vision for a service that is better able to meet the challenges of the 21st century and recognises the service's current role in dealing with incidents such as road traffic accidents alongside its traditional firefighting role.
  The Bill will ensure that the service plays an effective part in national and regional resilience to terrorism and other serious emergencies, and it will put fire prevention and safety at the heart of the fire and rescue service. The Bill will create a service that helps to save more lives by protecting the public and creating safer communities. That is why it should get a Second Reading, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164. Noes 344.

  Division No. 37

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Amess, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Goodman, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Bacon, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Baker, Norman

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Barker, Gregory

  Greenway, John

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Gummer, rh John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Surrey)

  Hendry, Charles

  Brady, Graham

  Hermon, Lady

  Brazier, Julian

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Breed, Colin

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Holmes, Paul

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Burnett, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burnside, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cameron, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Fife)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Cash, William

  Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chope, Christopher

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clappison, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lamb, Norman

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lansley, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Cotter, Brian

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Howden)

  Lidington, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Loughton, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Fabricant, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fallon, Michael

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Maclean, rh David

  Westminster)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Flight, Howard

  Maples, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Forth, rh Eric

  Mercer. Patrick

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Garnier, Edward

  Coldfield)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Moore, Michael

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  127

  Norman, Archie

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Page, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Randall, John

  Teather, Sarah

  Redwood, rh John

  Tredinnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walter, Robert

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Whittingdale, John

  Sayeed,jonathan

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Selous, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Shepherd, rh Mrs Gillian

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wilshire, David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

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

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Kincardine)

  (Macclesfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Hugh Robertson and

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Mark Francois

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Casale, Roger

  Darwen)

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Challen, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chaytor, David

  Baird, Vera

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Beard, Nigel

  Pentlands)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Chryston)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Blackman, Liz

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Borrow, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Cousins, Jim

  Wallsend)

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cummings, John

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burnham, Andy

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  128

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  David, Wayne

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, rh John

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Illsley, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Denham, rh John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Highgate)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jamieson, David

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Hatfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keeble. Ms Sally

  Fisher, Mark

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  & Rye)

  Lammy, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McDonnell, John

  Rhymney)

  MacDougall, John

  Healey, John

  McFall, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hendrick, Mark

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McKechin, Ann

  Heppell, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McNulty, Tony

  Heyes, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hinchliffe, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Hodge, Margaret

  McWilliam, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sefton E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Martlew, Eric

  Urmston)

  Michael, rh Alun

  129

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Miliband, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Moran, Margaret

  Finsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Lunesdale)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Southworth, Helen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Speller. rh John

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Squire, Rachel

  Naysmith, Dr, Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Lochaber)

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Owen, Albert

  Stringer, Graham

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pearson, Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound,Stephen

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell Paul

  Prescott, rh John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Dinefwr)

  Kemptown)

  Primarolo rh Dawn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purnell James

  Tynan Bill (Hamilton S)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Ward, Claire

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Bellshill)

  Watts, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Weir, Michael

  Anniesland)

  White Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry>

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooney, Terry

  William, Betty (Conwy)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wills, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  Winnick. David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  C)

  Chester)

  Wishart, Pete

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Woolas, Phil

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright Tony (Cannock)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wyatt Derek

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, rh Clare

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Gillian Merron

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES 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 Fire and Rescue Services Bill:

  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 2nd March 2004.

  3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Other proceedings
  7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Paul Clark.]
  Mr. Speaker: The Question is the Programme Motion. As many as are of that opinion, say aye.
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, no.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg(Con): No!
  Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) want Tellers?
  Mr. Hogg indicated dissent.
  Mr. Speaker: There has been some friendly persuasion. I declare the Division to be off.
  Question agreed to.

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

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and

  131

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment—[Paul Clark.]

  Question agreed to.

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

  PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER AGAINST POLLUTION
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12985/03, Directive on the protection of groundwater against pollution; and supports the Government's aim of negotiating a flexible, risk-based instrument, which takes account of the variability of groundwater and its uses, in accordance with the Government's policy of effective groundwater protection.—[Paul Clark.]
  Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEES

    CATERING
    Ordered,
    That Mr Simon Thomas be discharged from the Catering Committee and Pete Wishart be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Adam Price be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Hywel Williams be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    HOME AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Miss Ann Widdecombe be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr David Cameron be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    Telecommunications Masts
    10.19 pm
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Jim Dowd.
    Jim Dowd(Lab): Thank you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Jim Dowd: I have to admit that mentioning my name normally has the effect of making colleagues and comrades leave the Chamber.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to present the petition on behalf of my constituents and others. Without going into undue detail, I have raised the subject with Ministers, and had an Adjournment debate about it. It is a matter of grave concern to my constituents but it also has a wider resonance because it relates directly to the way in which mobile telephone systems are installed throughout the United Kingdom.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons,
    The Petition of Mr. Jeremy Newell, other residents of the Tewkesbury Lodge estate in Forest Hill, London SE23 and parents of children attending Horniman primary school in Forest Hill declares
    That we oppose the installation of the TETRA transmitter on the existing Horniman radio mast because of the possible risks unique to TETRA. We believe that it is an insensitive, inappropriate siting, being close to a school and in the middle of a residential area.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons will press Her Majesty's Government to recognise that, as it has been installed without any consultation whatsoever with either the school or the local residents, it should be removed.
    And your Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Railway Pedestrian Crossings
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Gillian Merron.]
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond(Con): I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to draw the House's attention to a problem that blights the lives of many people in southern England and to address an important safety issue.
  The specific issue that I want to consider is that of footpath level crossings on the railway. It has two distinct aspects: noise nuisance that is caused by the sounding of train horns and safety risk from trains, including electrocution in parts of the country that use a live rail.
  Hon. Members who represent seats in southern England will be familiar with the surge of complaints about disturbance from train horns, especially at night, that followed the introduction of the modern, sliding-electric-door trains on Connex, South Central and, in my constituency, South West, where the offending units are the class 458 trains.
  The new trains are most welcome in every respect except for their noisy horns. When the new classes of train were introduced, it became apparent that the horn, in the range of 115 to 125 dB, was many times more powerful than that of the old slam-door trains, which was typically in the range of 90 to 95 dB. By way of illustration, 90 dB is the equivalent of a lawnmower and 125 dB is that of a jet plane flying at 150 ft. Although they are required to have a 400 m forward range, reports confirm that the new horns can be heard two miles away in specific conditions.
  Railway safety rules operate on a type approval system. The old slam-door trains, which were designed in the 1950s and early 1960s, have been allowed to continue operating although their horn volume is considerably less than that under the current safety standards. The new trains comply with the standards that have been in force, but perhaps not in evidence, for many years.
  At the same time as the introduction of the new train types, the publicity surrounding the high profile rail accidents in the past few years and the consequent new focus on railway safety have clearly heightened driver awareness of and compliance with the rules on requirements to sound the horn. I am sure that greater awareness is partly the result of improved safety training by train operating companies, but it may also have something to do with the fact that modern trains have data loggers on board. In the event of an incident, they can confirm definitively whether the driver complied with the requisite safety requirements.
  The Rail Safety and Standards Board, which co-ordinates safety matters in the industry, has acted with commendable speed to try to tackle the problem.
  With effect from December last year, train drivers are no longer required to sound their horn when leaving a station over a level crossing. Nor are they now required to sound it when passing through a station where another train is stationary at the platform. Those two changes will reduce by a significant proportion the
  134
  nuisance that has been experienced, focusing the use of the horn back on to incidents in which drivers identify a particular danger.
  The Rail Safety and Standards Board expects, by June this year, to be able to scrap the rule that requires the horn to be sounded as a train enters a tunnel, and also when it leaves a tunnel during the night, although it will still be necessary to do so, for technical reasons, when leaving a tunnel during the day. That deals with two of the four main categories of situation in which horns are mandatorily sounded. The other two involve footpath level crossings and user-worked crossings—that is, private rights of way across the railway, with or without vehicles—and I make no apology for focusing on the former tonight, as that is the category that is causing the problems in my constituency and in the majority of others in which a problem persists.
  Of the 8,000 or so level crossings in the United Kingdom, 2,546 are footpath crossings. Perhaps rather alarmingly, while Network Rail and its predecessors have succeeded in closing a total of nearly 1,000 level crossings since 1991–92, during the same period the number of footpath crossings has risen by 240. Depressingly for me and my constituents, the regular bulletins from the Rail Safety and Standards Board—which wax lyrical on the progress being made in relation to trains moving away from stations and entering and leaving tunnels—have repeatedly had to report that little progress has been made on the issue of footpath crossings.
  The Health and Safety Executive sets the requirements for the placement of so-called whistle boards, which instruct a driver to sound the horn. The siting of these boards is based on the line speed and the forward visibility from a footpath crossing towards the direction of the train. Where a whistle board is deemed necessary according to those criteria, all trains are required to sound the horn on approach from either direction, day or night. It is a fact that, in urban areas, footpath crossings are often used late at night, sometimes by people who are not in a heightened state of alertness. In those circumstances, relaxation of the HSE standards does not seem to be a safe option.
  Having had my attention firmly focused on the issue of footpath crossings from the point of view of the noise disturbance being experienced in large parts of my constituency, I confess that I had come to think of the problem simply in those terms. I had begun to ignore the no less important issue of safety. That issue was brought firmly back on to my agenda in the most brutal way possible on 17 September last year, when Sophie Storey, aged 10, died 30 m up the line from a footpath crossing at Moore lane in Staines, after falling on the live rail.
  There are, therefore, two issues to be addressed: the elimination of the noise nuisance that blights the lives of tens of thousands of people across southern England, which is a relatively new phenomenon; and the reduction of the risk to pedestrians—a long-standing problem, particularly among children—who are using, or misusing, railway footpath level crossings. The obvious and simplistic answer would be simply to close the crossings. Network Rail and its predecessor organisations have long had a policy of trying to eliminate footpath level crossings wherever possible, both to improve safety and to reduce the significant burden of maintaining the crossings in a safe condition.

  135
  Unfortunately, from Network Rail's point of view, railway footpath crossings enjoy the same rights as the rest of the footpath network and can be closed only after what is often a lengthy public inquiry process. The closure orders involved almost invariably attract opposition from users and, in particular, from the Ramblers Association. As a regular footpath walker myself, I fully understand the association's instinct to resist their closure. I wonder, however, whether a more discerning approach could be developed.
  Railway footpath crossings appear to fall into three categories: those in rural areas—probably the majority—where noise nuisance is probably minimal and the status quo is probably acceptable; those in urban or suburban areas which are little used, where, I would suggest, closure should be explored as the preferred option; and those in urban and suburban areas where the level of usage clearly indicates that they are an important local facility that cannot be closed.
  My principal purpose tonight is to raise this issue and bring it to the attention of the House and the Government. However, I also want to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. First, will his Department support an urgent review of all railway footpath level crossings where whistle boards are currently established, starting in the areas where the new trains have been introduced, to establish the numbers falling into each of those categories and, thus, the extent of the problem? Unfortunately, the Network Rail database does not identify the demographic context of individual crossings at present.
  Secondly, will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility of the development of an accelerated process for the closure of footpaths that are demonstrated to have low-level usage in urban areas? In some cases, I understand that objections have been lodged and pursued vigorously to closures of footpaths that would involve a diversion of only 100 m or so to allow the railway to be crossed at another point. The risk to life and the constant nuisance and sleep deprivation from train horn noise surely cannot be justified by such a minor inconvenience for such a small number of users. A proper balance must be struck.
  Thirdly, on the relatively small number, I hope, of high-usage crossings in urban areas, the traditional response to replacement of footpath level crossings has been grade-separated crossings—bridges or tunnels to you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, those are phenomenally expensive and often unsightly. There are one or two practical issues, however, which the Minister might be able to address. At present, if Network Rail proposes to replace a footpath crossing that is accessed by a stile with a bridge, the bridge is required to be fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, complete with ramps and all the other facilities to ensure wheelchair and other disabled access. It seems to me slightly absurd that if the track operator wants to replace a dangerous and non-wheelchair-accessible level crossing with a safer bridge, the bridge must be provided with full disabled access. The consequence, of course, is that the bridge, in almost all cases, does not get built. Is there any possibility of creating an exemption to the requirement for full
  136
  disabled access where the facility is simply a safer replacement for an existing non-compliant crossing? Can the Minister discuss that with colleagues in other relevant Departments?
  Even if less elaborate bridge crossings are to be permitted by such an exemption, and even when planning consent for them can be obtained, which is not always easy, there will be significant financial implications. I therefore ask the Minister whether there is a possibility of additional financial support being made available for replacements of footpath level crossings with bridges where train horn noise is a particularly acute nuisance. To save time, however, I will anticipate a negative answer and move on to my next point.
  Perhaps the logical next course is to look for more innovative potential solutions. The Rail Safety and Standards Board is about to conduct a test on the south coast using a Japanese device, a broadband frequency horn, which apparently allows the horn to sound at different frequencies in an attempt to narrow the spread of sound. Some research is already under way examining the optimum location of the horn on the train to maximise the forward profile of the noise footprint and minimise the spillage, which causes most of the nuisance to residential properties. I understand that other tests are about to take place using train-activated trackside horns—a horn that is located on the crossing but activated by the approaching train. Clearly, because the horn is on the crossing itself, it does not have to be of the same loud volume as one that is train-mounted. Such a system can be supplemented by sensors on the crossing to detect the presence of pedestrians.
  Even those measures, however, will have significant cost implications at a time when the railways are under financial pressure. I understand how difficult that makes any of these suggestions for Network Rail, the train operating companies and the Minister. I urge him, however, to take this problem seriously. The railways are a part of our communities. We all want rail to make a greater contribution to the total transport solution, but the inconvenience being caused to large numbers of my constituents and others across the south of England is creating hostility to the idea of any expansion of services on the rail network.
  Additional services produce more horn noise disturbance. Part of the line through Virginia Water and Egham—a particular source of the problem in my constituency—could become part of the route of the proposed Airtrack south-western rail approach to Heathrow. I should very much like that infrastructure development to go ahead, and I expect that the Minister would too; but, if he wants the support of those in the local community, we must ensure that the burden that the railway imposes on them is reduced to an acceptable level.
  What is clear is that the railway must act as part of the community. Too often in the past, the railway's attitude has been rather disdainful of the wider community issues. The railway has to modify its procedures to make it an acceptable neighbour. Health and safety at work legislation also imposes a duty of care to the public, and the recent Heathrow night flights ruling has established that human rights legislation can bear on issues that relate to sleep deprivation, and when train horn volumes are equivalent to a low-flying jet plane, there is clearly a

  137
  direct read-across. I want the railway and the community that it serves to operate in harmony, but that will require an urgent resolution to the intolerable burden that train horn noise at footpath level crossings currently imposes on my constituents and others.
  In summary, major steps have already been taken in relation to trains moving away from stations and trains passing through tunnels, but the noise problem generated by footpath level crossings will be more difficult to address. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the Government are aware of not only the problem and the extreme misery that it causes to tens of thousands of people across southern England, but the animosity that the problem creates towards further expansion in the use of the rail network. It is in all our interest that we find a solution that eliminates the noise nuisance for as many communities as possible, as quickly as possible, and that addresses the very real safety risks by closing those railway footpath crossings that are not sufficiently used to justify the risk and burden that they place on the community.
  10.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on securing this debate and on the way in which he has raised these serious issues, which are clearly of concern not only to many of his constituents, but, as he said, to many other people in the south of England and beyond. I shall discuss footpaths in general, and then noise and safety, in turn.
  First, on train horn standards, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Rail Safety and Standards Board is currently undertaking a review of the problem caused by noise from train horns to those who live near railways. I am sorry if the RSSB's constant updates, glossy or otherwise, sent to him and to his colleagues talk at length about what the board may or may not do about some of the issues that he has raised—but he has already generously agreed that some progress has been made. The review is considering whether changes can be made to the requirements that apply to pedestrian crossings without increasing the safety risks.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which the issues have been raised, because he clearly recognises that there is a balance between access and safety—both matters of real concern. The review is considering whether there is scope to deal with a sequence of crossings close together with one use of the horn, the types of horn fitted to current rolling stock, and how to work closely with local authorities to find out where alternatives to level crossings or footpaths across railway tracks can be introduced.
  The hon. Gentleman has already alluded to the fact that the review is considering the existing requirement to sound horns at level crossings, at the entrances and exits of tunnels, and at some railway stations. The review is also considering research into the possibility of alternative technology for providing warnings, which will minimise disturbance to those living alongside or near railway lines. However, the hon. Gentleman also alluded to the fact that any retro-fitting of rolling stock or providing new systems to give warnings will have clear cost implications that have to be considered against other safety priorities for the railway network.
  138
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the efforts that the RSSB and the industry have made to address the concerns raised by line-side residents.
  As has been said, the RSSB has already made some progress in respect of the sounding of horns at level crossings and at a station. I understand that it is also to consult on the requirement for train drivers to sound horns when entering or leaving tunnels. Some degree of progress has been made and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will try to ascertain in more detail where we are with regard to the two areas that he mentioned. If he will forgive me, I will write to him about them.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister said that if the new technology of train horns and trackside horns proved viable there would still be considerable cost implications, which would have to be measured against other safety priorities for the railway. However, does he recognise that this is not just a safety issue? It is about many people across quite a large footprint of southern England suffering from sleep deprivation.
  Mr. McNulty: I accept that, which is why the problem must be seen in the totality—if I may use the word—in the sense that, alongside the requirements on horn sounding, Network Rail is also developing, for example, new crossing equipment. Approval has been given by the safety review group for the installation and shadow trials of new equipment designed to provide audiovisual warnings at certain types of level crossing, which may eventually apply to foot crossings. Those trials start in April 2004. It is also a question, as the hon. Gentleman said, of what is done at the crossing and how it may mitigate the compulsion to sound the horn. The issue must be viewed in the totality: fitting or retrofitting equipment, and also the issue of resources. I shall ascertain what the RSSB says about those two aspects and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned safety, which is an important aspect of the difficulties caused at some crossings. The risk, particularly to children, of accidental contact with the live rail was tragically brought home by the death of 10-year-old Sophie Storey when she came into contact with the electrified conductor third rail near the Moor Lane footpath crossing. I understand that Sophie's mother has raised a petition relating to the safety of foot crossings; I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to her and her family. The hon. Gentleman will know that the circumstances of the incident are still under investigation by the coroner, the British Transport Police and the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate. The HSE is liaising closely with Network Rail about the issues that have been raised by its investigation, and is in contact with Sophie's parents.
  The design of the foot crossing at Moor Lane is similar to many others that are in place throughout Britain. It relies on the user going through a special gate known as a "kissing gate", which prevents them from walking across the infrastructure and ignoring the presence of a rail system. The pedestrian must then observe and listen for the approach of trains from both directions and cross when it is safe to do so. Judging the speed of trains is a skill quite different from judging road traffic speed. There are also signs that remind users not

  139
  to trespass, that identify the presence of an electrified conductor rail, and that warn users to stop, look and listen for the approach of trains.
  I am advised by the HSE that, broadly speaking, the risks of electrocution are usually extremely low. However, where there is a risk of electrocution, it is important to provide effective safeguards to prevent access to dangerous live equipment such as the railway's conductor rail power supply or third rail. Protection is generally provided by trespass guards formed of angled timber rails secured horizontally at ground level to make it difficult for a pedestrian to walk off the crossing and on to the railway. Signs are also provided and maintained to deter the public from wandering on to the railway, and to ensure that crossing users follow safety instructions properly.
  Mr. Hammond: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said I have looked at the signs at Moor Lane and I do not believe that there is anything out of the ordinary about them, but they are not terribly child-friendly. Given that many trespassers on the railways are likely to be children, could the Minister look further into the possibility of making the signs more child-oriented?
  Mr. McNulty: I shall return to that issue in a few moments.
  As I said before, where crossings are used solely by pedestrians, a balance has to be struck between the need to keep the crossing open to maintain links between local communities, and the need to close those that are used infrequently. I will happily take the hon. Gentleman's point into account and try to establish precisely what my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are doing about underused crossings. I would be pleased to pursue that issue with them.
  In general the HSE supports Network Rail's attempts to close footpath crossings, especially where alternative access routes can be provided.
  Network Rail is attempting to close pedestrian crossings on a progressive basis, but it is a costly and time-consuming exercise. Network Rail liaises with and consults local residents when it plans to close a crossing, but its proposals are nearly always opposed by local residents—who have become used to the convenience that they offer—and other interest groups such as the Ramblers Association. It is entirely their privilege to object in such a fashion, but I shall check with my colleagues to establish whether the process involved is appropriate.
  There are 8,188 level crossings on Network Rail's infrastructure—of which 2,546 are footpath crossings— representing a sizeable source of risk to pedestrian users, motorists and railway passengers. Network Rail calculates that level crossings account for approximately 23 per cent. of train accident risk. In 2002–03 13 people were killed using level crossings, including 11 pedestrians who were struck and killed while using the crossings. Crossings are, however. designed to ensure safety when they are used correctly. It is therefore essential that all users, including pedestrians, follow the instructions and signs provided to ensure safety. However, I will pursue with Network Rail the issue of child-related and child-sensitive signs.
  140
  Network Rail is responsible for maintaining the safe operation of its level crossings. It has a legal duty to prevent unauthorised access to the operational railway. It is committed to learning lessons from level crossing incidents and ensuring that recommendations are implemented at strategic, planning and operational levels. The HSE investigates serious incidents at level crossings, and keeps the safety standards under review. If necessary, it can legally require action to improve the protective arrangements at level crossings, depending on changes in the level or frequency of risk. It has encouraged Network Rail to reassess nationally all types of level crossing in the light of incidents that have occurred in past years.
  A national level crossings safety group has been formed by the HSE, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and Network Rail to formalise work on issues relating to level crossings. The group is beginning to engage with key stakeholders—for want of a better word—such as local highway authorities and other bodies with an interest in rail crossings. The group plans to extend and develop work with other stakeholders. Surrey county council and other local authorities can feed their concerns into the group through the RSSB, which provides the secretariat. If the council wants to contact me to ensue that the RSSB considers specific issues, I shall be more than happy at least to act as a conduit.
  Work is in progress to collect accurate information on the numbers and types of level crossings. Network Rail has publicly stated that it will maintain a list of crossings where opportunities for closure exist, and will liaise with landowners and stakeholders to pursue closure where it is feasible to do so.
  The HSE is monitoring the progress of Network Rail's strategy. It has started work to establish a database to record the numbers and types of crossing in the UK, and is developing a long-term strategy to review the appropriateness of level crossing types with a view to recommending improvements. I am sure that Network Rail, and the HSE and the RSSB, would endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the railways being part of wider communities rather than an imposition on those communities. Along with others in the Department, I shall keep a close eye on what Network Rail and the HSE are doing.
  It saddened me a little that the hon. Gentleman chose to pre-empt any inquiry to me by assuming a negative. It is a negative in terms of a specific response in relation to specific funds, but we are giving local authorities the money that they need—in a broader sense—to deliver better and safer facilities for pedestrians. We are investing locally on a scale not seen for many years. Last month I announced a £1.9 billion package of local transport investment for 2004–05, including over £13 million for small-scale transport improvements in Surrey. Surrey counts council will have the option to use part of that to deliver better, safer facilities for pedestrians, working with Network Rail and others. There is not always a single solution, but the hon. Gentleman may want to put that option to the council; it might prove appropriate where crossings need amelioration or modification.
  If he wants to talk further with me on that subject, or to bring Surrey county council in for a chat about the safety of specific rail crossings in his constituency or the

  141
  county, I shall be more than happy to consider that. We have no plans to set aside capital funding specifically for pedestrian rail crossings because only local authorities can, and should, decide how best to invest in safety in their areas. I am, however, more than happy to work with them and talk to them about that.
  I take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about whether the bridges that Network Rail replaces should be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Our starting premise is that they should be, and although I am happy to consider his point, I shall need
  142
  some persuading. The Department takes such matters seriously—they are serious in Runnymede and Weybridge and beyond.
  I conclude by once again congratulating the hon. Gentleman on raising such important matters, which go far beyond his constituency. I also congratulate him on the manner in which he raised the subject, and I shall be more than happy to pursue the matters that I promised faithfully that I would.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total population of badgers in the UK; and in which areas the population is greatest. [148650]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  English Nature advises that there are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain. This figure is derived from a National Badger Survey which took place in the mid-1990s.

  The survey also reported that there had been a 77 per cent. increase in badger numbers between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. The increasing number of applications received by Defra for licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (up 50 per cent. since 1999) suggest that this trend is continuing.

  Badgers densities are highest in the south-west of England, with high densities present throughout southern counties, the west midlands and Wales.

  The Department has been funding the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project which is being carried out by the Mammal Society and the British Trust for Ornithology. This is a pilot study intended to develop a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring system. The project is still at the pilot stage—but is intended in the future to provide valuable data on the abundance of mammal species, including badgers. Early findings confirm the pattern of distribution report in the National Badger Survey.

  Full details of the badger survey findings are published in: "Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" by G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren (1997), published by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (ISBN 1 85580 018 7).

  Results from the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project are available online at: http://www.bto.org/ survey/special/mammal_results.htm

  Birds of Prey
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of birds of prey eating and preying on other(a) birds, (b) mammals and (c) the food chain. [149443]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A Raptor Working Group was set up in 1995, jointly chaired by the DETR and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, following increasing concerns from grouse moor owners and racing pigeon fanciers over the impact of rising raptor populations on bird numbers. The recommendations from the Raptor Working Group's final report, published in 2000,2W
  provides the basis for and inform efforts to find an effective and acceptable solution to the problems caused by birds of prey.

  Work is now being taken forward by the country conservation agencies, and other organisations. In addition, English Nature has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Moorland Association on addressing the issue of raptor predation in the uplands.

  Implementation of the Working Group's report's recommendations in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved Administrations. A paper on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Raptor Working Group Report was presented to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and noted by them, in September 2003. The paper is now publicly available on their website at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/management/ committee/papers03–09/jnccO3N06.pdf

  Copies of the Raptor Working Group report are available from the Library of the House.

  Birds of prey are usually the top predators in their food chains. As with other predatory species, populations of birds of prey are normally heavily influenced by their prey populations rather than the other way around. The available evidence suggests that recovering populations of birds of prey are not responsible for recent declines in some songbirds and that other factors related to habitat change and the intensification of farming are mainly to blame. Although there is little specific information on the impact of birds of prey on mammal or other prey populations in the UK, the same general principle applies and population declines driven solely by predation are highly unlikely. Healthy bird of prey populations can exist only where their main prey species are sufficiently abundant.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether wild deer are responsible for the spread of TB to cattle. [148655]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In Great Britain, there is very limited evidence that deer have been responsible for transmitting tuberculosis to cattle. Wild deer in GB have generally been considered a sentinel or 'spill-over' host of infection in cattle and other wildlife, rather than the cause of it. Whether any wild deer populations (of any species) may constitute a reservoir of TB will depend upon the prevalence of TB, density and ecology of the hosts and the pathology that TB shows in those species.

  Defra has funded a survey of wildlife in the Southwest of England by the Central Science Laboratory. The first phase established whether Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis—the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) was present in a number of wild mammal species, including deer. M. bovis has been confirmed in five of the six established wild and feral species of deer in GB. The second phase of the survey (due to end March 2004) is to estimate prevalence of M. bovis in those species where it is found, by carrying out a more targeted and extensive sampling.
  3W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in cattle by 2008 if current measures are continued and there is no increase in activity by her Department; and what her projections are for costs of compensation for slaughter of cattle reactors in that period. [148657]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our latest assessment shows that bovine TB restrictions affected 5 per cent. of cattle herds (5,181 herds) in Great Britain at some point between January and November 2003. At any one point in time there are about 3 per cent. of herds under restriction.

  The average annual increase in the number of animals slaughtered as a result of TB control measures between 1990 and 2001 was 20 per cent. It is too early to say whether this long-term trend has been altered by the interruption of the testing programme due to Foot and Mouth disease in 2001, and the priority testing of high-risk herds once the programme resumed.

  In 2002/03 we paid out £31.1 million in TB compensation. With no new changes in policy, or disease dynamics, we could theoretically expect a 20 per cent. year on year increase in the compensation bill.

  However, the TB programme will not remain static over the next four years. We recently consulted on proposals to rationalise compensation arrangements for all notifiable diseases including bovine TB and we will shortly be consulting on proposals for a new TB strategy and options for controlling the geographical spread of the disease in the short term. The key challenge for Government and the farming industry will be to work together to reduce the overall economic impact of bovine TB.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much her Department spent on advertising in each year since its creation; [144885]

  (2) how much her Department spent on marketing in each year since its creation. [144887]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Department does not maintain separate records of its expenditure on advertising. The expenditure for publicity by Defra's Communications Directorate, includes marketing, advertising, publications, events, shows and direct information literature mailings, and is recorded for the financial years since Defra's creation in June 2001 as follows:

  £Million

  2001–02

  6.6

  2002–03

  4.7

  2003–04

  13.7

  1 Estimated.

  This includes communication on a very wide range of matters of interest, both necessary and beneficial to the
  4W
  public, the wide range of industries in which Defra has an interest, together with local government, voluntary organisations and other bodies.

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) process and (b) timescale is for reaching a final United Kingdom position on implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive. [150231]

  Alun Michael
  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. This will enable us to take a final decision on the right implementation approach for the UK in spring 2004.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding economic means to promote energy efficiency. [149747]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: The Department holds regular discussions with the Treasury at both official and ministerial level regarding fiscal instruments and how they can continue to be developed and employed to improve the energy efficiency of the economy.

  The Treasury and Defra published last year a joint consultation "Economic Instruments to improve household energy efficiency: consultation document on specific measures". The consultation closed on 24 October with over 80 responses, which are being actively considered to help inform policy development.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress towards the setting up of the National Fallen Stock Scheme, with particular reference to the financial structure of the company concerned. [150067]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: Good progress is being made in setting up the Scheme. The Company which will run the Scheme will be limited by guarantee and operate on a not for profit basis. Initially, it will be wholly government owned and obtain funding to carry out its functions from government aid and farmer subscriptions.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent on research into the development of selective fishing techniques in each of the last five financial years. [150308]
  5W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has spent the following amounts on research into the development of selective fishing techniques in each of the last five financial years:

  £

  2002–03

  320,305

  2001–02

  >211,930

  2000–01

  211,308

  1999–2000

  141,604

  1998–99

  >166,429

  Flooding
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of the Environment Agency in the planning process with regard to the building of houses on flood plains. [149921]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: The Environment Agency has the lead role in providing advice on flood issues both at a strategic level and in relation to planning applications as stated in Planning Policy Guidance on "Development and Flood Risk" (PPG25). The Agency works with local planning authorities to help ensure inappropriate development does not take place in the flood plain.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the minimum one-in-75 year flood standard issued by the Government. [148280]

  Margaret Beckett
  No such 'standard' has been issued by the Government. In project appraisal guidance the Department sets out a range of indicative standards depending on land use. For intensively developed urban areas, the indicative target range is from 1 in 50 to 1 in 200 for river floodplains and 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 for areas at risk of coastal flooding. It should be emphasised that many houses situated behind defences with a nominal standard of, say, 1 in 50, will individually have a risk of flooding that is significantly less than this.

  The project appraisal guidance will be subject to review and public consultation later this year but there are no current plans to change the range of indicative standards.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recent research by Dr. Charles M. Benbrook on the impact of GM crops on pesticide use in the United States. [149875]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) considered the report by Dr. Benbrook as part of its deliberations on the results of the Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials. ACRE'S advice on the FSE results was published on 13 January and we are now considering this.

  Snares
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what guidance is issued to gamekeepers and others involved in the setting of snares; [148451]

  (2)what checks are in place to ensure that the law is being enforced with respect to the setting of snares; [148452]

  (3)what obligation the United Kingdom has under the Berne Convention on conservation of European wildlife and their habitats with respect to snaring; [148453]

  (4)when she expects to publish the results of the review of the law relating to the use of snares; [148454]

  (5)what representations she has received about the illegal use of snares; and if she will make a statement. [148455]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 protects all wild birds and certain animals from killing and taking. Under Section 11 of the 1981 Act free running snares are permissible provided that the snare is not placed in such a way to allow injury to any animal listed on Schedule 6 of the 1981 Act, which includes badgers. Section 11(3) makes it an offence to set in position, or knowingly cause or permit to set in position, any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal. The snare must also be inspected at least once every 24 hours, so as to avoid any animal held in the snare suffering unnecessarily through starvation or dehydration. All non-target species must be released from the snare.

  Free-running snares are not considered an indiscriminate means of either capture or killing provided they are set correctly and are checked every 24 hours. They are designed to be a restraining device that is intended to slacken, not continually tighten, thus not causing bodily injury.

  The purpose of Section 11 is to expressly prohibit the use of indiscriminate means of capture and killing, in accordance with our international obligations, under the Bern Convention. Penalties for offences under Section 11, including not checking snares and not releasing non target species, include fines of up to £5000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to six months for each offence. The Police are the main authority for enforcing this area of legislation.

  The Department does not issue advice to gamekeepers on how snares should be set. However, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation has published a Code of Good Practice and the Game Conservancy Trust includes detailed guidance on best practice with all snares that they sell.

  It is considered that a complete ban on the use of snares might encourage the use of more dangerous, indiscriminate and illegal alternatives, such as poisons. We have no current plans to alter the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with regard to snares. It is important that until viable alternatives are available to land managers the humane use of traps and snares is improved. Officials have undertaken a stakeholder consultation to assess current practice; identify best

  7W
  practice and methods that cause concern; as well as request suggestions for the improvements of snare operation and any potential alternative methods. The consultation period ended on the 13 November. Officials will be collating the comments over the next few months. A copy of the pre-consultation paper can be found on the Defra website at http://defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/snares/letter.htm

  Officials received 101 responses to the stakeholder consultation.

  Sudden Oak Death
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to ensure that gardeners are aware of the(a) symptoms and (b) procedures for reporting cases of sudden oak death. [149114]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government believe that the public should have as much information as possible about Phytophthora ramorum, the disease known as sudden oak death in the USA. Information about the disease and how to report it is available on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/oak.htm. An explanatory leaflet and poster are also available and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. Officials are in regular contact with interested organisations, for example the Royal Horticultural Society and the Horticultural Trades Association, so that information about the disease, its symptoms and guidance on reporting any suspected cases of infection can be disseminated to their members. This information has also appeared in a number of recent press and magazine articles.

  Because the symptoms are difficult to distinguish from those caused by other pathogens, we are not relying on public awareness but are carrying out our own surveys of garden centres and nurseries in order to detect infected plants. Buyers of host species have been advised to check plants before purchase for symptoms of the disease and to contact their supplier if they subsequently develop.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many checks were carried out at ports of entry in order to prevent the import of plants infected with sudden oak death in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [149235]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra's plant quarantine surveillance programme is focused at nurseries, garden centres and other places where plants are received, rather than at ports of entry. Until May 2002 host plants of "P. ramorum" in intra-community trade were not subject to any specific plant health controls. The following numbers of inspections were carried out in the last three years on rhododendrons and viburnums, the two plant genera which have most often been found to be infected in Europe:

  Nurseries, garden centres etc.

  At ports

  UK

  Other EC

  Non-EC

  2001

  224

  95

  17

  0

  2002

  3190

  1147

  43

  1

  2003

  9081

  2667

  20

  11

  8W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what instructions she gave to port authorities to prevent the import of plants infected with sudden oak death in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [149236]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Inspectors from the Department's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate (PHSI) have authority to detain, inspect and sample plants at ports to ensure that they meet import requirements and are not carrying disease. These inspections relate to a wide range of plant pests and pathogens, not just "Phytophthora ramorum" Any consignment found to be infected or not to have the correct documentation is destroyed. In carrying out these duties, the Inspectorate may call on help from Customs, port health authorities and port operators.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has issued for(a) gardeners and (b) foresters to prevent the spread of sudden oak death. [149237]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Both Defra and the Forestry Commission have published posters and placed information on their websites covering the horticultural and forestry sectors respectively.

  Disease management measures are currently focused on nursery and garden centres to ensure that gardeners and other customers can be confident that they are purchasing disease-free plants. There is, as yet, no evidence that the disease is present on any trees in forests but a survey of 1000 woodland sites is currently underway and we hope, by April, to have a better understanding of the status of the disease in the wider environment. This work will enable us to ensure that appropriate advice is made available to foresters. In addition, the Forestry Commission is advising those engaged in routine forestry operations to take basic hygiene precautions to minimise the possibility of accidentally spreading diseases such as "P. ramorum".

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of(a)) trees and (b) plants recover from infection with sudden oak death; and which species are most likely to recover. [149238]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is at present no evidence, from the UK or anywhere else, to indicate that any plants or trees infected by Phytophthora ramorum might recover. It is for this reason that the current measures require all infected material to be destroyed, either by burning or deep burial. Symptoms of "Phytophthora ramorum" can affect both leaves and stems. In some plants only leaves are affected and in these cases it is possible that plants could recover following the removal of affected leaves. Methods of eradicating infection from specimen plants and of protecting new growth from reinfection are being investigated as part of Defra and the Forestry Commission's programme of research into this disease.

  Sporulation of the fungus on certain shrubs which are themselves relatively unaffected, showing only minor symptoms, is believed to have played a key role in the epidemiology of the disease in California.
  9W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether she has consulted the national authorities of other countries on the treatment of sudden oak death; and if she will make a statement; [149239]

  (2) what information she has received from other countries about the treatment of sudden oak death. [149253]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is regular dialogue between plant health authorities in the UK and those in other countries affected by or at risk from "Phytophthora ramorum". It was as a result of this collaboration that the link was first made, even before the pathogen was identified, between the death of trees in California and symptoms seen on rhododendrons on the continent.

  Exchange of information on Phytophthora ramorum takes place between officials and scientists in EU Member States on a regular basis, particularly within the framework of the Standing Committee on Plant Health. It was as a result of discussion in this forum that EU-wide emergency measures against the introduction and spread of "Phytophthora ramorum" were introduced in November 2002. They were reviewed by the Standing Committee on 11 December last year and it was agreed that they should continue. An EU funded research project on Phytophthora ramorum started this month and a second project is due to start in April. Both are being co-ordinated by UK scientists and involve consortia with members from 6 to 21 countries.

  We have also had regular discussions with officials and scientists in the United States. A US delegation visited in November 2003 and a conference is being organised in the USA in March at which scientists and regulators from a number of countries, including the UK, will discuss developments in research and management of the disease.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the results of research that her Department has commissioned into sudden oak death; what other research into sudden oak death her Department has assessed; and what research projects commissioned by her Department are on-going. [149248]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The results of research conducted on this disease will be published over time. However some preliminary results are already available on the Defra website http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/phnews/ csl.htm. The Forestry Commission are conducting complementary research as part of the same overall programme.

  As this is a relatively new disease the research commissioned in the UK following its discovery in October 2001 is still on-going. Within Europe, the majority of research is UK based. Germany and the Netherlands are also investigating aspects of the disease. Defra and Forestry Commission have good links with scientists in these countries and also with scientists in the USA facilitating a regular exchange of scientific information. As the pathotypes of the disease, the host plant species and the environmental conditions differ between the UK and the USA results may not be directly applicable and therefore must be considered carefully.
  10W
  Defra are currently funding four research projects titled:

  1. Comparison of "Phytophthora" ramorum populations from Europe and USA in support of pest risk assessment, management and policy.

  2. Non-tree host range and diagnosis of "Phytophthora ramorum" in support of pest risk assessment, management and policy.

  3. "Phytophthora ramorum" epidemiology: sporulation potential, dispersal, infection and survival.

  4.Epidemiology of natural outbreaks of "Phytophthora ramorum".

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what treatments are available for sudden oak death. [149250]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The only known method of eliminating "Phytophthora ramorum" is the removal and destruction of infected plant material. Currently approved fungicides have a suppressive effect, which masks symptoms rather than eradicating the pathogen from infected plants. However, research at Defra's Central Science Laboratory, funded by the Horticulture Development Council, is looking at a range of substances to evaluate their effectiveness in eradicating infection and preventing reoccurrence.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what organisations in the UK she has consulted on the treatment of sudden oak death; and if she will make a statement [149251]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department is in regular contact with the Royal Horticultural Society, the Horticultural Trades Association and the National Farmers Union about developments in the treatment of "Phytophthora ramorum".

  Moreover, on 13 October, the Department hosted a meeting on "Phytophthora ramorum" at the Central Science Laboratory in York which was attended by over 65 people representing a range of interested organisations.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which species are vulnerable to sudden oak death; [149252]

  (2) what plant types are most susceptible to sudden oak death. [149261]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is as follows.

  Species found to be naturally infected with "Phytophthora ramorum" in America or Europe

  Host

  Common name

  Family

  Ornamentals

  Arbutus menziesii

  Madrone

  Ericaceae

  Arbutus unedo

  Strawberry tree

  Ericaceae

  Arctostaphylos manzanita

  Manzanita

  Ericaceae

  Camellia spp.

  Camellia

  Ericaceae

  Hamamelis virginiana

  Virginian witch hazel

  Hamamelidaceae

  Heteromeles arbutifolia

  Toyon

  Rosaceae

  Kalmia latifolia.

  Mountain laurel

  Ericaceae

  Leucothoe spp.

  Leucothoe

  Ericaceae

  Lonicera hispidula

  California honeysuckle

  Caprifoliaceae

  Pieris spp.

  Pieris

  Ericaceae

  11W

  Species found to be naturally infected with "Phytophthora ramorum" in America or Europe

  Host

  Common name

  Family

  Pittosporum undulatum1

  Victorian box

  Pittosporaceae

  Rhamnus californicus

  Californian coffeeberry

  Rhamnaceae

  Rhamnus purshianus1

  Cascara

  Rhamnaceae

  Rhododendron

  Rhododendron

  Ericaceae

  Rubus spectabilis1

  Salmonberry

  Rosaceae

  Syringa vulgaris

  Lilac

  Oleaceae

  Toxicodendron diversilobum1

  Poison oak

  Anacardiaceae

  Trientalis latifolia

  Western star flower

  Primulaceae

  Umbellularia californica

  Californian bay laurel

  Lauraceae

  Vaccinium ovatum

  Californian huckleberry

  Ericaceae

  Vaccinium vitis-idaea

  Cowberry

  Ericaceae

  Viburnum spp.

  Viburnum

  Caprifoliaceae

  Trees

  Abies grandis1

  Grand fir

  Pinaceae

  Acer macrophyllum

  Big leaf maple

  Aceraceae

  Aesculus californica

  Californian buckeye

  Hippocastanaceae

  Aesculus hippocastanum

  Horse chestnut

  Hippocastanaceae

  Castanea sativa

  Sweet chestnut

  Fagaceae

  Corylus cornuta1

  Californian hazelnut

  Betulaceae

  Fagus sylvatica

  Beech

  Fagaceae

  Lithocarpus densiflorus

  Tan Oak

  Fagaceae

  Pseudotsuga menziesii

  Douglas fir

  Pinaceae

  Quercus agrifolia

  Coast live oak

  Fagaceae

  Quercus cerris

  Turkey oak

  Fagaceae

  Quercus chrysolepsis

  Canyon live oak

  Fagaceae

  Quercus falcata

  Southern red oak

  Fagaceae

  Quercus ilex

  Holm oak

  Fagaceae

  Quercus kellogii

  Californian black oak

  Fagaceae

  Quercus parvula var shrevei

  Shreve's oak

  Fagaceae

  Quercus rubra

  Red oak

  Fagaceae

  Taxus baccata

  Yew

  Taxaceae

  Sequoia sempervirens

  Coast redwood

  Taxodiaceae

  1 Hosts from which the pathogen has been cultured and/or detected by DNA tests, but pathogenicity not confirmed by laboratory.

  Plants most likely to be potential hosts based on previous results of laboratory inoculation tests

  Plant species

  Common name

  Family

  Ornamentals or wild shrubs

  Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

  Bearberry

  Ericaceae

  Eucalyptus

  Eucalyptus

  Myrtaceae

  Fuchsia spp.

  Fuchsia

  Onagraceae

  Gaultheria spp.

  —

  Ericaceae

  Lonicera spp.

  Honeysuckle

  Caprifoliaceae

  Olea europea

  Olive

  Oleaceae

  Photinia arbutifolia

  —

  Rosaceae

  Prunus spp.

  Nectarine; cherry; Portuguese and cherry laurel

  Rosaceae

  Ribes sanguineum

  Current

  Grossulariaceae

  Rosa canina

  Dog rose

  Rosaceae

  Sambucus spp.

  e.g. elder

  Caprifoliaceae

  Symphoricarpus albus

  Snowberry

  Caprifoliaceae

  Vaccinium myrtillus

  Bilberry

  Ericaceae

  Vaccinium x

  Bilberry-cowberry

  Ericaceae

  intermedium

  hybrid

  Trees1

  Abies procera

  Noble fir

  Pinaceae

  Acer spp.

  Maple/sycamore

  Aceraceae

  Carpinus

  Hornbeam

  Betulaceae

  Chamaecyparis lawsoniana

  Lawson's cypress

  Cupressaceae

  Fraxinus excelsior

  Ash

  Oleaceae

  Malus sylvestris

  Crab apple

  Rosaceae

  Picea sitchensis

  Sitka spruce

  Pinaceae

  12W

  Plants most likely to be potential hosts based on previous results of laboratory inoculation tests

  Plant species

  Common name

  Family

  Picea abies

  Norway spruce

  Pinaceae

  Quercus spp.

  Oaks

  Fagaceae

  Tilia cordata

  Small-leaved lime

  Tiliaceae

  Tsuga heterophylla

  Western hemlock

  Pinaceae

  Ulmus glabra

  Wych elm

  Ulmaceae

  1 Based on either sapling or mature log tests, and/or leaf tests. Tests may have been done using wound inoculation and may not predict natural susceptibility of unwounded tissue. Sapling susceptibility does not necessarily predict mature tree susceptibility. (NB. The table is not completely comprehensive, but includes only those considered to have most potential for natural susceptibility)

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's budget is for the prevention of the spread of sudden oak death in 2003–04. [149254]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra's 75 Plant Health and Seeds Inspectors are already employed for around 20 per cent. of their time on inspection and surveillance duties related to Phytophthora ramorum, known in the USA as sudden oak death. Therefore, although there is no specific budget allocation, this amounts to an expenditure of approximately £1.8 million in 2003–2004.

  In response to the growing number of findings of this pathogen in England and Wales, Defra is redeploying around 20 additional staff to assist the Inspectorate in undertaking extra inspections at production nurseries, wild planting areas and ports of entry. They will be supplemented by the recruitment of six additional full time Inspectors for 2004–05. This is part of a package of measures announced on 4 December.

  The Forestry Commission has diverted existing resources into a survey of woodlands thought to be at the highest risk of infection. This will cost in the region of £45,000.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many individual sites have reported incidents of sudden oak death in the recent outbreak. [149255]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Although P. ramorum is a 'notifiable disease', it is difficult to identify visually, and symptoms are similar to those caused by other organisms. We do not rely on reports in order to locate outbreaks. Defra's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectors are carrying out inspections of all known nurseries and garden centres which trade in susceptible plants. They are also surveying other areas where susceptible plants are established (e.g. rhododendrons in historic gardens), and co-ordinating with the Forestry Commission inspectors who are surveying woodlands. Since the first finding was confirmed in April 2002, outbreaks at individual sites in England and Wales have now reached 302.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of sudden oak death have been reported in each of the last five years. [149256]
  13W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Phytophthora ramorum was first described as a new species in October 2001 and the first outbreak in the UK was not confirmed until April 2002. 130 cases of infection were confirmed in 2002 and 171 in 2003.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she intends to increase the amount of money spent by her Department on research into sudden oak death. [149257]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During this financial year additional money was allocated to the budget responsible for funding research on Phytophthora ramorum. The budget for the coming year has also been increased. The need for research on different plant health risks is regularly reviewed and any issues of redeployment of effort or funding addressed as necessary.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in which soil types sudden oak death has been found to flourish. [149258]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  From limited findings on plants growing in soil in the UK (as opposed to container grown nursery stock), it is hard to draw any firm conclusions. Many of the most susceptible host plants of Phytophthora ramorum are members of the Ericaceae family which are known to prefer acid soil.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money has been spent by her Department on research into sudden oak death. [149259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To date Defra has commissioned research projects to a total value of £391k.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk to(a) nurseries, (b) gardens and (c) the countryside from sudden oak death. [149262]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for the organism causing sudden oak death in California was first conducted in the UK by Forest Research in September 2000.

  In November 2001 the causal organism was described as a new species, Phytophthora ramorum. Since that time research has been commissioned both in the UK and in the USA, the results of which are being used to develop the PRA, along with field observations from the UK, Europe and the USA.

  The PRA has assessed the risks posed to naturally and experimentally susceptible plant species, including those raised on nurseries, grown in gardens and occurring naturally in the countryside.

  The assessment is updated as scientific knowledge about this disease increases. Copies of the risk assessment were placed in the Library of the House on 13 February 2003 and updates have since been placed on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/pra.htm.
  14W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) of her Department's staff and (b) sub-contractors employed by her Department are researching sudden oak death. [149264]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has commissioned several research projects into the disease at the Central Science Laboratory (an executive agency of Defra), Forest Research (an agency of the Forestry Commission) and ADAS Consulting. In total there are approximately 22 staff working on these research projects. Around 20 per cent. of the work of the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate is currently spent on surveys aiming to determine the distribution of the pathogen and take action against it. This represents the equivalent of approximately 20 staff. A further twelve staff have been transferred from elsewhere in the Department to assist with the surveys.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to encourage research into the(a) effect and (b) spread of sudden oak death. [149265]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since June 2002 the Department has commissioned research to the value of about £391k to investigate aspects of the biology of the disease including its effect and means of transmission between plants. The research programme is co-ordinated with, other research funded by the Forestry Commission and the Horticultural Development Council in order to maximise the scientific information obtained about this disease. Approximately 20 per cent. of the work of Defra's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate over the last year has been directed at surveillance for this pathogen.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department operates a compensation scheme for those affected by sudden oak death. [149266]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Plant disease campaigns over many years have not incorporated compensation for the destruction of affected plants. The one exception was the campaign against beet rhizomania disease from 1987 to 2001 when compensation was paid from an industry funded scheme. Our judgment is that the limited resources of the plant health service are better deployed in detecting and identifying outbreaks, and in carrying out research on risks and risk management measures. We have recently received an approach from industry organisations wishing to discuss possible risk-sharing mechanisms to avoid disproportionate losses to individual enterprises when action has to be taken against plant pests or diseases. We welcome this opportunity to explore the available options.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Adam Smith Institute
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work his Department has commissioned from the Adam Smith Institute in the last five years; and how much each of these projects cost. [146938]
  15W
  Hilary Benn
  Pursuant to the response given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 518W which gave the figures for the original value of contracts awarded to Adam Smith International Ltd. The following table sets

  Project title

  Current value (£) (original contract value plus cost of any increases or extensions)

  Country

  1999

  PR Unit Support for Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC)

  430,625

  Tanzania

  1999

  Privatisation Project Phase 3 and 4 Managing Consultant

  1,718,736

  Guyana

  1999

  Privatisation Agency Support Project Consultancy

  560,752

  Zimbabwe

  1999

  Technical Assistance for Public Enterprise Reform in Orissa

  3,667,571

  India

  1999

  Assistance to the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department

  9,131,555

  West Bank and Gaza

  1999

  Additional Support to the Privatisation Board

  106,241

  Bangladesh

  1999

  UK-Ireland Privatisation and Regulation Study Tour

  11,145

  Tanzania

  1999

  Medium Term Programme of Capacity Building for PURC

  1,559,960

  Ghana

  1999

  Initital Support to the Budgetary Processes of the Government of Macedonia

  44,315

  Macedonia

  2000

  Rehabilitation of Cyclone Damaged Lift Irrigation Points in Orissa

  1,296,327

  India

  2000

  Seminar on Export Credits and Developing Countries

  102,594

  United Kingdom

  2000

  Lead Adviser to Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSCR)

  229,966

  Tanzania

  2000

  Russia Trade Policy Project

  1,199,986

  Russia

  2001

  Conference on Disinvestment

  70,000

  India

  2001

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

  80,000

  India

  2001

  PSCR: Water Privatisation and Regulation Study Tour

  54,924

  Tanzania

  2001

  Communications Film for Department of Disinvestment

  89,500

  India

  2001

  Consultants for Standards, Technical Regulatory Barriers Programme

  92,870

  Global (non project specific)

  2002

  Trade Training for DFID Staff

  20,075

  United Kingdom

  2002

  Pilot Training and Capacity Building in International Watercourse Law

  151,008

  Kyrgyz Republic

  2002

  Trade Training for DFID Staff—Bangkok

  32,328

  United Kingdom

  2002

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

  3,277,815

  Afghanistan

  2003

  Support Services for Public Enterprise Restructuring in South Africa

  6,363,435

  South Africa, Republic of

  2003

  Support to Water Sector Regulation by PURC—Ghana

  1,079,100

  Ghana

  2003

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

  416,435

  India

  2003

  Economic Support within 1st Military Division HQ Basra.

  55,510

  Iraq

  2003

  Economic Development within 1st Military Division HQ Basra.

  119,848

  Iraq

  2003

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

  100,400

  West Bank and Gaza

  2003

  ITD—DFID Staff Training

  288,685

  Global (non project specific)

  2003

  Asia Trade Consultancy

  44,200

  United Kingdom

  2003

  International Lawyer within 1st Military Division HQ Basra.

  131,868

  Iraq

  2003

  Economic Support to Coalition Provisional Authority South (CPAS)

  111,255

  Iraq

  2003

  Secondment of Negotiations Support Staff to the Office of Prime Minister.

  75,800

  West Bank and Gaza

  Legal Adviser within Coalition Provisional Authority South (CPAS)

  72,925

  Iraq

  Note:

  DFID contracts have been subject to untied international competition since 2001, using the EU Public Procurement Regulations.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 518W, on the Adam Smith Institute, how much his Department has spent on work undertaken by the Adam Smith Institute in each of the last 10 years. [148671]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on payments is only available for the last six years. Payments to Adam Smith International Ltd. Were as follows:

  Adam Smith International Ltd.

  £

  1998

  1,547,082.92

  1999

  3,494,546.98

  2000

  5,450,964.35

  2001

  9,612,801.56

  16W
  out the current value of these contracts, made up of the original value plus any increases or extensions since. All contracts with Adam Smith International Ltd. have been awarded and managed in line with DFID's standard procurement procedures.

  Adam Smith International Ltd.

  £

  2002

  7,050,473.82

  2003

  7,289,363.19

  The above does not include payment data for any lower value locally let contracts. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what outcomes have been monitored arising from contracted services provided to subsidiaries. [146959]
  17W
  Hilary Benn
  All DFID projects are monitored to ensure contracted services make the intended contribution to project outcomes. We have not made special arrangements for consultancy advice from Adam Smith International Ltd.

  Advertising and Information
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department has spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [149621]

  Hilary Benn
  Our expenditure on Publicity, which forms a part of our effort to raise development awareness and understanding of international development issues in the UK, has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  568,775

  1996–97

  579,916

  1999–99

  399,755

  1999–2000

  674,531

  2000–01

  1,484,281

  2001–02

  1,286,053

  2002–03

  11,300,000

  2003–04

  2850,000

  1 Estimate

  2 Provisional forecast figure

  We do not hold a separate advertising budget, The majority of advertising relates to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. Figures for the four calendar years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  2000

  751,972

  2001

  1,208,191

  2002

  914,571

  2003

  871,246

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many refugees have returned to Afghanistan from refugee camps in(a) Iran and (b) Pakistan; and how many remain. [150648]

  Hilary Benn
  At the beginning of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR's) repatriation programme in April 2002, UNHCR's estimate of the Afghan refugee caseload in Iran was 1.5 million. Since then, over 500,000 people have returned to Afghanistan. Only five per cent. of these are believed to have originated in camps.

  In Pakistan, the refugee caseload was estimated at 3.5 million in March 2002. Over 1.5 million were repatriated in 2002 and over 300,000 returned in 2003. The bulk of returnees so far, has consisted of refugees living in urban areas rather than camps. The 1.5 million remaining in Pakistan almost all live in camps.
  18W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Afghans in refugee camps belong to women-headed households. [150649]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as yet have no specific figures for the number of Afghans in refugee camps belonging to women-headed households. The most detailed information they can currently offer is that approximately 50 to 60 per cent. of refugees in camps in Pakistan are women and that five to 10 per cent. of these are of adult age. In Iran, only five per cent. of refugees live in camps, and of these, only 38 per cent. are women.

  UNHCR, however, anticipate that more detailed information will become available over the next year. Elections in Afghanistan are planned for June 2004 and UNHCR is currently discussing ways to carry out voter registration for Afghan refugees with the Government of Pakistan and the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). This should start to shed more light on the make-up of the refugee population. UNHCR also has plans for a separate census, which the Government of Pakistan have asked them to carry out in order to get a better picture of the remaining refugee caseload in Pakistan. It is expected that this will be carried out after voter registration of refugees to avoid confusion. UNHCR believes this will provide an insight, among other things, into the number of women-headed households and their dependents.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much space, expressed in square metres, the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150285]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID occupies two offices in Central London, at 1 Palace street, SW1 and 20 Victoria street SW1. The sizes of these are 15,910 sq m and 1,178 sq m respectively. We have no other offices in Central London.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with the Rwandan Government concerning military activity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [149824]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  We discuss regularly with the Government of Rwanda the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Since the withdrawal of the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) from the DRC in October 2002 we have received several unconfirmed reports from a variety of sources about the continued presence of RDF personnel in eastern DRC. The UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) has investigated these reports but has found no evidence to substantiate them. The Rwandan government, with whom we have raised these allegations, have denied they have forces in the DRC.
  19W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the number of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, broken down by region. [149974]

  Hilary Benn
  The most recent statistical data available from the Relief Web, puts the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at over three million. These IDPs are mainly in eastern DRC.

  The breakdown by numbers is as follows:

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  Number

  Kinshasa

  41,000

  Equateur Province

  168,000

  Kasai Occidental

  72,500

  Kasai Oriental

  72,500

  Katanga Province

  412,000

  Maniema

  234,000

  North Kivu

  1,209,000

  South Kivu

  413,700

  Orientale

  791,000

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the organisations funded by his Department in each of the last three years which have received(a) less than £1 million, (b) less than £750,000, (c) less than £500,000, (d) less than £250,000 and (e) less than £100,000. [148548]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not readily available in respect of every type of organisation and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the funding DFID has provided to UK based civil society organisations within each of the financial thresholds over the last three financial years has been placed in the Library in a document entitled "Funding to UK Civil Society Organisations—Written Parliamentary Question 148548".

  EU Aid Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list current EU aid projects. [149980]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A breakdown of European Commission official development assistance in 2002 by country/region and sector, and details of individual project commitments can be found in the "Annual Report 2003 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EC Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance in 2002"; a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Copies of the EC's Country and Regional Strategy Papers can be obtained from its website (www.europa.eu.int).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff in his Department devote a proportion of their working time to involvement in EU aid projects, broken down by grade. [149981]
  20W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's European Union department currently has a complement of 15 staff, headed by a Senior Civil Service Grade 5, and including four middle management grades and 10 junior management and administrative officers.

  In addition, staff across the range of departments within DFID are engaged on work related to the EC's development assistance programmes. It is not possible to provide a breakdown by grade.

  Global Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine of the performance of the Global Health Fund. [148644]

  Hilary Benn
  As a board member of the Global Fund, we want to see that it clearly demonstrates its effectiveness as an instrument to tackle these three terrible diseases.

  The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's (LSHTM) study showed that there is commitment to achieving the goals of the Global Fund and that it has had a positive effect in attracting new partners to the Fund. It also highlights the need for improved communication between countries and the Global Fund, and the Country Coordination Mechanisms. It shows the need for harmonisation of funding flows, a good financial management system and planning process and alignment of Global Fund activities with countries' own systems and processes. We are working closely with the Global Fund on
  all these issues.

  DFID supports the role of independent evaluators and their contribution to improving performance through sound analysis. We recognise that such evaluations should be forward looking and form part of the Global Fund's overall monitoring and evaluation strategy.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support he provides to programmes in the Great Lakes region of Africa that educate HIV-positive men about treatment for their condition. [149911]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is supporting work on HIV in Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC. Our support to Burundi and Rwanda through the International Partnership against AIDS in Africa (IPAA), totalling £4.15 million for Burundi and £2.95 million for Rwanda over a three-year period, includes support for the education of HIV-positive men.

  In the DRC, we have been supporting projects run by Médecins sans Frontières and Population Services International (PSI), which also cover the education of HIV-positive men. We plan to further increase our support to the fight against HIV/AIDS as an identified priority in DFID's recently published Country Engagement Plan for the DRC.
  21W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) the UN concerning provision for AIDS orphans in Africa. [149819]

  Hilary Bean
  Meeting the needs of the growing number of orphans and vulnerable children in Africa is a challenge that the Department for International Development is determined to address effectively. DFID is continuing its work and discussions with the United Nations Joint Programme for HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) who are co-ordinating other development agencies and NGOs to develop: treatment programmes to prolong the lives of parents; free access to education and enhanced support to the families and communities caring for orphans and vulnerable children.

  DFID is working with NGOs in a number of countries. In Zimbabwe, DFID is providing support for orphans and vulnerable children and child headed households through its NGO feeding programme. In addition, a bilateral programme with the Zimbabwe Red Cross and John Snow International is providing food to households affected by AIDS (including child-headed households) and some orphanages. We are also starting work with a faith-based organisation in South Africa (the Church of the Province of Southern Africa) to reduce stigma, improve home-based care and care for orphans and vulnerable children.

  The launch of the UK's "Call for Action on HIV/ AIDS" (On World Aids Day 1 December 2003) marked the first step in the intensification of this Government's efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS. On World Aids Day I hosted a meeting with NGO's on the UK's "Call for Action" and a new UK Strategy for HIV/AIDS. The issue of how to respond to the growing number of orphans and children made vulnerable by AIDS was raised during this meeting. We will be consulting further with NGOs on this important issue as part of our consultation process for the UK Strategy planned for publication in July 2004.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has for ensuring the adequacy of healthcare systems in countries likely to(a) obtain and (b) use antiretroviral drugs for treatment of AIDS. [149858]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is committed to increasing access to treatment as part of a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS, and welcomes the WHO/UNAIDS target to get three million people on treatment by 2005. The UK will provide £12.5 million to the World Health Organisation in 2003–04 to support its work, including '3 by 5'. We have supported WHO to make the strengthening of health services a key part of their strategy to reach the '3 by 5' target. As treatment programmes are expanded it will be essential to invest in health systems in order to ensure that services for HIV, including voluntary counselling and testing and the provision of treatment, and other health services, are of good quality and accessible by poor communities and particularly women. This includes better co-ordination of public, private and NGO treatment initiatives. We also support community 22W
  involvement in health service delivery as a well-informed civil society has been shown to be essential in the sustainability of comprehensive health systems.

  DFID has provided £1.5 billion since 1997 to the strengthening of health systems in developing countries and we see this as an essential element of the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We are working with partners to build sound healthcare systems as the cornerstone of efforts to accelerate progress to achieve the Millennium Development Goals; to improve maternal and child health and reduce the impact of HIV and other major communicable diseases. The UK was a prime mover in setting up the High Level Forum on Health MDGs, which was held in Geneva in January 2004 and at which developing and donor countries discussed concrete actions to increase health service capacity to meet international development goals. DFID also supports the integration of HIV/AIDS into wider health sector policies and national poverty reduction strategies.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the result has been of the support provided by his Department to the Africa Regional Office of the World Health Organisation for malaria and childhood illness activities. [148554]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has agreed an £18 million, six-year project of support to WHO Africa Regional Office in 2002 and it is now at the early stages of implementation. We reviewed progress in 2003 and felt that that the project was well on track. All the countries supported under the project having developed Roll Back Malaria (RBM) and Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) plans.

  Countries supported under the project have been able to use their malaria control plans to make applications to the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM). The plans have helped GFATM approve and release significant malaria grants for six countries in the region. WHO has established an inter-country team for the region, which has responded to a number of emergencies such as flood assessments in Malawi and Mozambique. At the same time it has helped to develop country capacity through training and strengthening health systems.

  The IMCI strategy is being implemented in most countries of the region and seven are now implementing it in more than 50 per cent. of their districts. There have been major achievements in improving health worker skills, demonstrated through Health Facility Surveys and Multi-Country Evaluations. Attention will now be focused upon strengthening some of the health systems issues in the delivery of IMCI.

  Finally, the WHO's Regional Office for Africa (AFRO) itself has used the project to increase its institutional capacity and has recruited additional staff to work on both RBM and IMCI.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the involvement of his Department has been in international forums which form strategies to reduce child mortality, with particular reference to(a) the Child Survival Working Group and (b) the Saving Newborn Lives Initiative. [148555]
  23W
  Hilary Benn
  It is generally accepted that a significant improvement will be needed if, the MDG target to reduce under five mortality rates by two thirds by 2015 is to be achieved globally. Challenges include: the HIV/ AIDS epidemic; economic decline and persistent poverty; inequality; under-resourced and poorly functioning health systems; and lack of progress in reducing the number of deaths of newborn babies.

  In addition to country-level work, the Department for International Development makes significant contributions to UNFPA, UNICEF, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and other international and national civil society groups to support their efforts to improve both maternal and child health. We contribute to global initiatives such as the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization and Roll Back Malaria, which have helped revitalise interest in childhood diseases and substantially increased the resources directed to child health. We support implementation of the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness Initiative with partners from the United Nations International Children's Fund, the World Health Organisation, the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development. This initiative is building the quality and quantity of child health care within countries. The UK is also part of the recently inaugurated High Level Forum on Health which plans to address challenges to achieving the health related Millennium Development Goals.

  A Child Survival Partnership (formerly Working Group) is being proposed by a number of international agencies which will bring together national governments, international organisations, donors and civil society
  "to galvanise action at the global and national level aimed at revitalizing efforts to reach the under five mortality MDG target".

  The specific activities that the partnership will undertake have not yet been defined, although they are likely to include advocacy for increased resources to be devoted to child survival, and work to scale up cost-effective child survival interventions at country level. DFID has been asked to contribute to thinking on the partnerships structure and objectives. As with any new initiative, over time we will judge the level of our involvement on its ability to deliver on its objectives and contribution to meeting the MDG targets.

  We have been working with the Saving Newborn Lives Initiative (a Save the Children US Gates Foundation funded project) and the World Health Organisation to develop a Framework for Neonatal Health, which will provide a series of practical and flexible tools to enable policy makers to develop coherent and integrated strategies to reduce newborn deaths.

  DFID is also represented on the steering committee of the Partnership for Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health together with the World Bank, the WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and other organisations.

  Iraq
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Department's role is in the allocation of Coalition Provisional Authority funds. [149035]

  Hilary Benn
  The Head of DFID's office in Baghdad is the UK voting member of the Programme Review Board, which approves Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) plans for expenditure from the Development Fund for Iraq. DFID secondees to the CPA also have a role, alongside US and other Coalition partners, in drawing up CPA expenditure plans. The US Government decide on the allocation of their own funding provided through the CPA.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many recent meetings officials from his Department have had with local Iraqi non-governmental organisations; and what the results of those meetings have been. [149982]

  Hilary Benn
  On average five to 10 Iraqi non-governmental organisations (NGOs) visit the DFID office in Baghdad each week (most NGOs prefer not to meet on their own premises). DFID has also sponsored several meetings, particularly on women's political participation and human rights, involving several hundred attendees, many of whom are from small Iraqi NGOs.

  The issues raised by the NGOs range widely. One frequent topic is how best DFID and the coalition as a whole can support the development of Iraqi civil society. These discussions inform the development of DFID's strategy and our approach to funding. But many of the NGOs are embryonic and are simply seeking guidance on how to establish themselves properly. We are working with the Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation and the Coalition Provisional Authority on a registration scheme for all NGOs in Iraq.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of humanitarian aid stockpiles in Iraq that have been(a) destroyed and (b) stolen since April 2003. [149983]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not aware of any DFID-funded NGO or UN humanitarian aid stockpiles being destroyed or stolen since April 2003. However, some of our regular partners have had problems with other stockpiles. A warehouse of International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Society goods funded by ECHO (and therefore 19 per cent. DFID-funded) was looted in April. The total stock was valued at approximately £280,000. An ICRC warehouse also suffered from looting during this period resulting in the loss of approximately £65,000 worth of stock as well as some vehicles being damaged or stolen.

  In addition, there were small losses of some perishable foodstuffs and medicines under the UN Oil For Food programme, due to delays in transporting goods during and immediately after the conflict.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money his Department has provided to the office of the United
  25W
  Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since the start of the conflict with Iraq to assist with its work in Iraq and neighbouring countries. [149984]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provided £1.75 million to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to support its work in Iraq and neighbouring countries in preparedness for the conflict. No further funding has been provided to UNHCR since the conflict.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what progress has been made with the plan of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to assist the return of up to half a million Iraqi refugees; [149999]

  (2) what progress has been made with plans to assist those displaced before the conflict in Iraq to return home. [150000]

  Hilary Benn
  Since the end of the conflict, United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has facilitated the return of relatively small numbers of Iraqi refugees. These include the voluntary return of over 4,000 Iraqi refugees who spent more than 12 years in the Raffia refugee camp in Saudi Arabia, and some 800 refugees from Iran.

  UNHCR is not encouraging returns to Iraq because of insecurity in parts of the country, a lack of humanitarian access, and economic conditions that cannot support mass returns. However, UNHCR is supporting, where it can, the repatriation of people who actively seek to go back regardless of conditions inside the country. It appears that increasing numbers of refugees in neighbouring countries, particularly Iran. are choosing to return to Iraq without support.

  Once conditions in Iraq improve, UNHCR plans to step up its work with the Iraqi authorities, the CPA, and governments in countries of asylum, as well as other United Nations agencies and NGO partners, to support the return of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). UNHCR has launched pilot projects for the return and reintegration of refugees and IDPs in the northern governorates of Erbil and Dohuk. These projects aim to provide shelter kits to returnee families and to upgrade water supplies for returnees and host communities.

  An Iraqi Property Claims Commission is being set up to help resolve the claims of returnees whose property was confiscated under previous regimes. A new Ministry of Displacement and Migration has been established to manage issues relating to Iraqi refugees and displaced people.

  Further information on UNHCR's work can be found at: http://www.unhcr.ch/welcome.htm

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the drugs of which there is a shortage in Iraq; and what conditions they are intended to treat. [150002]

  Hilary Benn
  The Iraqi Ministry of Health, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the World Health Organisation are working together on a comprehensive 26W
  assessment of shortages of drugs, other medical supplies and equipment. This is expected to be complete by March.

  Maternal Mortality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action his Department has taken to improve(a) coverage of skilled care at delivery and (b) the use of emergency obstetric care to reduce maternal mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. [148512]

  Hilary Benn
  The Millennium Development Goals are central to the Department for International Development's work, including the goal to improve maternal health, and its associated target of reducing maternal mortality. Constraints to reducing maternal deaths in Africa are weak and under-resourced health systems and the general human resource crisis in the health sector.

  Access to skilled care at birth and emergency obstetric care are main elements to prevent maternal deaths, and help prevent ill health and disability as a result of complications in pregnancy or childbirth. DFID's Public Service Agreement includes ambitious targets on increasing access to skilled attendance at birth. The Department's strategy includes: highlighting the issue internationally; support to countries to strengthen health systems and improve access to maternal and reproductive health services; and support for research and improved measurement and monitoring for safe motherhood. DFID is actively engaged in a new international partnership for Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health.

  We support the maternal health strategies of African countries through safe motherhood projects, for example in Kenya and Malawi, health sector budget support and, indirectly, through general budget support. We also fund international multilateral agencies and international NGOs active in supporting maternal health programmes in Africa. Since 1997 we have committed approximately £1.5 billion to support health systems. Through our participation in the High Level Forum on health we are promoting, with the WB, WHO and others, a renewed effort to accelerate progress towards all the health related MDGs.

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the implications for the work of humanitarian aid agencies of the information bulletin being issued to foreign nationals arriving in Israel which informs them that entry to territories under the control of the Palestinian Authority is forbidden without written prior authorisation from the Israeli Government and that entry to those territories without such written authorisation may result in legal action being taken; and what representations he is making to Israel on the issue. [149934]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government is aware of the information bulletin, which has been issued to foreign nationals arriving in Israel, and is seriously concerned at the possible impact of such restrictions on humanitarian
  27W
  and other aid organisations working in the West Bank. It could seriously disrupt the supply of essential emergency provisions for the most vulnerable Palestinians. We have raised our concerns with the Israeli government and is exploring with our EU partners further avenues for doing so.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many refugee camps in Pakistan are being run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. [149975]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees provides full assistance (food, water, shelter, education and health care) in 13 new camps which opened after 11 September 2001. Just under 200,000 refugees reside in these new camps.

  In addition, it is estimated that there are in the region of 200 old refugee settlements in Pakistan with a population of between 900,000 and 1 million. In these camps UNHCR provides assistance with health care and education.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being provided to(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi (i) for development and (ii) to re-establish its justice system; and if he will make a statement. [148858]

  Hilary Benn
  Establishing a fair and effective justice system in Rwanda is crucial for the stability and prosperity of the country. The most immediate challenge is to process the more than 100,000 individuals currently in Rwandan prisons accused of genocidal crimes.

  The UK Government has provided £715,000 for research into the efficiency and effectiveness of gacaca— the traditional justice system adopted by the Government of Rwanda to try those accused of genocidal crimes. This programme is managed by Penal Reform International (PRI). This financial year, the UK will also provide some £25 million to the Government of Rwanda as direct budgetary support. These funds support the implementation of Rwanda's PRSP, which highlights justice as a priority sector.

  At the request of the Government of Rwanda, the Belgian Government leads donor activity in the justice sector. Other major donors in this sector include the Dutch Government (construction of gacaca courts), the Canadian Government (the administration of the Supreme Court), the European Union (rehabilitation of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court), and the German Government (rehabilitation of judicial systems).

  In the case of Burundi, the UK commitment in 2003–04 so far amounts to £11.62 million. Our programme consists of support to peace building and conflict resolution initiatives; and humanitarian assistance through the United Nations agencies, non-governmental organisations and other international agencies. We are also working with the Government of Burundi providing technical support and advice on their
  28W
  Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and on capacity building issues. We are looking at the possibility of assistance in collaboration with others in the area of electoral reform.

  Beyond this, we have no specific plans for support to the justice sector. However, the European Commission, under their recently agreed National Indicative Programme for Burundi for the period 2003 to 2007, are developing a significant support programme in good governance including the justice sector.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the levels of(a) fighting and (b) casualties in Darfur; and what they were in June 2003. [149998]

  Hilary Benn
  There is limited access to be able to accurately assess the situation in Darfur. Our Humanitarian Adviser is planning to visit the area this week, as well as eastern Chad.

  We are very concerned about the situation in Darfur. NGOs in Chad are reporting an increase in numbers of wounded due to the aerial bombardments that are reported to have taken place. The latest UN information suggests that 600,000 people, out of a total population of about 6 million in Darfur, are currently displaced because of the conflict, with a further 90,000 refugees in Chad.

  We are pressing all sides to re-establish a ceasefire and resume peaceful negotiations, to allow unfettered humanitarian access.

  Think Tanks
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) value and (b) purpose was of contracts entered into by his Department with independent think tanks or their subsidiary bodies since 1997, broken down by think tank or subsidiary body. [146958]

  Hilary Benn
  I have placed in the House of Commons
  Library a list of DFID consultancy contracts with think tanks. This does not include lower value contracts, details of which are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Uganda
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Uganda Presidential Peace Team. [149973]

  Hilary Benn
  The Presidential Peace Team (PPT) was formed in August 2002. It comprises a number of Acholi MPs, Army Officers, Government Ministers and officials. Between August 2002 and May 2003 the PPT was involved in a number of attempts to initiate dialogue with the LRA. However these were unsuccessful.

  While the PPT still exists, our current assessment is that it is largely inactive, and therefore ineffective. A revitalised and suitably empowered PPT would be an

  29W
  important component of an effective strategy to end the conflict. We have stressed this in our contacts with the Government of Uganda and will continue to do so.

  World Food Programme (Southern Africa)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what shortfall exists in the World Food Programme appeal from July 2003 for food aid in southern Africa; what impact the shortfall has had on the ability to deal with the humanitarian situation in the region; and what steps are being taken to make up the shortfall. [150106]

  Hilary Benn
  Latest figures from the UN indicate that, so far, WFP has secured 69 per cent. of food aid requirements for this year's Consolidated Appeal for southern Africa. DFID contributions have helped ease the most pressing food shortages in key countries, notably Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The European Commission has recently announced a $25 million contribution for WFP programmes in Zimbabwe.

  DFID has been supporting the work of the Vulnerability Assessment Committees in affected countries in order to better understand needs and direct resources to them. Assessments will be carried out in Swaziland and Lesotho over the next few weeks and a fuller assessment of Mozambique's food security situation will be undertaken in March. We are awaiting the release of the urban vulnerability study, which was recently undertaken in Zimbabwe. All of these studies are being funded by DFID.

  The UN is seeking funding from a range of donors for the remainder of the Southern African Consolidated Appeal. DFID continues to be the second biggest bilateral contributor of humanitarian aid to southern Africa.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people made up the UK delegation to the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancun in September; and what the cost to public funds was of its attendance. [149112]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  There were 41 in the UK delegation to the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference held in Cancun last September.

  Final accounts for the delegation are currently not available. Once the costs have been finalised, we will inform the House.

WALES

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much space, expressed in square metres, the Office occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150281]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office occupies 494.25 square metres in central London for the offices of civil servants. It has no office space in Greater London.

  Higher Education Bill
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, under the provisions of the Higher Education Bill, English universities will be able to charge top-up fees to students resident in Wales; and what assessment he has made of the funding shortfall if such fees are not charged. [150116]

  Mr. Touhig
  Subject to their having an access agreement with the Office for Fair Access English HEIs will be able to charge variable fees. Welsh domiciled students will be charged a variable fee on the same basis as English domiciled students.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, under the provisions of the Higher Education Bill, Welsh universities will be able to charge top-up fees to students resident in(a) England and (b) Scotland; and what assessment he has made of the funding shortfall if such fees are not charged. [150117]

  Mr Touhig
  The provisions of the Higher Education Bill transfer to the Assembly responsibility for student support for students resident in Wales and HE tuition fee levels.

  The Assembly Education and Lifelong Learning Minister has given a commitment that variable fees would not be introduced in Wales during the lifetime of the second Assembly. This means no student from England or Scotland entering a Welsh Higher Education Institution in academic year 2006–07 will be charged a variable fee, for the duration of his or her course. Funding of Higher Education Institutions in Wales is a matter for the Assembly.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, under the provisions of the Higher Education Bill, students resident in England will have to pay up-front fees if attending a Welsh university; whether they will be entitled to claim bursaries while attending a Welsh university; and what assessment has been made of funding methods for such bursaries. [150118]

  Mr. Touhig
  Fee deferment is an integral part of the new package of student support for which the HE Bill provides. English domiciled students studying in Wales will be eligible for loans for fees from the Department for Education and Skills on the same basis as a English domiciles studying in England.

  Bursary provision by English HEIs will be directly connected with the terms of access plans with the Director of Fair Access which permit them to charge variable fees. The Welsh Assembly has said that it will not introduce variable fees during the lifetime of the second Assembly, therefore Welsh Higher Education Institutions will not need to provide access bursaries on similar terms to those being provided in England.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, under the provisions of the Higher Education Bill, students resident in Wales will have to pay upfront fees if attending an English university; whether they will be entitled to claim bursaries while attending English universities; and what assessment he has made of funding methods for such bursaries. [150119]
  31W
  Mr. Touhig
  The Assembly has given a commitment that should tuition fee and student support powers be transferred from 2006, Welsh domiciled students studying in England will be eligible for a loan for fees and therefore will not have to pay upfront fees. It will be for English institutions to set out the details of their own bursary schemes, but we would expect these to be equally available to Welsh students.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the estimated cost is of compensating universities in Wales for lost revenue if top-up fees are not charged. [150120]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Higher Education Bill will transfer to the Assembly the responsibility for student support for students resident in Wales and Higher Education tuition fee level.

  The Assembly has given a commitment that Higher Education Institutions in Wales will not be disadvantaged by not being allowed to charge variable fees in 2006–07. The Assembly will meet the costs of this commitment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Obesity
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were recorded as obese in Northern Ireland in(a) 1985, (b) 1990, (c) 1995, (d) 2000 and (e) each year since 2001; what steps he is taking to reduce these figures; and if he will make a statement. [150685]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is working with relevant departments and other agencies to tackle obesity through action plans on food and nutrition and physical activity.

  Political Parties (Donations)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the exemption of political parties in Northern Ireland from(a) the requirement publicly to declare donations received from individuals, organisations and businesses and (b) statutory restrictions on accepting donations from foreign and anonymous sources. [150629]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc.) Order 2001 exempted the Northern Ireland political parties from the requirement to comply with Part IV of the Act for four years. Part IV imposes restrictions on the source of donations so as to prohibit foreign and anonymous donations to political parties.

  The Order expires February 2005. However, in line with a commitment made to Parliament during the passage of the Order, it is being reviewed ahead of that. The result of this review will be announced by way of a parliamentary statement.

TRANSPORT

  Transport for London
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the reasons were for the change in the level of funding by his Department for Transport for London in 2005–06 compared with 2004–05; [149579]

  (2)what assessment he made, when allocating funds to Transport for London for (a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) 2006–07, of the investment required in London Underground to maintain services at their current level; [149580]

  (3)what assessment he made, in determining his Department's funding for Transport for London in (a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) 2006–07, of the effect upon inward investment of (i) increasing, (ii) maintaining the existing level and (iii) decreasing the level of funding for the transport infrastructure in London. [149595]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government funding for Transport for London in 2004–05 and 2005–06 is expected to be £2,224 million and £2,142 million respectively. These allocations are based on an assessment of London's transport priorities, taking into account affordability following the 2002 spending review. They also take account of the investment needed to deliver a 12 per cent. capacity increase for London Underground by 2012 under the PPP. This is an increase of over 85 per cent. in funding levels from the equivalent provision in 2001–02, and a significant increase in the overall amount available for investment in transport infrastructure, including an unprecedented funding commitment for London Underground, averaging more than £1 billion a year to at least 2010–11. The overall provision for 2006–07 is subject to the current spending review, which is due to be completed this summer.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the yield from vehicle excise duty was for each local authority area in England, based on the address of the licence holder, for the most recent year for which figures are available. [149378]

  Dr. Howells
  The net total raised from vehicle excise duty in the financial year 2002–03 was £4,825,741.000. Data based on local authority areas in England are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Aircraft (Carbon Dioxide Emissions)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft by(a) 2010, (b) 2020, (c) 2030 and (d) 2050 arising from the proposals in the Aviation White Paper. [148587]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department will publish a paper, "Aviation and Global Warming", in due course, which will include an analysis of the impact on emissions from the proposals in the Aviation White Paper.

  Banned Airlines
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether airlines operating in UK airspace are banned from(a) Swiss, (b) Belgian and (c) Dutch airspace. [149971]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), on 12 January 2004, Official Report, column 546W which describes the database we have on actions taken by other European states. I understand that some restrictions have been placed on the use of specific aircraft, but am not aware that any airlines have been prevented from operating in Swiss, Belgian or Dutch airspace.

  Biofuels Directive
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's timetable is for consultation on the implementation of the EU bio-fuels directive; and what consideration has been given to ensuring that the UK's 2005 target for implementation of the directive is notified in the EU by July. [150782]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Union's Biofuels Directive requires member states to set their own indicative targets for sales of biofuels for road transport to be met in 2005 and 2010. The Directive must be transposed by 31 December 2004. The Government will be consulting shortly on the level of possible targets for the UK and on the steps it might take to meet them. This will allow us to report our intentions to the European Commission by July 2004.

  Bristol/Bath to South Coast Transport Study
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Bristol and Bath to South Coast study will be published. [149881]

  Mr McNulty
  The study, which was commissioned to address the concerns of Bath and North East Somerset council and the South West Regional Assembly over the proposed detrunking of the A36/A46, has been further delayed because it has taken longer than anticipated for the consultants to complete the modelling and firm up their conclusions. However, I am pleased to be able to report that the revised final reports were cleared by the Steering Group when they met on 21 January 2004. It is anticipated that the reports will be printed at the end of January or in early February and copies will then be sent to the South West Regional Assembly for comment.

  Following receipt of the study comments from the Regional Assembly, I will be in a position to make a response.

  British Airways
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what precautions his Department has advised British Airways to take concerning threats posed to its aircraft over the Middle East and Arabian sub-continents; and if he will make a statement. [148432]
  34W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The security of UK aviation, including that of UK airline operations overseas, is kept under active review, and security measures are adjusted as and when necessary. The Government do not disclose their advice to airlines.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has received concerning a threat to British Airways flights from light aircraft in flight over Saudi Arabian airspace; and what representations he has made to his Saudi Arabian counterpart. [148468]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The Government keep the threat to civil aviation in all countries, including Saudi Arabia, under continuous review. We do not comment on intelligence matters, or on exchanges we may have had with foreign governments about them.

  Bugaled Breizh
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with(a) French authorities, (b) Breton authorities, (c) the Ministry of Defence and (d) others following the sinking of the Bugaled Breizh off The Lizard on 15 January. [150988]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) of the Department for Transport has been providing proactive support and advice to their counterparts in France—Bureau Enquêtes-Accidents Mer—since the loss of the Bugaled Breizh. During the incident, HM Coastguard at Falmouth was in regular contact with French search and rescue authorities regarding details of the stricken vessel, and maintained regular contact with them throughout the incident. Subsequently, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has provided French authorities with assistance in attempting to identify the movement of shipping within the area of the accident.

  No specific discussions have been held with Breton regional authority separately from French national authorities.

  The MAIB has been in contact with the UK Ministry of Defence with regard to the fact that the accident took place in a designated sea training exercise area.

  Discussions have also taken place between MAIB/ MCA and Devon and Cornwall police and HM coroner in Truro.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much space, expressed in square metres, the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150288]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport occupies 21,521m2 in Greater London, all of which is in central London.

  Consultants
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total value was of(a) technical and financial contracts, (b) technical consultants used on a call-off basis and (c) financial consultants used on a call-off basis by the section of (i) his Department and (ii) predecessor departments with responsibility for aviation, in each year since 1992. [149706]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002. In 2002–03 and the first 9 months of 2003–04 consultancy valued at £71.19 million and £4.74 million respectively was commissioned in relation to aviation.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total value was of(a) technical and financial contracts, (b) technical consultants used on a call-off basis and (c) financial consultants used on a call-off basis by the section of (i) his Department and (ii) predecessor departments with responsibility for transport strategy and local transport, in each year since 1992. [149707]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002. In 2002–03 and the first nine months of 2003–04 consultancy valued at £20.71 and £7.43 million respectively was commissioned in relation to transport strategy and local transport.

  Crosswind Runway
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact which increased use of the crosswind runway, as outlined in the Aviation White Paper, will have on(a) noise and (b) pollution levels in (i) North Gyle, (ii) Gogarloch, (iii) Wester Broom and (iv) Broomhall areas. [149362]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our assessment of noise and air quality impacts relating to increased use of the crosswind runway is summarised in the Scottish Consultation Document and set out in more detail in the supporting RAS 3 Study Technical Reports, which were published concurrently.

  These indicate that there would be no local air quality exceedences affecting the four locations specified, that only at Gogarloch would the increased level of noise experienced exceed 57dBA Leq16 (taken to represent the approximate onset of significant community annoyance). These impacts would be eliminated if the crosswind runway closed following the opening of a new close parallel runway.

  Edinburgh Airport
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what compensation will be made available to those residents living close to Edinburgh airport who face a loss in their property value in advance of the proposed construction of a second runway as outlined in the Aviation White Paper; [149667]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the statutory blight provisions that will be available to residents living (a) close to and (b) affected by the planned expansion of Edinburgh airport as outlined in the Aviation White Paper. [149668]
  36W
  Mr. McNulty
  The White Paper recommends that people should have access to some form of redress at beyond the current statutory provisions, for example to help them relocate before any development takes place. Arrangements are being made for non-statutory schemes to be brought forward locally by the airports operators.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment was made of the case for protection of the ancient Catstane site north of the existing Edinburgh airport runway in the formulation of the proposals for a second runway as outlined in the Aviation White Paper; and for what reason no mention was made of the site in the White Paper. [147833]

  Mr. McNulty
  Carlowrie Cat Stane is one of a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the vicinity of Edinburgh Airport that were identified in the optioneering and appraisal studies that underpinned the Scottish Consultation Document. The Cat Stane was taken into account, alongside a range of other factors, in the design and appraisal of the options for a new runway at Edinburgh and the development of White Paper policy. The ancient monument would ultimately lie between a new runway and the existing one and is therefore unlikely to be affected by development. The necessary protection of the Cat Stane will be addressed in the master plan for the airport and any future planning application for the development of a new runway.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list information technology contracts in his Department with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146201]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002. The Department has let no contracts that meet the description.

  Light Rail Schemes
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what light rail schemes will be built by 2010; what their expected cost is; and what their(a) construction start date and (b) completion dates are. [149710]

  Mr. McNulty
  Sunderland Direct opened in 2002 and Nottingham Express Transit is due to open in March 2004. A number of other light rail schemes are being considered and are in various stages of appraisal, assessment and procurement.

  Local Authority Transport Projects
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the measures the Department is taking to enable local authorities to bring forward and implement projects given provisional approval within the last three years' annual transport settlements. [149650]
  37W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Department, through the Government Offices hold regular meetings with local authorities providing advice on funding issues, statutory processes, etc. Working closely with local authorities the Government Offices make sure scheme changes are reported promptly so that decisions on how to proceed can be taken at the earliest opportunity.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authority projects given provisional approval within the last three years' annual transport settlements are delayed owing to(a) skills shortages and (b) the planning process. [149651]

  Mr. McNulty
  No local authority has identified skills shortages to the Department as a primary cause of delays to major local transport schemes since the introduction of the Local Transport Plan process.

  The planning process has been identified as a contributory cause of delay to several major scheme proposals, but the effects of factors such as delayed planning permissions and delayed TWA approvals cannot be clearly separated from other factors.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost to his Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148031]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed in May 2002. The Department spent £122.2 million in 2002–03 and £42.1 million in the period 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003 on all types of consultancy excluding research. Separate figures for management consultancy are not held centrally.

  Rail Freight
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the rail freight gauge and capacity enhancements(a) Felixstowe to Nuneaton (Phase 2), (b) Southampton to West Coast Mainline (Gauge), (c) north London and Great Eastern Freight Works, (d) West Midland Freight Works, (e) re-opening Portishead line for freight and new line to port, (f) Transpennine/South Humberside freight capacity works and (g) for freight services to Royal Portbury Docks, Bristol. [149709]

  Mr. McNulty
  Progress is as follows:

  (a) Physical works between Felixstowe and Ipswich have been completed. A study commissioned by Network Rail for the Ipswich-Peterborough work has been completed.

  (b) Detailed structure surveys are being undertaken.

  (c) Gauge enhancement through the Ipswich Tunnel is programmed to take place this summer. Options to improve cross-London capacity are being evaluated.

  (d) The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) are considering whether work to provide additional capacity for freight can be carried out in conjunction with the routine re-signalling schemes proposed by Network Rail for the Saltley signal box area and at Stourbridge.

  (e) The Portishead line has been re-opened and the new line to the port has been opened.

  (f) Network Rail are considering the requirements and will report the cost estimates to the SRA in the spring.

  (g) Freight services to the docks are now operating.

  38W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many freight access grants have been made in the last 12 months; and what the total sum paid was. [150013]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has not awarded any new Track Access Grants (TAGs) in the last 12 months, three existing grants had their contracts extended. Records of the amount paid through TAGs are held by financial years. Since April 2003 £14.2 million has been paid by the SRA in TAGs. Payments for previous years are reported in the SRA's Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he was consulted before the Strategic Rail Authority introduced its moratorium on freight access grants. [150050]

  Mr. McNulty
  Yes.

  Rail Infrastructure Asset Register
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made by Network Rail to establish a comprehensive asset register of the rail infrastructure; what that register includes; and when it will be completed. [149712]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since April 2001, when the Rail Regulator modified Railtrack's network licence to require the company to establish and maintain an asset register, the company has thoroughly reviewed the state of its asset knowledge, established the key principles of how its asset information strategy needs to improve its business planning processes and developed detailed plans to meet these business needs. Good progress is being made, and Network Rail is continuing to press ahead with the implementation of these plans.

  Development of the asset register comprises a number of key elements. It is replacing many old databases with new systems that will provide access to integrated and consistent, company-wide data for the first time. In some cases, existing data systems can be maintained, but they are being overhauled to ensure that data are accurate and fully up to date.

  Much of this work is highly detailed and requires a painstaking review of large volumes of data. Inevitably, this is time consuming, but good progress is being made. Some elements of the project are complete, while others, such as the new system for managing maintenance work known as MIMS1, are well developed and in the course of introduction. It is expected that MIMS will be fully implemented by April 2004.

  As the asset register is being completed, new data collection and storage systems are being implemented, requiring significant changes to the culture of data management within Network Rail. Development will continue to take effect for many years, but it is expected that a fundamental milestone will be the completion of a baseline asset inventory which will contain accurate and fully up-to-date information about the key attributes of the network assets by mid-2005.
  1 Mincom Information Management System—initially developed for use in the mining industry.

  Rail Network (Repair and Maintenance)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish provisional findings from the comprehensive asset register on the cost of the backlog of repair and maintenance work on the rail network; [149713]

  (2) if he will set a target date to remove the backlog of maintenance and renewal work to achieve steady-state condition. [149714]

  Mr. McNulty
  The purpose of the asset register is to ensure that Network Rail has appropriate knowledge of the condition, capability and capacity of the network assets. As its development continues, the asset register will introduce new techniques and better quality asset information that will enhance Network Rail's understanding of the age, use and behaviour of individual assets in service, so that it can improve:

  (a) its planning for the appropriate maintenance and repair interventions;

  (b) the accuracy of long-term predictive modelling of maintenance and renewal interventions; and

  (c) the management and monitoring of actual performance against planned activities, and the costs of those activities.

  Work to develop these long-term planning tools is still in progress but, in their early stages, they provided important input to the Rail Regulator's review of access charges during 2003—particularly in respect of track renewals.

  The Regulator's conclusions, published on 12 December 2003, provide for increased levels of funding for infrastructure maintenance and renewals. It is now for Network Rail to respond by increasing its activities in accordance with the scope and priorities of work that it determines in response to the Regulator's review.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on recruitment advertisements in the press, broken down by publication, by(a) his Department, (b) quangos under the Department and (c) non-departmental Government bodies under the Department (i) in the last year and (ii) since the Department's creation. [145808]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002. The Department uses the most appropriate publication for recruitment advertising, be it national, regional, trade magazine or website, depending on the nature of the vacancy.

  The following are details of the costs incurred by DfT (Central) for recruitment advertising.

  2002–03:

  £241,868.87

  2003–04 to date:

  £349,117.32.

  This does not include the Department's Agencies and NDPBs as they have responsibility for their own recruitment below the Senior Civil Service.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the royal train. [149928]
  40W
  Mr. McNulty
  Last year, the royal household completed a review on the future of the royal train. The review concluded that the royal train should continue to be used as an integral part of royal travel but that the household and the Department should actively monitor costs to ensure that it is operated and maintained in the most cost effective manner.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) his Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147979]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of permanent passes in the Department for Transport reported in the last 12 months as lost totals 71. A further two were reported as stolen. In the same period 147 Agency passes were lost and two stolen. A large number of the Department's access control systems are electronic and have the facility to invalidate a pass as soon as it is reported to have been lost. In areas where access is given on visual inspection of a pass, any increased threat that results from the loss of such a pass is assessed and appropriate action is taken.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in his Department in the last 12 months. [150405]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of permanent passes in the Department for Transport reported in the last 12 months as lost totals 71. A further two were reported as stolen. A large number of the Department's access control systems are electronic and have the facility to invalidate a pass as soon as it is reported to have been lost. In areas where access is given on visual inspection of a pass any increased threat that results from the loss of such a pass is assessed and appropriate action is taken.

  Ships (Dangerous Cargoes)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions since 1975 when ships have lost dangerous cargoes overboard in(a) United Kingdom waters, (b) the English Channel and (c) the North Sea; what cargo was lost in each case; and what was subsequently recovered. [148594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency uses data provided by the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS) and information is not available in the form requested. However, Coastguard experience suggests that there are around five or six such incidents per year in UK waters. In 2001, for example, the Agency is aware of five incidents in UK waters. There were none in the English Channel and four in the North Sea. In 2002, the Agency is aware of five incidents in UK waters, including one in the English Channel and three in the North Sea.

  The majority of the incidents in 2001 and 2002 involved chemical drums/containers washed up on beaches. In cases such as this, he local authority and/or Fire Brigade have arranged for safe disposal.

  Station Improvements
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Strategic Rail Authority will set new targets to achieve its earlier target of delivering £370 million improvements to 1,000 stations by 2004. [149711]

  Mr. McNulty
  The current programme for providing new facilities under the Modern Facilities at Stations Scheme (MFAS) covers 68 stations. Work on these is scheduled for completion by 31 March 2005. Any extension of the scheme will depend on the availability of future funding following the Government's Spending Review later this year.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people employed in his Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148624]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002. The first complete year for which we have data on staff sick absence rates for staff in the centre of the Department for Transport is January to December 2003. During this period, the number of people taking sick leave was as follows:

  Days

  Number

  (a) Four to seven

  292

  (b) Eight to 21

  137

  (c) 22to42

  37

  (d)43to72

  17

  (e)73 to 140

  16

  (f) 141 to 196

  6

  The Department is committed to managing sick absence effectively.

  US Security (Passenger Screening)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what liaison his Department has had with the United States Department of Homeland Security over the Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System, Version 2 (CAPPS-11). [149605]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department liaises closely with United States authorities on aviation security measures, and is aware in that context of the development of the CAPPS2 system.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports Activities (Children)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average time spent on all sports by those aged between six and 16 years was in terms of hours per week in each year since 1997. [149866]
  42W
  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is not collected in this format. Taking into account time spent per week on curriculum PE, outside lessons in term time and during the previous summer holidays, the results of Sport England's Young People and Sport National Surveys suggested that, on average, young people spent eight hours 23 minutes a week on sport and physical activity in 1999 and that this had decreased to eight hours 12 minutes a week by 2002. Data are now being collected for the first time—for publication in April;—on the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum.

  Cinema
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's policy is on the recognition of cinema as a cultural and regenerative opportunity in unitary development plans. [149956]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council's network of Regional Screen Agencies (RSAs) work with key local authorities to position film within cultural plans, and to emphasise the value of cinema as a cultural and regenerative opportunity in unitary development plans.

  A number of RSAs are also developing, with local authorities, proposals around cinema exhibition in rural and market towns. This research will emphasise the effects which a working cinema can have on a range of social, cultural and economic issues. The UK Film Council, in partnership with the British Film Institute (BFI) and the RSAs, is currently carrying out research into the social and economic impact of town centre cinemas which is expected to back up the work of RSAs with local authorities.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many civil servants, broken down by grade, there are in the Department and the agencies for which the Department is responsible; and what the figures were in January 1997. [150255]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table shows the numbers of individual civil servants employed by DCMS and the Royal Parks Agency.

  1 April 19971

  1 January 2004

  DCMS

  SCS

  22

  25

  A

  61

  85

  B

  101

  146

  C

  64

  115

  D

  104

  104

  Total

  352

  475

  The Royal Parks

  A

  5

  8

  B

  15

  23

  C

  25

  30

  D

  19

  23

  SCS

  1

  2

  Commander

  1

  0

  Superintendent

  1

  1

  Chief Inspector

  0

  1

  Inspector

  7

  6

  43W

  1 April 19971

  1 January 2004

  Police Sergeant

  13

  18

  Police Constable

  139

  116

  Horse Manager

  1

  0

  Total

  227

  228

  1 Data for January 1997 are not available.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much space, expressed in square metres, the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150279]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS occupies five buildings/part buildings in central London. The space in occupation amounts to 10,557.94 square metres net usable area. There are no buildings occupied in the Greater London Area.

  Commercial Radio Stations
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she has made of the use of the Radio Joint Audience Research system of audience measurement to calculate the amount of levy on the qualifying revenues of national commercial radio stations; [149892]

  (2) if she will adopt a system of electronic audience measurement to calculate the amount of levy on the qualifying revenue of national commercial radio stations; [149893]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the effect on revenue from the levy on qualifying revenues of national commercial radio stations of moving from the Radio Joint Audience Research system of audience measurement to a system of electronic audience measurement. [149895]

  Estelle Morris
  None. The calculation of qualifying revenue is a matter for Ofcom acting in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Ofcom (formerly the Radio Authority) is required to draw up and from time to time review a statement setting out the principles to be followed in calculating qualifying revenue. Before doing so, Ofcom must consult the Secretary of State and the Treasury. This statement was last reviewed in November 1995. I understand there are currently no plans for further revisions.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will ask Ofcom to conduct a study into the accuracy of the Radio Joint Audience Research system of audience measurement. [149894]

  Estelle Morris
  No. The accuracy of audience is a matter for the industry. I understand that RAJAR are conducting extensive research into the merits of electronic measurement devices.

  Film Distribution
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what steps her Department is taking to help independent film 44W
  distributors to compete with (a) mainstream products and (b) products distributed from Hollywood studios; [149952]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to broaden the audience base at cinemas; [149953]

  (3) what steps her Department is taking to support the independent distribution sector in making available more prints of independent films; [149954]

  (4) what steps her Department is taking to create incentives for exhibitors to show more independent films. [149955]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council, the Government's strategic agency for film, has recently announced a comprehensive Distribution and Exhibition Strategy costing £24 million over the next three years aimed at widening audiences for film and ensuring a broader and more diverse range of films is available.

  £14 million of this funding will be allocated, in partnership with the Arts Council of England, to a Digital Screen Network which will enable the exhibition of a wider range of films, through the provision of equipment enabling the digital exhibition of films.

  The strategy also includes a Specialised Print and Advertising (P&A) Fund, with £1 million per annum over the next three years, to assist distributors to widen the availability of films defined as "specialised". These are films characterised by an innovative cinematic style, or which engage with challenging subject matter, offering audiences a different experience of cinema from that provided by mainstream US studio-originated material. Support will be available under this fund to enable a distributor to increase the print run and media investment (P&A) for specialised films.

  The £1 million UK Film Distribution Programme is another strand of the strategy which is aimed at assisting distributors to increase the theatrical release of indigenous UK films that are aimed at a wide, commercial market.

  Heritage Lottery Funding
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Heritage Lottery funding has been awarded to Brent in each year since 1997. [150039]

  Estelle Morris
  Heritage Lottery Fund commitments made for the Brent Local Authority Area by financial year are as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  1997–98

  9,900

  1998–99

  Nil

  1999–2000

  Nil

  2000–2001

  184,600

  2001–2002

  912,000

  2002–2003

  1,099,400

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Heritage Lottery
  45W
  funding has been awarded on average to London boroughs in each year since 1997. [150042]

  Estelle Morris
  The figures are in the table.

  Financial year

  £

  1997–98

  3,038,537

  1998–99

  1,616,752

  1999–2000

  351,044

  2000–01

  1,302,294

  2001–02

  1,260,987

  2002–03

  1,561,673

  The figures include funding for National Museums and Galleries.

  Imperial War Museum North
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to visit the Imperial War Museum North seminar on Nuclear Weapons Past and Future to be held on 11 February. [149969]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has not received an invitation to this seminar.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value is of Lottery revenue used to support Government-sponsored projects within her Department since 1997. [149625]

  Estelle Morris
  One of the central strengths of the Lottery is its ability to harness other sources of funding, from the private, public and the not-for-profit sectors. 143,000 Lottery awards have been made since 1997. The cost of identifying which related to Government-sponsored projects would be disproportionate.

  Michele Verroken
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to re-appoint Michele Verroken to a position dealing with the campaigns against the misuse of drugs in sport in the United Kingdom. [150640]

  Mr. Caborn
  Michelle Verroken's contract of employment with UK Sport has not at this stage been terminated. It would therefore, be inappropriate to make any further comment at this time.

  Ministerial Visits
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what ministerial visits she has planned for the next six months. [145602]

  Tessa Jowell
  Over the next six months I have to date the following ministerial visits planned:

  Venue

  Purpose of meeting

  Liverpool

  To attend the LGA Conference

  Bradford

  To meet Bradford city council

  Berlin

  To have a bilateral meeting with the German Culture Minister and will attend the Treptow event

  46W

  Venue

  Purpose of meeting

  Harrow

  Visit to Headstone Manor and Ladbroke Racing HQ.

  India

  To lead a British film delegation to the Frames film and entertainment festival

  Nottingham

  to attend the National Sports Development seminar

  N Ireland

  To attend Sports Cabinet

  Cyprus

  To visit the BOA training camp in advance of the Olympic games

  Birmingham

  BBC Charter Review Consultation

  Leicester

  BBC Charter Review Consultation

  York

  BBC Charter Review Consultation

  Barbican

  LSO event

  Tate Modern

  Terry Frost exhibition

  ENO

  Reopening

  Photographers Gallery

  Citigroup Photograph Prize

  Royal Festival Hall

  Concert

  Highbury

  Football match

  Queen (Diamond Jubilee)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what preparations the Government is making to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012; [149927]

  (2) if she will make a statement on plans for celebrating Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee. [150393]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is too early to consider the celebrations that will mark Her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. At an appropriate time the Government will begin discussions with the Palace as to the nature of these celebrations and the necessary preparations will be made.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the extent to which the royal family features in material to promote tourism in Britain. [150187]

  Mr. Caborn
  Britain's royal heritage plays an important role in VisitBritain's work to promote Britain overseas as a tourism destination. Many of the publications and campaign materials produced by VisitBritain feature occupied Royal Palaces as well as historic buildings and castles with links to the monarchy. To celebrate the Golden Jubilee in 2002, VisitBritain published a map of 'Britain's Royal Heritage' featuring a foreword by HRH the Prince of Wales. In addition members of the royal family have supported the tourism industry through visits to VisitBritain's overseas offices and other promotional events such as Royal Tourism Day in June last year

  Sports Expenditure
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the funds allocated to Step into Sport have been spent; and how many volunteers have been recruited. [149962]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office jointly allocated £7 million to Step into Sport, enabling roll-out from April 2002 to 200 school sport partnerships. By summer 2004 it is expected that some 50,000 young people will have taken sports leaders awards of which 1) some 20,000 will have
  47W
  helped run festivals of sport for primary schools and 2) some 4,000 will have been supported to begin volunteering in local sports clubs. In addition Sport England is supporting 16 national governing bodies of sport and all 45 county sports partnerships to develop and implement volunteer support strategies.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, columns 166–67W, on sports expenditure, if she will break down by funding block the £103.5 million spent by her Department on sport in 2003. [150023]

  Mr. Caborn
  The £103.5 million is analysed as follows.

  Outturn figures for 2002–03

  £

  Sport

  Spend

  Children's Play

  498,000

  Commonwealth Games Ceremonies

  8,301,000

  Step into Sport

  2,271,000

  Other Support and Subsidy

  1,094,000

  Football Licensing Authority Grant in Aid

  955,000

  Sport England Grant in Aid

  80,324,000

  Space for Sports and Arts

  10,100,000

  Total

  103,543,000

  Sport England's Grant in Aid includes a £28 million allocation of funding to support Manchester Commonwealth Games.

  Sportsmatch Scheme
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to provide further support to the Sportsmatch scheme. [150638]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Sportsmatch scheme is funded by Sport England, which confirms that the present level of funding will be maintained until 2005–06. Sportsmatch will receive £3.675 million in each of the financial years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. The level of funding for future years will be reviewed by the Department and Sport England well in advance of the end of the present funding arrangements.

  Sub-regional Television Stations
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to discuss with the BBC during the review of its Charter the development of sub-regional television stations. [148164]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: Charter review is an open and transparent process, characterised by extensive public consultation and debate. The process is at an early stage and the review will cover the full range of the BBC's activities.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to visit domestic tourist attractions(a) in and (b) outside London. [147248]
  48W
  Tessa Jowell
  During the next few months I have to date plans to visit the following domestic tourist attractions:

  (a) In London:

  Barbican—LSO centenary event

  ENO—attend the re-opening

  Donmar Warehouse—The Dark

  Royal Festival Hall—Britten's Serenade for Horns and strings and Mahler 6

  Highbury—Arsenal football match

  Tate Modern—Terry Frost exhibition

  London—Flora Marathon

  Harrow West—Headstone Manor

  (b) Outside London she plans to visit:

  Cornwall—Eden Project and Royal Cornwall Museum

  Cheltenham—Cheltenham Races

  Cardiff—Millennium Stadium, FA Cup final

  Twickenham—6 Nations rugby match

  Silverstone—British Grand Prix

  Royal Troon—British Open Golf

  York—Heritage sites

  UK Rowing
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what additional funding the Government will provide for UK rowing, to enable the UK to host the(a) 2005 Rowing World Cup and (b) 2006 Rowing World Championships. [150778]

  Mr. Caborn
  UK Sport is working closely with the Amateur Rowing Association on its application for funding for the 2005 Rowing World Cup, with the aim of submitting it to the Major Events Steering Group in April before further consideration by the UK Sports Council.

  UK Sport has already made a grant under the Major Events Programme to the Association of £1,150,000 towards staging the 2006 World Championships.

  UK Sport
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to appoint a new long-term full-time chairman of UK Sport. [150639]

  Mr. Caborn
  The interim chair of UK Sport, Sue Campbell, was appointed in September 2003 for up to 18 months and we do not expect to appoint a permanent chair until her term of office expires.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Minister for Women what the Government's policy is on transparency of remuneration in relation to equal pay; and what plans the Government have to achieve equal pay for men and women performing the same job description where women are paid less than their male counterparts. [150293]
  49W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are taking the issue of transparency of pay seriously. We believe that secrecy can perpetuate the gender pay gap. Employers must ensure that pay systems and practices do not lead to pay inequalities between men and women. This is particularly important with discretionary performance pay and bonuses. We have introduced the equal pay questionnaire to help people who think they have an equal pay problem find out from their employers whether this is the case. We believe that carrying out an equal pay review should be good business practice for every employer and have developed a number of initiatives to help them, including funding the Equal Opportunities Commission to develop equal pay toolkits. We are working in partnership with business, trade unions, the EOC and Opportunity Now to ensure that 35 per cent. of large employers have done pay reviews by 2006. We are also improving the way the Equal Pay Act works in practice and will be consulting shortly on proposals to speed up and simplify complex equal value cases.

  Sex Discrimination Act
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to bring forward amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to introduce a public duty to promote gender equality [149562]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are taking forward a significant legislative agenda on equality matters, and they have committed themselves to introduce a duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for women and men generally when parliamentary time allows.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prisoners (Egypt)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1321, if he will (a) meet the relatives of the three detainees held in a Cairo prison and (b) make representations to President Mubarak on the case being adjourned twice. [150905]

  £

  Financial year May-March

  (a) Expenditure on information campaigns

  (b) Expenditure on advertising

  1997–98

  LCD

  0

  0

  Court Service

  0

  0

  Public Trust Office

  0

  0

  1998–99

  LCD

  0

  0

  Court Service

  0

  0

  Public Trust Office

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  LCD

  0

  0

  Court Service

  0

  0

  Public Trust Office

  0

  0

  2000–01

  LCD

  4,179,300

  1,347,600

  Court Service

  0

  0

  Public Trust Office

  0

  0

  50W
  The Prime Minister
  As I explained to the hon. Member at Prime Minister's Questions, I am fully aware of the circumstances of this case and understand the disappointment of the men's relatives that the case has been adjourned again.

  The UK Ambassador in Cairo has raised our concerns about the case with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on 15 January, one of many representations we have made to the Egyptian authorities. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have also met the men's families on four occasions.

  As the Department which leads on consular cases overseas, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers should continue to make representations to the Egyptian Government where appropriate and maintain contact with the men's families.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total expenditure on(a) information campaigns and (b) advertising was for the Lord Chancellor's Department in each year since 1997 [145384]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is listed in the following table.

  Over the period in question, the Lord Chancellor's Department spent £4,179,300 on one information campaign in 2000–01, of which £1,347,600 was spent on advertising. The purpose of this campaign was to raise public awareness of the Community Legal Service, set up in April 2000, to provide legal advice and guidance to the public.

  Since it became the Department of Constitutional Affairs in June 2003, my Department has also run a campaign to recruit more people from under-represented groups and younger people to the magistracy. The total expenditure to date on this campaign has been £207,000 on regional bus, radio and press advertising.
  51W

  £

  Financial year May-March

  (a) Expenditure on information campaigns

  (b) Expenditure on advertising

  2001–02

  LCD

  0

  0

  Court Service

  0

  0

  PGO1

  0

  0

  2002-June 2003

  DCA2

  0

  207,000

  Court Service

  0

  0

  PGO

  0

  0

  1 The Public Guardianship Office replaced PTO in April 2003.

  2 The Department for Constitutional Affairs replaced LCD on June 2003.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total expenditure on(a) information campaigns and (b) advertising was for his Department since its creation [145385]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since it was set up on 12 June 2003, my Department has(a) spent £207,000 on one information campaign to encourage more people from under-represented groups and younger people to become magistrates.

  (b) This information campaign has only comprised advertising, of which the expenditure to date is:

  £176,000 for regional bus adverts;

  £27,000 for press adverts;

  £4,000 for radio advertising.

  Legal Finance
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the QCs who received the highest overall payments(a) from the Community Legal Service budget and (b) from the Criminal Defence Service budget in 2002–03 [141417]

  Mr. Lammy
  The highest total payments made directly from the Community Legal Service fund during 2002–03 were to Lord Brennan QC. Lord Brennan received £606,000 to the nearest thousand.

  The highest value of aggregated payments made from the Criminal Defence Service budget during 2002–03 were to Mr James Sturman QC. Mr Sturman received in the region of £620,000.

  Care should be taken not to misinterpret these payments as an indication of annual earnings for work carried out in the year for the following reasons:
  Payments made during any financial year will include payments for work carried out before the start of the year, and will include payments for cases which started and concluded over several years.
  Payments received during any financial year do not necessarily mean that they were paid for work carried out at the rank of QC. Barristers may be paid directly by an instructing solicitor as part a solicitors disbursement.
  The figures quoted above are gross payments and are inclusive of VAT, and may include payments on account where applicable as well as travel and hotel expenses incurred.

  Magistrates Courts
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the 52W
  magistrate benches that (a) do and (b) do not co-operate in joint police, local authority and magistrate courts training [144836]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is no central data collected on the information requested. It is a matter for each MCC whether joint training and other events take place in co-operation with local authorities and the police. In making these decisions MCCs will also take regard to the need to protect the judicial independence of the magistracy. Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJB) are the forum through which such co-operation may be discussed and agreed. For example, we know of an LCJB which has been instrumental in developing a protocol on anti-social behaviour order matters which is used by all criminal justice service agencies.

  LCJBs are run under a tripartite arrangement involving the Home Office, my Department and the Crown Prosecution Service and seek to include the chief officers from the Police, the Probation Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Crown and Magistrates' Courts, the Prison Service, and Youth Offending Teams. Magistrates' Courts are not represented by magistrates, but the Justices Chief Executive (JCE) does attend as the senior official from the local MCC on their behalf. The JCE has overall responsibility for ensuring that appropriate training is planned and delivered to magistrates and can direct as necessary on issues arising from LCJBs

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the work of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights in relation to Afghanistan. [149652]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Kamal Hossain, the Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/19, visited Afghanistan three times in 2002. His last, ninth report, issued on 13 January 2003, focused on the impact on human rights of Afghanistan's transitional process started by the Bonn Agreement of December 2001.

  There has been progress on a range of human rights issues since the Special Rapporteur's last report. Most recently, Articles 5, 7 and 58 of the new constitution, agreed on 4 January 2004, oblige the Afghan State to

  53W
  protect human rights, ensure unity and equality among all ethnic groups, abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and establish an Independent Human Rights Commission to promote the advancement and protection of human rights. Chapter Two of the constitution has 38 Articles covering the Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens. These include Articles 22 and 43 which establish equal rights for all Afghans (both men and women), including access to free education up to degree level; and Article 34 which states that freedom of expression is inviolable.

  The Afghan Transitional Administration and international community are committed to providing the security and resources needed to support implementation of the new constitution, and to develop effective mechanisms to tackle continuing human rights violations and abuses, including those against women.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress by the UN and Afghan Transitional Authority on measures concerning Afghan women and girls set out in Economic and Social Council Resolution 2002–04. [149653]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since Resolution 2002–04 there have been a number of significant developments affecting women and girls in Afghanistan.

  On 5 March 2003, Afghanistan publicly demonstrated its intention to restore full and equal rights for women by ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In the same month, the EU sponsored a resolution on Afghanistan at the Commission on the Status of Women, welcoming the progress that Afghanistan has made to improve the situation for women and urging the Afghan Transitional Administration (ATA) to ensure that a legal framework, protecting women's rights, was put in place.

  The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on violence against women, submitted her report on the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan in October 2003. Many of the recommendations requiring action by the ATA were reflected in the new Afghan Constitution, agreed on 4 January 2004. 23 per cent. of the delegates to the Constitutional Loya Jirga were women from across Afghanistan. Articles 22, 43 and 44 of the new Constitution establish women's equal rights, including access to education; and place an obligation on the Afghan State to develop education programmes for women. By March 2003, the number of children attending the first day of school rose to 4.2 million: 37 per cent. of the students are girls, and a third of the teachers are women.

  In late 2003, the UN appointed Luntan Bayarmaa as the Gender Adviser in the Office of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the political parties registered in Afghanistan. [150643]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), no political parties have yet been registered in Afghanistan.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action was taken by his Department as a result of the threat that light aircraft posed to British Airways planes in Saudi Arabia. [150528]

  Mr. Straw
  We are not able to comment on specific threats but I can assure the right hon. Gentlemen that we take very seriously every threat to aviation and take appropriate action, in coordination with the Department for Transport, airlines and, as necessary, the security and intelligence agencies and foreign governments.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will assess the feasibility of resettling the population to those parts of British Indian Ocean Territory permitted to Chagossians under the Immigration Ordinance (British Indian Ocean Territory) dated 3 November 2002. [150188]

  Mr. Rammell
  A study by independent experts into the feasibility of resettlement of the Chagos islands was commissioned in April 2000. The report on the first phase of the study was completed in June 2000 and the report on the second phase, which incorporated findings from the first, was completed in June 2002. Copies of these reports are in the Library of the House.

  The study concluded that short-term habitation for limited numbers would be possible but only on a subsistence basis while any long-term settlement would be precarious and costly. No final decisions have been taken on any further phase of this feasibility study.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of actions taken since July 2002 to support the Chagossians. [150189]

  Mr. Rammell
  No specific measures in support of the Chagossian community have been taken since July 2002. But we continue to be in contact with the leaders and representatives of the community about the concerns that they have.

  China
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between China and the UK. [150040]

  Mr. Rammell
  We currently enjoy good relations with China. These have been built on regular high level visits in both directions, as well as lower level exchanges on many different issues.

  As part of our efforts to increase collaboration between the UK and China, a Task Force was set up in September 2003 under my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's leadership in order to make firm recommendations for action. Work is progressing and we hope to announce these in late spring.
  55W
  We have welcomed China's support in the fight against terrorism and have encouraged her to engage constructively in international fora.

  We do, nevertheless, continue to raise with the Chinese authorities areas where we disagree, such as Human Rights.

  Cyprus
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on the future of Cyprus and if he will make a statement [150033]

  Mr. MacShane
  I frequently discuss the future of Cyprus with my European colleagues. We all agree on the desirability of an early settlement of the Cyprus problem so that a united island can join the EU on 1 May. This remains the Government's objective.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of prospects for an agreement between Greece and Turkey on the issue of the future sovereignty of Cyprus when the island accedes to the European Union on 1 May and if he will make a statement [150034]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government continue to believe that a settlement to the Cyprus problem is achievable by 1 May. But this will only be possible if all sides meet the requirements set down by the UNSG in April last year, and make a full and clear commitment to reach a settlement on the basis of the UNSG's proposals. Current indications give some cause for optimism. I was impressed during my recent visit to Turkey by the Turkish Government's determination to work for an early settlement.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of the latest UN plan for the sovereignty of Cyprus in achieving an agreement between Greece and Turkey and if he will make a statement. [150035]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government believe that the UNSG's proposals are the only basis for a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem. The proposals are the product of involvement by the UN over many years. I can see no other solution that can adequately satisfy the legitimate concerns of all sides (including Greece and Turkey) on the island's future.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the(a) Turkish ambassador and (b) Greek ambassador to discuss the future of Cyprus. [150036]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Greek Foreign Minister on 22 January 2004. The Greek ambassador was present. The Foreign Secretary has not had a substantive meeting with the Turkish ambassador so far this year. But we are in very close contact with the Turkish embassy, and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara. I met the Turkish ambassador on 21 January. The future of Cyprus was one of the main topics of discussion in all of these meetings.
  56W
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priorities he has set for assisting in negotiations aimed at achieving an agreement between Greece and Turkey on the sovereignty of Cyprus. [150037]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our first priority regarding Cyprus is to work for a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement. We believe the best, and only realistic, way of achieving this is through the continued efforts of the United Nations. We are actively encouraging all sides to meet the UN Secretary General's requirements for an early resumption of negotiations based on the UNSG's proposals, so that a united Cyprus can join the EU on 1 May 2004.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list residential properties sold by his Department since June 1997, and the net cash proceeds of each. [149856]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since June 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has sold the following residential accommodation:

  Head of post residences

  Staff accommodation

  Properties

  1997–98

  Paris OECD

  —

  1

  Zurich

  —

  1

  Bogota

  1 Flat

  Buenos Aires

  1 Flat

  Canberra

  1 House

  Capetown

  1 House

  Geneva

  1 House

  Georgetown

  1 House

  Harare

  1 House

  Helsinki

  2 Houses, 1 Flat

  Johannesburg

  1 House

  Lusaka

  4 House

  Madrid

  l Flat

  Maputo

  1 House

  Maseru

  2 Houses

  Paris

  7 Flats

  Pretoria

  1 House

  Reykjavik

  1 House

  The Hague

  2 Flats

  Tirana

  1 House

  Wellington

  1 House

  Windhoek

  1 House

  1998–99

  Lille

  —

  1

  Marseilles

  —

  1

  Copenhagen

  2 Flats

  Dublin

  1 House

  Geneva

  4 Flats

  Honiara

  1 House

  Johannesburg

  2 Houses

  Mbabane

  1 House

  Oslo

  1 House

  Ottawa

  2 Houses

  Paris

  2 Flats

  Ports of Spain

  1 House

  Pretoria

  Blocks of Flats

  The Hague

  1 Flat

  1999–2000

  Cleveland

  —

  1

  Bogota

  1 Flat

  Bonn

  1 House

  57W

  Head of post residences

  Staff accommodation

  Properties

  Bridgetown

  1 House

  Budapest

  1 House

  Gevena

  2 Flats

  Johannesburg

  1 Flat

  Kuala Lumpur

  1 Flat

  Madrid

  1 House

  Mbabane

  1 House

  Paris

  2 Flats

  Port Moresby

  2 Houses

  Santiago

  1 House

  Stockholm

  2 Flats

  Sydney

  1 House

  Tel Aviv

  1 House

  2000 to 2001

  Bonn

  —

  1

  Bonn

  1 House

  Cairo

  2 Houses

  Capetown

  1 House

  Dares Salaam

  Block of 6 Flats

  1

  Dublin

  2 Houses

  Geneva

  1 Flat

  Helsinki

  1 House

  Jakarta

  1 House

  Kuala Lumpur

  1 Flat, 1 House

  Lagos

  Block of 6 Flats

  Lisbon

  1 House

  Madrid

  1 House

  Nairobi

  1 House

  Nassau

  1 House

  Ottawa

  3 Flats

  Singapore

  1 House

  2001–2002

  Munich

  —

  1

  Paris

  —

  1

  St. John's

  —

  1

  Athens

  3 Flats

  Bogota

  5 Flats

  Brussels

  1 House, 1 Flat

  Buenos Aires

  2 Houses

  Cairo

  1 House

  Capetown

  3 Houses

  Chicago

  1 House

  Dares Salaam

  1 House

  Dublin

  1 House

  Geneva

  1 Flat

  Helsinki

  1 House, 2 Flats

  Jakarta

  1 House

  Kingston

  1 House

  Kuala Lumpur

  2 Houses

  Lagos

  2 Houses

  Lusaka

  1 House

  Montevideo

  1 Flat

  New York

  2 Flats

  Oslo

  1 House

  Ottawa

  1 House

  Paris

  6 Flats

  Port of Spain

  1 House, 1 Flat

  Santiago

  1 Flat

  Stanley

  1 House

  Stockholm

  1 House

  Sydney

  1 House

  Tel Aviv

  4 Houses

  The Hague

  3 Flats

  Valetta

  1 House

  Vienna

  1 House

  Washington

  1 House, 6 Flats

  2002–2003

  Lyon

  —

  1

  Amman

  1 House

  Bridgetown

  4 Houses

  Canberra

  2 Houses

  Dakar

  1 House

  Dublin

  2 Houses

  58W

  Head of post residences

  Staff accommodation

  Properties

  Durban

  1 House

  Lagos

  1 House

  Lilongwe

  6 Houses

  Lusaka

  1 House

  Madrid

  1 Flat, 1 House

  Muscat

  2 Houses

  Ottawa

  1 Flat

  Paris

  2 Flats

  Pretoria

  1 House

  Reykjavik

  1 House

  Santiago

  1 House

  Strasbourge

  1 House

  Washington

  1 House, 2 Flats

  2003–2004

  Gothenburg

  —

  1

  Guatemala

  —

  1

  Ho Chi Minh City

  —

  1

  San Francisco

  —

  1

  Auckland

  1 House

  Budapest

  1 Flat

  Buenos Aires

  1 Flat

  Capetown

  1 House

  Dublin

  1 House

  Gaberone

  2 Houses

  Ho Chi Minh City

  3 Properties

  Madrid

  1 House

  Nairobi

  3 Houses

  Port of Spain

  1 House

  Washington

  6 Houses, 1 Flat

  Note:

  The total receipts for the period covered is £88.5 million.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality the FCO cannot give under exemption 13 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information individual sales figures.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the residential properties purchased by his Department since June 1997, and the total cash of each. [149857]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since June 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has purchased the following residential properties:

  Descriptions

  Properties

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Antananarivo: Residence

  Bridgetown: Staff house

  Kyiv: Staff Flat

  The Hague: Staff Flat

  Vienna: UK Residence

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Montevideo: Staff Flat

  Seoul: Staff house

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Budapest: Staff house

  Georgetown: Residence

  Gothenberg: Residence

  Ottawa: Staff accommodation

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Antigua: Residence

  Bucharest: Residence

  Caracas: Staff Accommodation

  Dublin: Residence

  Dublin: Staff house

  Ottawa: Staff house

  Port of Spain: Staff house

  Santiago: Staff House

  59W

  Descriptions

  Properties

  Vilnius: Residence

  Yerevan: Residence

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  Berne: Staff House

  Guatemala: Residence

  Kyiv: Residence

  Stockholm: Staff House

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003

  New York: Residence

  Durban: Staff House

  Plymouth: Residence

  1 April 2003 to date

  San Francisco: Residence

  Total expenditure

  £28.5 million

  The FCO is withholding information in individual purchase figures under exemption 12 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Entry Clearance
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many interviews were conducted by the British High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan for entry clearance for settlement purposes in each month in the last two years. [149885]

  (2) how long it took on average in 2003 for a person applying for entry clearance for settlement to be granted an interview; [149887]

  Mr. Mullin
  The table shows the number of interviews for entry clearance applications for settlement, conducted at our High Commission in Islamabad in each month during 2002 and 2003.

  Settlement interviews conducted in 2002

  Settlement interviews conducted in 2003

  January

  1,607

  Nil

  February

  758

  Nil

  March

  1,065

  Nil

  April

  1,296

  Nil

  May

  697

  Nil

  June

  Nil

  Nil

  July

  Nil

  Nil

  August

  Nil

  Nil

  September

  Nil

  Nil

  October

  Nil

  196

  November

  Nil

  123

  December

  Nil

  164

  Due to security concerns at the High Commission, three partial evacuations of staff were carried out between October 2001 and May 2002 and only essential staff remained in post by 8 June 2002. Although the number of entry clearance staff in post increased significantly during 2003, the Visa Section's ability to offer applicants an interview has been severely disrupted over the past two years.

  During 2002 entry clearance interviews for applicants wishing to settle in the UK were only conducted from January to 21 May. During 2003 interviews for non-settlement applications resumed on 1 June, although interviews for settlement did notresume until 1 October
  60W
  2003, since when the average wait for interview has been 10 working days. During 2004, 63 interviews are recorded as being conducted up to 20 January.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are waiting to be granted an interview by the British high commission in Islamabad for entry clearance for settlement purposes. [149888]

  Mr. Mullin
  As at 20 January 2004, 62 people had scheduled appointments for settlement interviews up to 10 February. A further 66 applicants were waiting for their interview appointments to be arranged.

  EU Countries (Access)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the estimated(a) number and (b) percentage is of the populations of (i) Bosnia and Herzegovina and (ii) Kosovo who have visa-free access to European Union countries by virtue of their Croatian passports or citizenship is; and if he will make a statement. [147734]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 14 January 2004]: While we are aware that a number of Croatian citizens living in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo have visa-free access to European Union countries by virtue of their Croatian passports or citizenship, we do not have details of precise numbers. In order to travel to the UK, all Croatian citizens must have a visa.

  Further research to determine the precise figures required by this question would incur disproportionate costs.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the membership of the panel responsible for drawing up the shortlist of United Kingdom candidates for the European Court of Human Rights, indicating(a) whom they represent and (b) who appoints them. [147791]

  Mr. Mullin
  The panel comprises:

  Sir Hayden Phillips (chair), Permanent Secretary to the Department for Constitutional Affairs;

  Lord Justice Laws, Judge of the Court of Appeal;

  Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, Lord President of the Court of Session;

  Sir Michael Wood, Legal Adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

  Ms Joanne Foster CBE, former Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission (lay member).

  The composition of the panel was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

  Libya
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of continuing activity in Libya between March and September 2003 aimed at developing a nuclear capability; and what assessment was made on where material and development assistance was coming from. [150529]

  Mr. Straw
  Under exemption 1 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information I am not prepared to comment on particular operations and discussions.

  Nuclear-related Technology
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government take to monitor sales of nuclear-related technology by(a) Canada and (b) France. [148964]

  Mr. MacShane
  We take a keen interest in supplies to countries of proliferation concern, whatever the source. But the UK Government do not directly monitor sales of nuclear-related technology by Canada and France. Both countries are members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) export control regime which controls the supply of nuclear-related items and technology.

  NSG members undertake not to transfer sensitive items where there is a risk of diversion to acts of nuclear terrorism, to nuclear explosive activity, or unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle activity. They exchange notifications issued as a result of national decisions to deny transfers of sensitive items, and undertake not to approve identical exports without first consulting the state that issued the original denial notification. Further information can be found at: www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org

  Both states are also members of the Zangger Committee, which serves as the "faithful interpreter" of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to harmonise nuclear export controls for NPT parties. Committee members produce annual declarations that they have not transferred certain specified material to non-nuclear weapon states not party to the NPT. More information can be found at: www.zanggercommittee.org.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that(a) the British Council and (b) the BBC World Service are included in the diplomatic initiatives to win the 2012 Olympics for London. [150789]

  Mr. Mullin
  The International Olympic Committee rules of conduct forbid international promotion of the bid until 15 November.

  Officials will be working with the British Council over the coming months to consider ways in which we can work together to support the bid once promotion is allowed.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no
  editorial control over the BBC World Service.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department has spent on (i) advertising and publicity and (ii) information campaigns in each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [149922]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: Budgets for Wilton Park, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's only agency, and our 10 non-departmental public bodies are not held centrally. To compile this information would incur disproportionate cost.

  Sri Lanka
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of political tension between the Sri Lankan Prime Minister and President on the peace process and existing ceasefire. [151074]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We support the Sri Lankan peace process both politically and practically and welcome the progress made since February 2002 when the ceasefire came into effect. We are concerned that the political dispute between President Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe could have a detrimental effect on the process at a crucial stage. We continue to impress upon the two leaders the importance of resolving the underlying issues in a transparent way and of finding a rapid and positive way forward so that peace talks can resume as soon as possible. We are working closely with international partners to reinforce these messages. We are encouraged that the ceasefire continues to hold and we welcome the continued commitments of the President, Prime Minister and of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to the ceasefire and the peace process.

  St. Helena
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the modernising of the St. Helena constitution. [150095]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]Councillors from St. Helena will be visiting London next week for a further round of talks with FCO officials on the proposed new Constitution. The intention is to have a new Constitution in place in time for the next dissolution of the Legislative Council in July 2005.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the principal reasons were for Her Majesty's Government's refusal to accept the St. Helena proposals for a new constitution. [150096]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]Discussions are still in progress on a revised constitution for St. Helena. Two councillors from St. Helena,
  63W
  accompanied by their constitutional adviser, are due in London this week to participate in a further round of talks with Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials

  Taiwan
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a64W
  statement on the accession of Taiwan to the World Health Organisation with full member status [150636]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are difficulties over Taiwanese involvement in a UN forum where statehood is a prerequisite for full membership. We would consider with our EU partners any proposal for Taiwanese involvement in WHO which took account of these difficulties.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role is envisaged for the Territorial Army in the light of the war in Iraq [150158]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Strategic Defence Review emphasised the need for the Territorial Army to be integrated, relevant and usable. It is an essential part of the current and future structure of the Army. Operations in Iraq have underlined the importance of their role, providing key capabilities and skills which complement those of their regular counterparts.

  Afghanistan/Iraq (Withdrawal of Troops)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the timetable for withdrawing British troops from(a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq. [150160]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have no plans to withdraw British forces from Afghanistan, where they are helping to support the implementation of the Bonn Agreement. With regard to Iraq, the joint United States—United Kingdom declaration of 20 November 2003 on Iraq says:"Our military participation in the multinational force in Iraq will serve the Iraqi people until the Iraqis themselves are able to discharge full responsibility for their own security."

  Our engagement in both Afghanistan and Iraq is driven by clear policy aims, not by arbitrary timetables for withdrawal.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the unit cost is of each Eurofighter aircraft; when it is expected that it will be brought into service; and if he will make a statement. [150173]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Unit Production Cost of a Typhoon aircraft as published in Major Project Report 2003 is £56.8 million. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in his written statement on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 1WS, Eurofighter Typhoon achieved Type Acceptance on that day triggering the process of bringing the aircraft into service with the RAF. Two aircraft have been accepted off contract and RAF pilot training and operational evaluation activities have begun. Operational Employment is due to be achieved in the second half of the decade.

  Procurement (British Manufacturing)
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence procurement policy and British manufacturing. [150175]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is the Government's policy to provide the armed forces with the capabilities which they require at the best value for money for the taxpayer. As the Defence Industrial Policy that my right hon. Friend launched with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in October 2002 makes clear, we take fully into 66W
  account the benefit to the United Kingdom economy from defence expenditure, and we seek to encourage a healthy and globally competitive UK defence industry.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the death of an Iraqi civilian during a demonstration policed by British troops at Al-Amarah. [150176]

  Mr. Ingram
  Members of the 1st Battalion of the Light Infantry deployed to a riot in A1 Amarah on 10 January to assist the Iraqi Police. Two Iraqis were shot by UK forces, one of whom died. Both were preparing to throw grenades, having already thrown other grenades or explosive devices at UK vehicles, and were a threat to our forces and to local Iraqi civilians.

  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists deployed on Operation Telic have resigned following the operation. [149349]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 16 January 2004, 8,694 reservists had been mobilised to support Operation Telic. Of these, 118 had left the reserve forces. Not all departures can be linked directly to Operation Telic. The reasons for leaving include having reached end of engagement, medical discharges, retirement and enlistment into another Service.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals being held by UK forces in Iraq have died in custody; and if he will make a statement. [148578]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 January 2003,Official Report, column 1123W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen).

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was in the last year for which figures are available of alcoholic beverages bought and consumed on military barracks in(a) the UK and (b) overseas. [149727]

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

  Apache
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the last year in respect of the training of aircrew for the WAH-64 Apache. [148956]

  Mr. Ingram
  WAH-64 Apache aircrew training has been proceeding to plan since January 2002 and we are on target to complete the first Conversion to Type course in March this year.

  Atlantic Crusader
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 14 January 2004,
  67W
  Official Report, column 763W, on the Atlantic Crusader, under what flag the ship is sailing; for what purpose his Department has commissioned the vessel; and for how long the charter is. [149964]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Atlantic Crusader is sailing under the Cypriot flag and as I said in the answer I gave the hon. Member on 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 763W, is currently returning from a re-supply voyage to the Falkland Islands. She will then make a second return voyage to the Falklands and is due to complete her charter on 7 April 2004.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Challenger 2 smoothbore tank gun demonstrator project will consider measures to end the use of depleted uranium ammunition. [149647]

  Mr. Ingram
  The 120mm smoothbore gun Technology Demonstrator Programme (TDP) aims to provide information on the application of a 120mm smoothbore gun technology to existing and future direct fire platforms, including Challenger 2.

  Part of the TDP involves the investigation of non-Depleted Uranium (DU) 120mm smoothbore ammunition. This option may then be compared with the United Kingdom's existing ammunition in order to determine the optimum means of maintaining the UK's direct fire main armament capability.

  Deployment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are assigned to(a) theatres of conflict and (b) peacekeeping duties, broken down by country or region involved. [150024]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]There are approximately 12,000 British Service personnel deployed outside the United Kingdom to theatres of conflict and peace-keeping duties:

  Number

  Iraq/The Gulf

  9,800

  The Balkans (Kosovo and Bosnia)

  1,400

  UN Peace-keeping operations:

  Cyprus

  400

  Afghanistan

  340

  Africa

  40

  Georgia

  10

  The figures exclude Service personnel onboard ships and MOD civilian personnel deployed to these locations in support of these operations.

  Far East Prisoners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the compensation scheme for civilian prisoners of the Japanese, how many claims(a) have been received, (b) have been paid, (c) have been refused and (d) are outstanding; in relation to (b), how many were (i) not resident in the UK and (ii) not UK citizens but citizens of other Commonwealth countries at the time (A) of payment and (B) of retention; and in relation to (c), how many claimed
  68W
  before 25 June 2001; how many were resident in the UK; and how many of each category were rejected on the grounds they could not show a parent or grandparent born in the UK. [149575]

  Mr. Caplin
  As of 16 January 2004, 2,922 claims for ex gratia payments have been received from former civilian internees, of which 1,882 have been successful; 1,032 have been unsuccessful, of which 851 were received before 25 June 2001; and eight remain to be dealt with. These figures do not include claims from the surviving spouses of former civilian internees, as these figures are not kept separately from the total of claims from the surviving spouses of all the groups covered by the scheme.

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kircaldy (Dr. Moonie) advised in his answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 52W, at that time approximately 800 claims from former civilian internees, including surviving spouses with addresses abroad, were rejected on the blood link criterion, while approximately 300 claims from civilians, including spouses, with United Kingdom addresses were rejected on the blood link criterion. We do not have the other figures sought because the details necessary to produce them were either not required or sought from claimants, or not collated as part of the process of verification of claims.

  Foreign Ship Chartering
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to ensure that foreign ships it charters meet international convention standards for safety and working conditions. [149907]

  Mr. Ingram
  Vessels being considered for chartering are assessed for technical compliance against a number of key criteria which will include: Marine Superintendent's suitability reports, nature and volume of cargo.

  A risk assessment is undertaken, which will include: Port State Inspection records, flag, classification society and age.

  When considered necessary, a ship's survey will be undertaken by a recognised marine surveyor prior to any decision to charter.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what special training has been provided for the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police on the implications of the coming into force of the Human Rights Act. [149661]

  Mr. Ingram
  Special training on changes to Special Investigation Branch (SIB) policies and procedures consequent upon the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been provided to all SIB units.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to guarantee the(a) effectiveness and (b) independence of investigation of suspicious deaths among Service personnel occurring overseas as required by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [149662]
  69W
  Mr. Ingram
  The rules governing investigation of suspicious deaths of Service personnel outside the United Kingdom are detailed in the Queens Regulations for each Service. The Investigations Branch of the relevant Service Police conducts investigations, where appropriate, in conjunction with the local civilian police force. All cases of sudden death are investigated to Home Office standards using accepted best practice.

  Where the body is returned to the United Kingdom, it automatically becomes subject to an inquest by HM Coroner or (in Scotland) the Procurator Fiscal.

  Full account is taken of our obligations under ECHR.

  Project Soothsayer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of Project Soothsayer. [149543]

  Mr. Ingram
  Project Soothsayer is an important part of our investment in Network Enabled Capability (NEC), and was highlighted as such in the New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review.

  Soothsayer will provide Tactical Electronic Warfare equipment for the United Kingdom land forces, and is now in the demonstration and manufacture phase. The programme is proceeding to plan and is currently on track to meet its initial in-service date of 2006. It is also expected to meet its cost and performance targets.

  Rape/Violence Against Women
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in investigating allegations of rape by UK military personnel in Kenya during the last 20 years. [149663]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of their on-going investigations, the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (SIB) deployed a team of 20 to Kenya in October 2003 to conduct witness interviews. The SIB completed in excess of 100 witness interviews prior to Christmas. This process, which involves taking video-taped statements of witnesses and gathering supporting evidence, is likely to continue throughout this year.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to UK military personnel stationed abroad on gender sensitivity and issues around violence against women with particular reference to(a) rape, (b) trafficking and (c) forced prostitution. [149665]

  Mr. Ingram
  No specific awareness training is given to United Kingdom military personnel about violence against women, rape, trafficking and forced prostitution. All members of the armed forces are bound by codes of conduct that set out the standard of behaviour expected of them. They also receive regular diversity training, which includes gender awareness. Personnel posted abroad receive instruction on the customs and culture of the host country including, where relevant, the cultural status of women.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to revise the Reserve Forces 70W
  (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, with particular reference to (a) simplifying the procedure, (b) taking into account loss of (i) pension and (ii) benefits and (c) the legal expenses required in progressing a defended case to a final hearing. [146181]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the latter part of my reply of 20 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1124–25W.

  Once this examination is complete we shall discuss with the Department of Trade and Industry (which is responsible for administering the Reinstatement Committees under the 1985 Act) what, if any, revisions might be necessary.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department provides legal assistance to reservists to seek redress when they have lost their employment allegedly as a consequence of mobilisation; and if he will make a statement. [148932]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence does not provide legal advice or representation to reservists seeking reinstatement to their civilian employment under the terms of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. It does, however, provide advice to reservists on their legal right to reclaim their civilian employment and how to seek reinstatement. Each reservist receives a copy of JSP 532, "Guidance for Reservists Returning to Civilian Employment Following a Period of Mobilised Service". The Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers (SaBRE) campaign team provides a help line and a website which gives additional information and advice.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation has been made of the impact of the SaBRE campaign; and if he will make a statement. [R] [149423]

  Mr. Caplin
  Since the launch of the SaBRE campaign in October 2002, there have been two substantial pieces of independent research on the impact and effectiveness of the campaign, both commissioned through COI Communications. The reports found that while employers' awareness of the campaign in its first year of existence was low, over 60 per cent. of companies who had been in contact with SaBRE felt that that contact had been positive and worthwhile. The lessons we learn from both these and future studies will form a central part of future SaBRE campaign activity.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists from volunteer reserve units in(a) each of the three armed Services and (b) each of the 11 areas of the country tasked with aiding the civil authorities in handling major incidents have been mobilised for Operation Telic. [R] [149425]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of Civil Contingencies Reaction Force (CCRF) members who are serving on Operation Telic by CCRF region is detailed in the table. In the time available, we have only been able to identify those individuals currently mobilised to support Operation Telic. All are members of the Territorial Army.
  71W

  Number

  2 South East Brigade (Bde)

  26

  49 East of England Bde

  126

  145 Home Counties Bde

  39

  43 Wessex Bde

  2

  143 West Midlands Bde

  33

  160 Wales Bde

  25

  15 North East Bde (N)

  99

  15 North East Bde (S)

  147

  42 North West Bde (N)

  21

  42 North West Bde (S)

  18

  51 Scottish Bde (Highland)

  45

  51 Scottish Bde (Lowland)

  34

  London Regiment

  150

  Northern Ireland

  10

  1 Only to the extent that once a member is deployed, he is replaced.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) frigates and (b) destroyers are in service with the Royal Navy. [150165]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are 20 frigates and 11 destroyers currently in service in the Royal Navy.

CABINET OFFICE

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in making the Central Office of Information more responsive to Parliament. [147838]

  Mr. Alexander
  External performance targets are published each year by means of a written statement. Annual performance against external targets is reported and published in the Central Office of Information (COI) Annual Report and Accounts. This is laid before the House each year before the summer recess following the end of the financial year to which the report relates, and copies placed in the Libraries of the Houses.

  Civil Contingencies Bill
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the(a) dates and (b) venues of the public consultation in Wales on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. [150021]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Public Consultation exercise for England and Wales took place over a period of 12 weeks from 19 June until 11 September.

  Of the 379 responses received, 20 were received from organisations based in Wales such as the police, county councils and county borough councils.

  Two consultation events took place took during the summer of 2003. The first event was held at Colywn Bay on 21 July for organisations from north Wales. Cardiff hosted the second event on 4 August, which was attended by organisations in south Wales.

  The format at both events was the same. The Bill Team gave an extended presentation, followed by a full question and answer session.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Government(a) cars, (b) vans and (c) trucks in use were built (i) in the United Kingdom, (ii) in the EU and (iii) outside the EU. [149968]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to my hon. Friend. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Services Audit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will place in the Library a copy of the Cabinet Office paper containing an audit of public services referred to in The Times 14 January. [148758]

  Mr. Alexander
  Internal discussion and advice to Ministers remains confidential in line with exemption 2 set out in Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Details of progress against the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets are available via: departmental reports; the HM Treasury website; http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/performance/ and in a presentation by Professor Michael Barber at the Prime Minister's Press Conference on 30 July 2003; http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4295.asp

  Publicity Campaigns
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department has spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [149623]

  Mr. Alexander
  Details of my Department's spend on advertising in each year from 1997–98 to 2003–04 (estimated) can be found in the table.

  Advertising (£000)

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  138

  1999–2000

  262

  2000–01

  464

  2001–02

  2,708

  2002–03

  400

  2003–04 (estimated)

  267

  Information prior to 1997–98 is not held on our accounting system and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure incurred on information campaigns is not separately identifiable on our accounting system. Any such expenditure is included within the advertising figures shown.

  Expenditure incurred by non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department is not held on our accounting system and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.
  73W
  The increase in advertising expenditure from 1998–99 to 2000–01 from £138,000 to £464,000 is due to expenditure on recruitment advertising for posts within the Department. These posts range from administration and junior management level through to the senior civil service. Also included is recruitment advertising expenditure for specialist placements for the 'Development Centre', which is part of the Government Information and Communication Service.

  The advertising figure for 2001–02 includes £2,491,000 incurred by the Office of the E-Envoy for the UK Online advertising campaign.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of regulatory impact assessments fully complied with Government guidelines in terms of new content in 2003. [149420]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit is working with Departments to ensure that Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) are consistent with the most recent guidance and are proportionate to the likely impact of the proposal. Information on overall compliance with the guidelines is not collected, but from April this year, Departments will have to provide information on better regulation, including their compliance with the RIA process and their use of RIAs, as part of their annual reporting requirements.

  Special Advisers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether special advisers have access to the Knowledge Network; whether statistics are collected at constituency level by Government Departments specifically for use on the Network; and if he will make a statement. [148781]

  Mr. Alexander
  Access to the Knowledge Network is restricted to Ministers, their offices and civil servants, including special advisers, via the Government Secure Intranet. Government Departments do not collect statistics at constituency level specifically for use on the Knowledge Network.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which regional development agencies have(a) an office and (b) representatives situated outside the United Kingdom. [149703]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been advised of the following answers by the individual Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).

  Advantage West Midlands

  Advantage West Midlands have offices in France (one person), Germany (one person), Sweden (two representatives who are not direct employees of the Agency) and Belgium (one person).
  74W
  In North America, Advantage West Midlands shares representation with their partner agency, EMDA, under the British Midlands' brand. Together they have a total of five offices and seven full-time staff based in Washington, Boston, Chicago, San Jose and Toronto; they also employ the services of a telemarketing agency in North America. The British Midlands is also represented on a full-time basis in Japan with two staff. In South East Asia, India and Australia, the British Midlands has part-time representation with offices in Singapore, Mumbai and Sydney and a total of six agents.

  East of England Development Agency (EEDA)

  The East of England Developments Agency EEDA has an inward investment office in San Jose (Silicon Valley) a joint project between EEDA and Invest East of England. There are no representatives as the office is co-ordinated by the vice-president for business development at Invest East of England.

  EEDA also subscribes to the East of England partnership office
  in Brussels and the Essex and East of England International Trade office in Jiangsu Province China (but does not have offices or representatives).

  East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA)

  The East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) is represented in Europe by part-time agents in Germany (Munich—two staff) and Scandinavia (Malmo—one person); EMDA also employs a telemarketing agency in France.

  In North America, EMDA shares representation with their partner agency, Advantage West Midlands, under the British Midlands' brand. Together they have a total of five offices and seven full-time staff based in Washington, Boston, Chicago, San Jose and Toronto; they also employ the services of a telemarketing agency in North America. The British Midlands is also represented on a full-time basis in Japan with two staff. In South East Asia, India and Australia, the British Midlands has part time representation with offices in Singapore, Mumbai and Sydney and a total of six agents.

  The East Midlands Development Agency is also a partner in the East Midlands European Office (EMEO), based in Brussels. The partnership also includes the region's strategic local authorities, the Regional Assembly and the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association. In addition, EMDA line manages EMEO on behalf of the regional partnership.

  London Development Agency (LDA)

  The LDA is a partner in the London European Office, a staffed GLA partnership office in Brussels.

  North West Development Agency (NMDA)

  The North West Development Agency has an office with two members of staff (one full-time and one part-time) in Japan.
  75W
  As part of a North of England collaboration (a joint venture with One NorthEast and Yorkshire Forward) there are offices in Australia (Sydney) and North America: Chicago (five people), Boston (two people), Atlanta (one person) and Los Angeles: (one person full-time and one person part-time).

  The NWDA with the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) jointly fund an office and one member of staff in Brussels.

  One NorthEast

  One NorthEast has offices in China: Shanghai (two people) Japan: Osaka (one person, part-time) and Tokyo (two people), Korea: Seoul (one person), Taiwan: Taipei (one person).

  As part of a North of England collaboration (a joint venture with North West Development Agency and Yorkshire Forward) there are offices and representatives in Australia (Sydney) and North America (Chicago, Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles).

  There is also a North of England Office in Brussels, managed by the Regional Assembly.

  South East England Development Agency

  The South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA) shares an officer post with the Regional Assembly operating from South East England House in Brussels, co-located and working with other partners from around the Region. SEEDA is also represented in Washington DC by Odell Simms & Associates and has a

  £million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–o4

  RDA

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Advantage West Midlands

  108

  103

  124

  113

  171

  141

  205

  204

  221

  East of England

  30

  30

  40

  36

  63

  55

  89

  88

  85

  East Midlands

  46

  41

  77

  67

  97

  86

  102

  101

  118

  London

  n/a

  n/a

  268

  235

  289

  266

  296

  295

  291

  North West

  141

  141

  159

  156

  277

  270

  275

  274

  318

  ONE North West

  92

  92

  101

  98

  163

  156

  193

  193

  219

  South East

  64

  63

  75

  73

  111

  97

  115

  112

  123

  South West of England

  43

  43

  63

  62

  92

  85

  103

  103

  101

  Yorkshire Forward

  121

  121

  148

  125

  246

  207

  211

  211

  243

  Totals

  645

  636

  1,054

  965

  1,508

  1,363

  1,589

  1,581

  1,719

  Note:

  These figures are the grant paid to Agencies and expenditure funded by grant. The Agencies total income will also include EU grants, receipts from sales of property and rental income.

  DTI's own contribution to the RDAs was £ million in 1999–2000, £17 million in 2000–01, £57 million in 2001–02, £161 million in 2002–03 and £177.7 million in 2003–04.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to whom expenditure on research and development is distributed; how many staff are directly employed as a result; and how many research establishments of the Department and its agencies there are in each region and nation of the United Kingdom. [149637]

  Ms Hewitt
  Research and development expenditure is distributed to a range of bodies and principally via the 76W
  representative in each of the following cities: Berlin, San Diego, Boston, Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo, Osaka and Sydney (NSW), the latter post being part-time.

  South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA)

  The South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) have an office in Japan with four staff and in North America, SWRDA have a dispersed team of four staff, however there is no central office there.

  Yorkshire Forward

  Yorkshire Forward has offices and representatives in Japan and China.

  As part of a North of England collaboration (a joint venture with North West Development Agency and One North East) there are offices and representatives in Australia (Sydney) and North America (Chicago, Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles).

  Malcolm Bruce
  To the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a breakdown for each region of how her Department allocated its funding of the regional development agencies in 2003–04; and what amounts have been allocated to each region in each year since 1997. [147798]

  Jacqui Smith
  Eight RDAs were established in 1998 and their first full year of operation was in 1999–2000. The London Development Agency was established in 2000–01. The table shows the RDAs' grant allocation and expenditure for each of the financial years between 1999–2000 and 2002–03 and their initial allocations for 2003–04.

  research councils to higher education institutes and their own research establishments. Some 11,000 staff are directly employed by the research councils. The following table gives a regional and national breakdown of the councils' research establishments. Funding is also distributed to industry via schemes such as LINK. Figures for staff directly employed as a result of such funding are not available.

  Region/country

  Number of research establishments

  East Midlands

  4

  East of England

  13

  London

  7

  North East

  0

  North West

  4

  77W

  Region/country

  Number of research establishments

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Scotland

  15

  South East

  20

  South West

  11

  Wales

  2

  Trade Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on proposals to improve rules of origin for economic partnership agreements. [148519]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Government recognise the need for a review of the current preferential rules of origin. Support for less onerous regulations on rules of origin is outlined in the Government's 2000 White Paper, "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor".

  With a number of ACP regions now having reached the stage of launching Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations with the EU, there is an increased focus on some of the detailed issues facing EPAs, including rules of origin. An experts meeting on rules of origin for EPAs is planned for February 2004 in Brussels.

  More generally on the issue of preferential rules of origin, the Commission (DG TAXUD) is consulting widely on this issue through its recently published Green Paper, "Future of Rules of Origin in Preferential Trade Agreements".

  British Energy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public subsidy has been given to British Energy(a) to cover cash shortfall for unexpected maintenance works and (b) for other reasons; how much interest is repayable; and when she expects the money to be repaid. [150213]

  Mr. Timms
  The credit facility is a loan facility to British Energy that must be repaid by the company under the terms of the restructuring plan. It has been provided in respect of only the company's working capital requirements and cash collateral for its trading activities. A commercial rate of interest of 1 per cent. over the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is chargeable on amounts drawn for working capital, and a fee of 1 per cent. per annum on amounts drawn for cash collateral. The maximum amount available under the facility was £650 million but now stands at £200 million. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 780W, British Energy have repaid all outstanding amounts under the credit facility.

  Bullying/Harassment
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps her Department is taking to encourage more employers to frame a formal policy on bullying and harassment in the workplace; [147901]
  78W
  (2) what plans she has to improve the support available for employees who face bullying or harassment at work; [147902]

  (3) what assessment her Department has made of the impact of current Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service guidance relating to bullying and harassment in the workplace. [147903]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government take bullying at work very seriously and believe that employees should be able to work without fear of being bullied or harassed by employers, fellow employees or anybody else.

  There is a safety net of legislation already in existence that employees can turn to. This includes the: Sex Discrimination Act, Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act, Protection from Harassment Act, Health and Safety Act, Employment Rights Act and the Employment Act 2002.

  In addition New Employment Equality Regulations came into force last December protecting those experiencing discrimination, harassment and victimisation at work on grounds of sexual orientation or religion or belief. We are working to support the dissemination of high quality best practice information on the new regulations to employers, individuals and—importantly—advice giving organisations and agencies through the funding we have allocated in the current financial year.

  The Health and Safety Executive are producing a set of management Standards. The Standards are designed to provide a yardstick for organisations by which they can gauge the levels of stress and other associated problems among staff thereby helping them to identify where action is required. One of these, the Relationship Management Standard, focuses on bullying.

  Assisting with the development of best practice operations is a group, under ACAS management called Race and Equality Advisory Service (REAS). This team of advisers deliver practical, best practice equality advice to organisations. This complements ACAS's wider role of providing services to organisations to help their businesses to flourish.

  Continuing the promotion of best practice is the Partnership at Work Fund administered by DTI. This has provided grants to support organisations wishing to focus on best practice initiatives specifically encouraging employees and employers to work together to resolve issues. A number of projects have focused on reducing bullying, while others have included it as part of their wider objectives.

  Bullying and harassment is an area of growing importance in the work of ACAS. It uses multiple channels for dissemination of guidance including: publications (available in hard copy and through the internet); face to face training and seminars; advice via the ACAS National Helpline; and also more in depth focused work within workplaces Two publications—'Bullying and Harassment: A Guide for Managers and Employers' and 'Bullying and Harassment: A Guide for Employees' with an annual distribution of approximately 26,000 copies offer guidance and form the basis of training programmes and seminars organised by ACAS.
  79W
  In 2003, around 200 seminars and training events were run focusing on the subject of bullying and harassment. The feedback from delegates to ACAS events is overwhelmingly positive with, across the board, 97 per cent. reporting that they were satisfied with the quality and content of their training. Follow up work with delegates in 2003, around 200 seminars and training events were run focussing on the subject of bullying and has also shown that the guidance offered by ACAS has positive and lasting benefits with 60 per cent. saying that they review policy and practice after attending ACAS events and around a third actually implemented change or introduced new policies after attending events.

  The ACAS National Helpline also plays an important role in disseminating guidance. Around 600 calls are received monthly on this issue. Overall the feedback on the helpline is found to be extremely beneficial with 92 per cent. reporting satisfaction with the service received from the Helpline and 84 per cent. of callers reporting that they found the information provided was valuable in fully answering their inquiry.

  Business Link
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the allocations to area-based Business Link teams, (b) the expenditure per head of populations in each area and (c) the basis formula for the distribution of resources to each area for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05.

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]A breakdown of Business Link Operator (BLO) Core Services allocations for the 2003–04 financial year, together with a breakdown of the allocations divided by resident adult (16+) population data, by individual BLO is shown in the following table

  The allocation formula for 2003–04 and 2004–05 is the same. However the data which make up the constituent parts of the formula was updated where possible for 2004–05, resulting in changes between these years. The formula is made up of the following four elements.

  1.£99.5 million is allocated in line with current business population (indicator used is the Inter Departmental Business Register for all PAYE and VAT registrations).

  2. £20 million for Business Start-ups. Funding is awarded in line in reverse proportion to an aspirational rate of 75 VAT registrations per 10,000 adult population (indicator used is VAT Registrations published by SBS and Resident Adult (16+) population data supplied by the ONS)

  3.£10 million is allocated in line with Social Deprivation Index (indicator used is Deprivation data, weighted 2000 indices, produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

  4.£10 million is allocated in line with population (indicator used is latest Resident Adult (16+) population data supplied by the ONS).

  £

  Business Link Area

  BLOCS Allocation 2003–04

  BLOCS Expenditure per head of population1

  County Durham

  1,159,764

  2.90

  Northumberland

  823,758

  3.28

  Tees Valley

  1,460,480

  2.88

  Tyne and Wear

  2,473,608

  2.85

  Cheshire and Warrington

  2,427,030

  3.48

  Cumbria

  1,472,109

  3.70

  80W

  £

  Business Link Area

  BLOCS Allocation 2003–04

  BLOCS Expenditure per head of population1

  E. Lancashire

  1,294,306

  3.21

  Manchester

  3,712,759

  3.46

  Merseyside

  3,609,837

  3.06

  N and W Lancashire

  2,482,841

  3.41

  North Manchester

  2,868,225

  3.13

  Humberside

  2,310,105

  3.32

  N. Yorkshire

  -2,309,061

  3.76

  S. Yorkshire

  3,045,706

  3.00

  W. Yorkshire

  5,222,016

  3.16

  Derbyshire

  2,502,742

  3.24

  Leicestershire

  2,460,230

  3.42

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  1,960,561

  3.49

  Northamptonshire

  1,721,966

  3.41

  Nottinghamshire

  2,562,962

  3.11

  Birmingham and Solihull

  2,989,291

  3.24

  Black Country

  2,724,755

  3.18

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,202,117

  3.36

  Hereford and Wores

  2,152,122

  3.69

  Shropshire

  1,277,861

  3.58

  Staffordshire

  2,743,968

  3.26

  Bedfordshire

  1,515,800

  3.39

  Cambridgeshire

  2,075,620

  3.61

  Essex

  4,582,147

  3.53

  Hertfordshire

  3,145,262

  3.83

  Norfolk

  2,298,503

  3.49

  Suffolk

  1,979,534

  3.66

  London

  23,655,555

  4.00

  Kent

  4,287,157

  3.40

  M. Keynes, Oxon, Bucks

  4,093,239

  3.97

  Surrey

  3,536,940

  4.14

  Sussex

  4,440,986

  3.63

  Hampshire

  5,025,619

  3.49

  Dorset

  2,079,099

  3.62

  Berkshire

  2,447,040

  3.83

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,649,136

  3.58

  Gloucestershire

  1,715,191

  3.76

  Somerset

  1,527,832

  3.76

  West

  2,759,881

  3.45

  Wiltshire

  1,715,281

  3.50

  1 BLO CS allocations are divided by the resident adult (16+) population (latest data is mid-year 2002 (rounded to the nearest hundred)

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Civil Servants (Disabilities)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in her Department. [145997]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 2000, benchmarks for staff with disabilities in DTI were set across all grades. Targets set internally for staff in senior civil service were:

  Percentage

  Benchmark for SCS posts

  2000 (base year)

  3.8

  2002

  3.9

  2004

  4.2

  2005

  4.7

  The Cabinet Office publishes statistical information about senior civil servants with disabilities on its website http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/statistics/documents/pdf/

  81W
  disability-pct03.pdf. This shows that as of 1 April 2003, 4.0 per cent. of DTI HQ staff in the senior civil service had a disability.

  I have recently launched the DTI Disability@Work strategy to further improve career opportunities for staff with disabilities. I expect this will benefit staff at all levels and help increase our representation throughout the grades over time.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out the number of employees in her Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148987]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Type of disability

  Number of staff1

  Hearing impairment

  33

  Visual impairment

  23

  Speech impairment

  2—

  Learning difficulty

  5

  Mental illness

  13

  Mobility impairment

  70

  Physical co-ordination

  32

  Reduced physical capacity

  78

  Severe disfigurement

  2—

  Other

  29

  Total staff with disabilities

  287

  Total DTI staff

  4,031

  1 Data as at 1 January 2004.

  2 Five or less individuals; the DTI code of practice precludes us from reporting the numbers to preserve confidentiality.

  Clergy Employment Rights
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 102W, when she will make an announcement regarding the implementation of section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in relation to employment rights for clergy. [149818]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have been considering the current coverage of employment protections as part of the Employment Status Review, including the position of the clergy; we hope to publish a Government response shortly. The Government believe that all workers should be treated fairly, and welcomes the fact that the Church of England is giving serious consideration to the issue of employment protections for its clergy.

  Credit Agencies
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department will put in place regulations to oblige credit agencies to update their records on individuals; and if she will make a statement. [145399]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Individuals have the right, under existing legislation, to ask for their credit reference file 82W
  to be amended if it contains information which is incorrect or which is about people with whom they have no financial connection.

  If the credit reference agency refuses to comply with an individual's request they can ask the Information Commissioner to assess whether or not this decision is correct under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  The Information Commissioner can be contacted at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF or on 01625 545700.

  Departmental Advertising
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year since 1995–96; what her estimate is for 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [149721]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]For expenditure on advertising by my Department through COI from 1995–96 to 2000–01. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Cable) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 162W. Expenditure for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 (to date) was £6,610,240, £13,741,906 and £2,044,497 respectively. These figures include advertising by the Small Business Service and exclude VAT.

  Information on publicity expenditure from centrally held budgets is contained in the Government's Expenditure Plans and, more recently, the DTI's annual Departmental Report, which are available in the Libraries of the House. Figures relating to other information campaigns, and information on publicity and advertising by NDPBs, are not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 26 January 2004:
  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTI. The expenditure on publicity and advertising is as follows:

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Forecast 2003–04

  Publicity

  199

  237

  322

  252

  343

  Advertising

  391

  401

  586

  526

  491

  Data for years 1995–96 to 1998–99 are not readily available and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 26 January 2004:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to you on behalf of The Insolvency Service in respect of your question (2003/980) asked how much (a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year since 1995–96; what her estimate is for 2003–04.

  83W
  Information on expenditure by The Insolvency Service Executive Agency through the Central Office of Information is only available from 1999 onwards. This publicity is the release of information on successful orders to disqualify directors under the Disqualification of Directors Act 1986. The expenditure was:

  £000

  Amount

  1999–2000

  115,000

  2000–2001

  112,000

  2001–2002

  119,000

  2002–2003

  81,000

  Estimated to end 2003–04

  80,105

  No other publicity or information campaigns have been carried out by The Insolvency Service in the period 1995 to date.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Malcolm Bruce dated, 26 January 2004:
  You tabled a question on 19 January 2004 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking how much (a) her Department and (b) each agency and non departmental public body sponsored by her Department spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year since 1995–96; what her estimate is for 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  The Employment Tribunals Service has not had and will have no expenditure on advertising or information campaigns for the years in question.

  Letter from Caren Fullerton in Ron Marchants' absence to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 26 January 2004:
  I am replying to this parliamentary question, tabled on 19 January 2004, regarding the amount spent on advertising and information campaigns.
  The Patent Office, an executive Agency of the DTI, has undertaken a number of activities aimed at highlighting the important contribution to innovation in the knowledge economy made by Intellectual Property to business, education and the wider community throughout the UK. The priority has been to develop partnerships with key organisations to deliver this message through the network of business advisors and information providers available in the UK to create an "IP literate society".
  To achieve this aim we have used strategic advertising to target specific audiences. New guidance literature on patents has been developed which underline the office's commitment.

  £000

  1995–96

  1,963

  1996–97

  1,719

  1997–98

  8,908

  1998–99

  12,364

  1999–2000

  2,951

  2000–01

  7,391

  2001–02

  4,822

  2002–03

  3,596

  2003–04

  1,500

  The amount spent on information campaigns is only available from 2000–01. To obtain figures for early years would involve disproportionate costs. These figures are:

  £000

  2000–01

  30,037

  2001–02

  82,814

  2002–03

  104,651

  2003–04

  160,000

  84W
  In addition to the above the Patent Office maintains two internet websites (www.patent.gov.uk and www.intellectual-property.gov.uk which are used to advertise our services and events.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 26 January 2004:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about the Agency's spend on advertising and information campaigns for each year since 1995–96.
  The Agency has a small publicity budget but the financial figures do not differentiate between advertising and information campaigns. Figures are not easily retrievable prior to 1999–2000. Expenditure on publicity for each year since 1999–2000 is as follows:

  Expenditure(£000)

  1995–96

  Not available

  1996–97

  Not available

  1997–98

  Not available

  1998–99

  Not available

  1999–2000

  37

  2000–01

  59

  2001–02

  88

  2002–03

  60

  2003–04(Estimate)

  80

  Departmental Grants
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding was allocated for small business support under the Smart scheme from the time of its inception to its closure; and how much of this money was distributed directly to grant recipients. [145513]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Following a small pilot in 1986, the full Smart scheme was launched in 1988. Initially, there was no separately identifiable funding allocation for the scheme within the larger "Innovation Budget" which provided funds for several other schemes. Smart originally operated as a competition with a fixed number of "Stage 1", or feasibility, awards but a variable number of "Stage 2", or development, awards. The SPUR scheme was introduced in 1991 and merged with Smart in 1997. Since that time there has been a separate provision for the expanded Smart. Expenditure on Smart will occur for several years yet as existing projects progress. Provision, where separately identified, and expenditure were as follows:

  £million

  Financial year

  Expenditure Plans or Provision where separately identified1

  Expenditure1

  1988–89

  —

  3.0

  1989–90

  —

  5.0

  1990–91

  —

  9.0

  1991–92

  —

  12.3

  1992–93

  —

  18.0

  1993–94

  —

  21.5

  1994–95

  21.6

  21.9

  1995–96

  16.5

  20.1

  1996–97

  —

  20.5

  1997–98

  30.0

  25.8

  1998–99

  30.0

  24.9

  1999–2000

  32.1

  26.5

  2000–2001

  35.9

  27.3

  85W

  £ million

  Financial year

  Expenditure Plans or Provision where separately identified1

  Expenditure1

  2001–02

  27

  23.7

  2002–03

  27

  32.1

  1 Including SPUR from 1991.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been allocated to finance the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships scheme; and to what timescale this funding applies. [145514]

  Nigel Griffiths
  DTI funding for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships in F/Y 2004–05, combined with the pre-existing commitments for the Teaching Company Scheme (TCS), which it succeeds, is planned to continue at about the same level as the expenditure in the current financial year, which is approximately £18 million. About a future £7 million per annum is currently provided by other pubic sector bodies.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been allocated for the new Grant for Research and Development scheme; and over what timescale this funding will be available. [145515]

  Nigel Griffiths
  An initial £100 million has been allocated for projects commencing in the financial years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. There will be expenditure on those projects until 2010.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding her Department is providing in(a) 2003–04 and (b) in future years to support the Promoting Women's Enterprise Support Initiative. [145520]

  Jacqui Smith
  DTI is not aware of a programme entitled Promoting Women's Enterprise Support Initiative. It is believed that this is a reference to the measures the Government are taking to support the growth of women's enterprise nationally as they implement the recommendations of the Strategic Framework for Women's Enterprise launched last year.

  In this regard, the Government will continue, in this and future years, to fund the promotion of women's enterprise through their key partners—in particular, the Business Link network and through their work with Regional Development agencies and a number of women's enterprise organisations.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria her Department uses when deciding whether a leaflet which it publishes is to be made available only on its website. [149560]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department decides whether a leaflet should be published only on the internet on a case-by-case basis. Officials consider the intended target audience of the leaflet, whether the audience is likely to have internet access and the cost of publishing the document in hard copy. Where the publication is a lengthy or technical document, the Department may produce a hard copy executive summary, with the full document available only on the internet.
  86W
  The Department constantly reviews feedback we receive on this issue to ensure that our publications are accessible to those who need them.

  Agricultural Produce (Dumping)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantitative assessment she has made of the impact of dumping of agricultural produce by developed countries on the economies and living standards of developing countries. [146639]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The best source of information on this topic are the large number of studies which have already been undertaken by international organisations such as the World Bank, IMF, UNCTAD and the OECD, and by charitable organisations such as Oxfam. The work of these organisations demonstrates through individual case studies the adverse effects which dumping of subsidised agricultural products on world markets can have on developing country economies. It remains, however, very difficult to make an accurate quantitative economic assessment of the overall impact of dumping of subsidised agricultural produce on developing country markets. The World Bank have, however, estimated that the comprehensive reform of all aspects of agricultural policies in developed countries could boost the income of developing countries by as much as $100 billion.

  EU Regional Funding
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much EU regional funding has been invested in(a) the North West region and (b) Merseyside in each of the last five years. [147167]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following table shows spend over the last five years against the Objective 1, 2 and 3 EU funding streams. Objective 1 applies only to Merseyside, Objective 2 and 3 cover a range of areas across the North West. except for Merseyside.

  £

  Financial year

  Objective 1

  Objective 2

  Objective 3

  1999

  101,303,112

  37,446,891,

  41,642,065

  2000

  61,082,497

  80,373,232

  10,989,260

  2001

  123,604,787

  83,988,081

  26,187,632

  2002

  98,520,307

  21,163,881

  47,490,296

  2003

  84,503,461

  138,730,194

  27,052,777

  Total

  470,342,202

  361,702,279

  153,362,030

  Fireworks Act
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she plans to carry out a further fireworks monitoring exercise between October 2004 and January 2005 to assess the effectiveness of the Fireworks Act 2003; and if she will make a statement. [149012]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department will be assessing the effectiveness of regulations made under the Fireworks Act 2003 by using the following sources of information:The 2004 fireworks injury statistics compared to data from previous years;

  87W
  Information pertaining to retailer compliance provided by the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS);
  The level of prosecutions under the legislation in conjunction with police reports on, among other things, firework misuse in the street; and
  The volume of complaints received from members of the public in relation to previous years

  Using this data, the effectiveness of regulations will be better judged after the fireworks season 2004 and new year festivities of 2004–05.

  Friction Dynamex
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answers of 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 694W, on debarred directors, and column 706W, on Strikes (Dismissal), if she will disqualify Mr. J. Davies of Friction Dynamex as a company director. [149608]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  An insolvency practitioner appointed to an insolvent company—which is one that has entered insolvent liquidation, administration, or administrative receivership—has a duty to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the conduct of the directors of that company. This report is usually submitted to The Insolvency Service within six months of the insolvency practitioner's appointment. Once the report has been received it is reviewed by The Insolvency Service to ascertain whether disqualification proceedings are in the public interest.

  In the case of Friction Dynamics Ltd.—the company to which it is presumed then question relates—no report has yet been received from the insolvency practitioner appointed.

  The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 applies only to directors of a company. Therefore unless an individual can be shown to have been a director or to have acted as a director of a company in insolvency proceedings, they cannot be disqualified under this Act. Mr. J. Davies is not shown as a director of Friction Dynamics Ltd. but is believed to be a former employee.

  Germany
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her German counterpart regarding the labour practices of the UK subsidiaries of(a) Deutsche Telekom AG and (b) other companies where the German Government retains controlling or significant shareholdings. [149576]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All UK subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies are subject to UK labour law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not had discussions with her German counterpart regarding the labour practices of UK subsidiaries of any company where the German Government retains significant shareholdings. However, the managing director of T-Mobile has been invited to meet with me as Minister responsible for Employment Relations to discuss the recent union recognition discussions at the company.

  Home Security Systems
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to prevent companies installing home security systems from falsely claiming that their systems are approved by the police or that their work is being carried out in conjunction with the police or the local authority. [149345]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to make false claims about goods or services being supplied in the course of business. This includes false statements, about goods being tested or approved by any person, or about services being examined, approved or evaluated by any person. Local Authority Trading Standards Departments are responsible for enforcing the Act.

  Honduras
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantitative assessment she has made of the effect of the opening 10 years ago of the market in Honduras to subsidised rice imports from the United States on(a) the economy and (b) living standards in Honduras. [149128]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Internet Usage
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of(a) under 15-year-olds, (b) 15 to 24-year-olds, (c) 25 to 34-year-olds, (d) 35 to 44-year-olds, (e) 45 to 54-year-olds, (f) 55 to 64-year-olds and (g) over 65-year-olds are regular users of the internet [146118]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  58 per cent. of the adult population are now regular users of the internet compared to 40 per cent. in October 2000. The figures in the table from the National Statistics Omnibus survey show adults in Great Britain who had accessed the internet in the three months prior to interview in October 2003. They are broken down by age group as follows:

  Age in years

  Percentage

  16 to 24

  88

  25 to 44

  76

  45 to 54

  64

  55 to 64

  45

  65 and over

  16

  Full results are available at www.statistics.gov.uk/ pdfdir/intc1203.pdf

  While the ONS Omnibus survey only focuses on those over 16, DIES commission a 'young people and ICT' survey each year. The latest results, from a survey in Autumn 2002 found that 84 per cent. of 5 to 18-year-olds use the internet. Full results are available at www.becta.org.uk.

  Miners' Compensation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedure is in place to pay the British Coal component part of miners' health
  89W
  compensation claims in cases where negotiations are continuing with private small mines; and if she will make a statement. [148678]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The procedures in place are that the Department is making interim payments—of 75 per cent. of the estimated share of general damages payable by British Coal—to claimants who have worked for both British Coal and a small private mine, where no other interims have been paid previously. The first of these interim payments was made in December 2003. Where an interim payment has been paid previously—for example, on the basis that the claimant has previously received a DWP payment for respiratory disease—the Department will reassess the claim after having completed interim payments to those claimants who have received no payments, and will ensure that compensation is topped up to the equivalent of 75 per cent. of estimated British Coal share of general damages.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in settling chest disease claims from mineworkers who worked(a) in dirty surface environments and (b) underground only for short periods. [150843]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Claimants who worked underground for short periods are already eligible to claim compensation for respiratory disease under the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA).

  With regard to discussions on surface dusty workers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Judge has instructed the claimants' solicitors' co-ordinating group (CG) to identify lead claimants and to investigate their medical circumstances and dust exposure. The Department is assisting the CG in this process by giving access to British Coal dust records. The CG are to report back to the Judge in February.

  The Department and the CG are also in discussions about allowing surface only workers to claim for chronic bronchitis (CB) and temporary exacerbation of asthma (TEA), on the basis of proposals made by the Department to the CG. Any arrangement relating to claims for COPD, CB or TEA for surface workers would not be subject to the cut-off date agreed for the underground scheme.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the operation of the Rover Task Force. [142124]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Rover Task Force (RTF) was set up in 2000 to look at the potential effects on the region's economy of the then expected decline of Rover and its supply industry—which was a severe risk at the time of the BMW withdrawal from the company. The report it produced has been carried forward primarily by Advantage West Midlands (the RDA). It remains one of the best examples of speedy response to a crisis coupled with long-term action to address structural change.
  90W
  There are three themes arising from the RTF:
  Modernisation—support to the automotive supply chain in its continuous improvement activity;
  Diversification—promotion of and support to encourage businesses to engage in new activity to enable the region to be less dependent on its traditional industries; and
  Regeneration—the creation of High Tech Corridors to support the modernisation and diversification of the region's economy by attracting and developing more high tech, high value added businesses by virtue of the presence of research institutions, universities and property opportunities.

  Modernisation and Diversification projects are continuing with spend on target and outputs exceeding or in line with expectations. For example, at end of 2002–03 over 2,500 jobs have been safeguarded against a target of 1,700. Equally on the Regeneration agenda, a strategy is in place for High Tech Corridors to provide long-term sustainable development of the region.

  Museums (Genetic Research)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the research that has been carried out following studies of genetic materials held in British museums. [145593]

  Ms Hewitt
  Museums hold a great deal of material that could be classed as genetic material: from human, animal or insect remains to collections of seeds and plants samples, even marine sediments contain genetic material which could be used in research.

  There are many of possible funders including the Government Departments, devolved Administrations, Research Councils, universities, charities and the museums themselves. There is no central record of all the research funded by these different bodies or of the research carried out on the different sources of genetic material and it would be cost prohibitive to gather it.

  National Business Angels Network
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sums of money put into the National Business Angels Network have been written off. [150195]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None.

  Project Funding
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been provided by her Department to help finance(a) the Passport to Export Success scheme, (b) the Overseas Project Fund, (c) the British Overseas Industrial Placement, (d) the Outward Missions Support Unit, (e) inward trade missions, (f) the Export Promoter Initiatives, (g) the Export Marketing Research Initiative, (h) the Export Communications Review, (i) the Framework Programme 6 and (j) the Link Collaborative Research Initiative for each financial year since the inception of each; what funding has been allocated to finance each in future financial years; and if she

  91W
  will estimate the extent to which businesses have benefited from each initiative to date. [149446]

  Ms Hewitt
  The schemes at(a) to (h) are administered by UK Trade and Investment (a joint FCO/DTI Department), and those at (i) and (j) by the Office of Science and Technology (OST) at the DTI.

  £million

  Outturn

  Est. outturn

  Plans

  2000—01

  2001—02

  2002—03

  2003—04

  2004—05

  2005—06

  (a) Passport to Export

  10

  2.1

  3.6

  5.5

  5.0

  5.0

  (b) Overseas Project Fund

  12.1

  2.9

  2.4

  2.5

  2.3

  0.7

  (c) British Ovs. Industrial placement Scheme (BOND)

  0.28

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0

  0

  (d) Outward Missions Scheme2

  1.9

  2.1

  2.2

  2.2

  2.2

  2.3

  (e) Inward Missions Scheme

  0.3

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  (f) Export Promoters Scheme

  4.4

  3.0

  2.6

  2.6

  2.8

  2.9

  (g) Export Market Research Initiative

  1.1

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  (h) Export Communications Review

  0.15

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  1 Scheme under development.

  2 Vertical missions will be subsumed into the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad (SESA) scheme as of 1 April 2004.

  The BOND scheme at (c) ends in March 2004.

  The support provided by UK Trade and Investment helps businesses to trade successfully in international markets. Those that do so are shown by independent research to be more productive, to pay higher wages and to be more capital intensive than those that do not. The current formal evaluation of the benefits to business from UKTI trade schemes is contained in UKTI's (then British Trade International) Departmental Report (Cm 5915) of May 2003, and in the Autumn Performance Report (Cm 5711) of December 2003, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. Details of UKTI's 2003–04 performance measurement will be available in late February 2004, and will be included in UKTI's Departmental Report to be published in April 2004.

  (i) the Framework Programme 6

  The EU's Framework Programmes are funded from the EU budget, not DTI. The current budget for the period 2002 to 2006 is €17.5 billion. The programme supports a range of activities including collaborative research and technological development, researcher mobility, scientific infrastructure and co-ordination of national research funding. The Government's Memorandum and response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry (UK Science and Europe: Value for Money?) in 2003 outlined evidence for the benefit to the UK. The Government are examining these issues further in preparation for negotiation of the next programme. UK businesses benefit from participation in the programme in terms of funding, gaining access to European markets and researchers and participation/risk sharing in R&D on cutting edge technologies.

  (j) the Link Collaborative Research Initiative

  My Department has funded the LINK Collaborative Research scheme as follows:
  92W
  The funding figures available for UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) trade support schemes, and projected funding, are as follows.

  (a) to (h): Funding details for UK Trade and Investment trade support schemes:

  Since 2001, funding has been provided to the schemes as follows:

  £000

  DTI

  Research Councils

  Total

  1988–97 cumulative

  86,873.5

  70,369.1

  157,242.6

  1997–98

  11,690.5

  13,004.7

  24,695.2

  1998–99

  9,498.1

  20,307.3

  29,805.4

  1999–2000

  7,475.1

  21,968.2

  29,443.3

  2000–01

  7,330.4

  23,403.7

  30,734.1

  2001–02

  9,887.6

  23,656.3

  33,543.9

  2002–03

  12,662.1

  21,013.2

  33,675.3

  Total to 2002–03

  145,417.3

  193,722.5

  33,9139.8

  No specific funding amount is allocated for future years but follows the assessment of proposals for LINK Collaborative Research programmes.

  Fourteen Government Departments and Research Councils sponsor LINK Collaborative Research. Participating businesses, which provide at least matching support for all Government funding, benefit from involvement in the scheme in a variety of ways. The report of a recent independent Strategic Review of LINK Collaborative Research included estimates of the economic benefits of LINK projects to UK business as follows.

  Extra business turnover:£700 million-£2,400 million1

  Increased profit: £250 million-£500 million1

  Increased employment: 15,000–25,000 posts1

  1 Figures are low and high estimates for the direct effect of LINK Collaborative Research on the UK economy to 2000–01.

  Relocation Offshore
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what research has been undertaken by her Department on consumer attitudes to locating call centre jobs and services offshore; [149200]

  (2) what research has been undertaken by her Department to assess the regional impact of locating services and jobs offshore. [149201]
  93W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]My Department has not undertaken any research specifically on consumer attitudes to offshoring call centre jobs and services. The DTI paper "Services and Offshoring: The Impact of Increasing International Competition on Services", published on 5 December, outlined the main issues on offshoring and highlights initial areas identified for further research. It invites all those with an interest in the wider offshoring debate, including businesses, employees and their unions, and consumer groups, to share their views with us. On 2 February I will be hosting a roundtable on offshoring with companies and organisations interested in offshoring issues. My Department is also commissioning research on the key factors contributing to the relative competitiveness of the UK's call centre industry to help identify any appropriate actions which need to be taken by industry or Government in response to the increasingly global market for call centre services.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) undertaken by her Department to assess the economic costs and benefits to the labour market, in particular to women, of UK call centre jobs being located offshore [149202]

  (2) what research her Department has undertaken into whether costs savings are achieved by those UK companies who have located jobs abroad; and whether cost savings are passed on to the consumer; [149203]

  (3) what assessment has been made by her Department of (a) the long-term trends in moving UK jobs and services abroad and (b) the benefits derived by UK manufacturing, utilities and financial services; [149522]

  (4) if she will make a statement on the effect of offshoring jobs abroad on UK trade and industry; [149523]

  (5) what assessment has been made of the quality of customer service achieved by those companies which have offshored jobs abroad; and how customer service has changed. [149525]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]My Department has not commissioned or undertaken any research on the specific issue of economic costs and benefits to the labour market, in particular to women, of UK call centre jobs being located offshore. My Department is commissioning a study on the key factors contributing to the relative competitiveness of the UK's call centre industry. The study will help to identify any appropriate actions that need to be taken by industry or Government in response to the increasingly global market for call centre services.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish her Department's study into offshoring of UK call centre jobs. [149524]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]The study will examine the key factors contributing to the 94W
  relative competitiveness of UK call centres including the impact of offshoring. Subject to progress of the study, we will publish a report on its findings in April 2004.

  Renewable Energy (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish a list of pending applications for windfarm developments in Cambridgeshire, giving their(a) location and (b) proposed output in KW hours. [149677]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals to construct and operate generating stations with a capacity greater than 50 megawatts (MW) require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  There are no applications for her consent to construct windfarms in Cambridgeshire.

  Central Government does not hold records of proposals for on-shore windfarms below 50MW as these fall to be determined by the local planning authority under the normal planning regime.

  Strategic Export Controls (Israel)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what approvals have been given since the period covered by the last Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls for the export to Israel of categories of equipment covering(a) leg irons, (b) electric shock belts, (c) tear gas, (d) mortars, (e) rocket launchers, (f) anti-tank weapons, (g) military explosives, (h) infra-red and radar sensors and (i) chemical and biological agents. [149337]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Details of export licences approved for Israel in 2003 will be published in the 2003 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls later this year. I can however confirm that, following the then Foreign Secretary's announcement in 1997 of a ban on the export and transhipment through the UK of equipment which has been shown to be used for torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, items such as leg irons and electric shock belts are never approved for export from the UK. Similarly, in 2003 the Government did not authorise tear gas for export to Israel.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list applications for wind farm developments in Lancashire, broken down by(a) location and (b) output in kw per hour. [149967]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals to construct and operate generating stations with a capacity greater than 50 megawatts (MW) require the Secretary of State's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  She is currently considering one application for her consent to construct a 65 MW wind farm at Scout Moor. The applicant estimates that the on site wind analysis

  95W
  indicates a likely capacity factor of 35 per cent. which would indicate that the proposed wind farm would generate some 197,000,000 kWh per annum.

  Central Government do not hold records of proposals for on shore wind farms at or below 50MW as they fall to he determined by the local planning authority under the normal planning regime.

  £million

  1999—2000

  2000—01

  2001—02

  2002—03

  2003—04

  2004—05

  2005—06

  Science Enterprise Challenge

  25

  —

  —

  5

  10

  —

  —

  University Challenge

  10

  10

  20

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Higher Education Innovation Fund (SOT)

  —

  —

  20

  20

  40

  61

  70>

  Higher Education Innovation Fund(DfES)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  20>

  20>

  Public Sector Research Establishment

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  5

  10

  Total

  35

  10

  50

  30

  70

  86

  100

  There was no expenditure prior to 1999, as the first of these programmes were announced in the pre-Budget statement November 1998. The Higher Education Innovation Fund is run jointly with DfES and their contributions have been included in the table. A number of other DTI initiatives contribute to knowledge transfer, but are recorded under separate headings in DTI's annual report.

  Work-Life Balance
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the full report on the Work-Life Balance survey will be published. [150348]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Second Work-Life Balance Study: Results from the Employers' Survey report was published in November 2003 and can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/er/infomr.htm. The accompanying employee survey report will be published in spring 2004, although preliminary findings can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/wibstwo_employee.pdf.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the level of discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace. [150349]

  Ms Hewitt
  There has been no formal assessment of the level of discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace. However, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) launched a formal investigation into pregnancy discrimination on 1 September 2003 using its powers under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The final report is expected in February 2005.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he plans to take(a) to make council tax benefit more accessible for pensioners through (i) a simpler benefit and (ii) simpler claim forms and (b) to ensure effective administration of the benefit; and if he will make a statement. [148234]

  Transdepartmental Science and Technology Group
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down how funding for knowledge transfer programmes was allocated in 2003–04; and what amounts were allocated in each year since 1997. [147800]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Pond
  We have recently introduced a single, streamlined, claim form for claiming both housing benefit and council tax benefit; we are now rolling out a shortened version for pensioners, which will simplify the claims process even further.

  On-going practical support to local authorities is being provided through the Help Team, monitoring teams, and the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to help remove barriers to poor performance. We are maintaining the investment in the Performance Standards Fund over this and the next two years, amounting to some £200 million over all.

  From 1 April 2004, we are abolishing the current restriction whereby people living in band F, G or H properties have their council tax benefit restricted to the maximum help available for band E properties.

  In addition we will be taking forward the council tax benefit take-up campaign, which was announced on 15 December 2003, to support authorities in ensuring that those entitled to help with their council tax bills claim council tax benefit.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the average level of employer contributions, net of tax relief, into stakeholder pension schemes since their introduction. [150458]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Inland Revenue data show that in 2001–02 the average contribution to stakeholder pension schemes made by employers was £420 per annum.

  This figure represents the average contribution for the financial year 2001–02 to schemes where an employer is contributing. The data are for the full year and does not include a scheme start date, so where a scheme was started in-year, although the contributions would only have been made for part of the year they have been averaged over 12 months. Therefore the estimate will not reflect the true annual average if the scheme had operated for a full year.

  At present comparable figures for subsequent years are not yet available as although we have data on total contributions made and number of schemes receiving

  97W
  tax relief, data showing the schemes which received employer contributions has not yet been released; data for 2002–03 will become available in summer 2004.

  Between 2001–02 and 2002–03 total contributions to stakeholder schemes by employers have risen by 267 per cent. from £150 million per annum to £400 million per annum.

  Advice Organisations
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the overlap between existing Citizens Advice Bureaux and the new advice-based organisations funded by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [148528]

  Mr. Pond
  Our Agencies provide advice to people on those areas for which this Department is responsible, ensuring that people understand their rights and responsibilities within the benefit system, the benefits that they are entitled to, the job opportunities open to them, and what services are available to improve their job prospects. However, we do not give the broad range of advice that is available from Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  In some cases, the best way to provide our services is in conjunction with other organisations within the community. For example, Jobcentre Plus is working with Cornwall Neighbourhoods for Change on its Neighbourhood Pathway project. It is providing its knowledge and skills in helping people back in to work, and has invested £883,890 during the period April 2003 to December 2003, supporting 420 people into work and 320 people into training and mainstream Jobcentre Plus programmes.

  Benefit Payments (Computer Downtime)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many hours of system downtime relating to the computer dealing with direct payment there have been in each month since it was introduced. [147653]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]: Information is not available in the format requested.

  The Department has contingency arrangements in place to maintain continuity of benefit payment, in the unlikely event of benefit system failure.

  The figures for Service Availability across all Departmental Systems over the past 6 months has been 99.98 per cent. Availability has not dipped under the 99.2 per cent. target over the past year.

  Carers Allowance
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people(a) over and (b) under 65 were entitled to carers allowance but did not receive payment in each (i) constituency and (ii) local authority area in London in the last year for which figures are available. [146088]
  98W
  Maria Eagle
  Information on people in London local authorities who are entitled to Carers Allowance but are not receiving a payment due to the overlapping benefit rules, as at 31 August 2003, the latest data available is given in the table.

  Local Authority

  All

  Under 65

  65 and over

  All

  9,695

  4,625

  5,070

  City of London

  5

  —

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  365

  170

  195

  Barnet

  365

  185

  185

  Bexley

  355

  150

  205

  Brent

  300

  150

  155

  Bromley

  370

  190

  180

  Camden

  230

  110

  120

  Croydon

  395

  190

  205

  Ealing

  345

  175

  170

  Enfield

  325

  155

  170

  Greenwich

  525

  190

  335

  Hackney

  275

  135

  140

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  180

  95

  85

  Haringey

  240

  125

  115

  Harrow

  225

  105

  120

  Havering

  520

  205

  315

  Hillingdon

  370

  175

  190

  Hounslow

  325

  145

  180

  Islington

  280

  135

  145

  Kensington and Chelsea

  85

  35

  50

  Kingston upon Thames

  135

  60

  75

  Lambeth

  280

  145

  135

  Lewisham

  350

  170

  180

  Merton

  215

  90

  120

  Newham

  395

  220

  180

  Redbridge

  380

  200

  180

  Richmond upon Thames

  155

  70

  85

  Southwark

  315

  165

  150

  Sulton

  260

  115

  145

  Tower Hamlets

  310

  155

  150

  Waltham Forest

  325

  160

  165

  Wandsworth

  340

  160

  180

  Westminster

  165

  95

  70

  Information on people in London Parliamentary Constituencies who are entitled to Carers Allowance but are not receiving a payment due to the overlapping benefit rules, as at 31 August 2003, the latest data available is given in the table.

  Parliamentary Constituency

  All

  Under 65

  65 and over

  All

  9,695

  4,625

  5,070

  Barking

  180

  90

  90

  Battersea

  100

  45

  60

  Beckenham

  105

  50

  55

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  170

  80

  90

  Bexleyheath and Crayford

  155

  65

  90

  Brent East

  95

  50

  45

  Brent North

  110

  55

  55

  Brent South

  95

  45

  50

  Brentford and Isleworth

  150

  70

  80

  Bromley and Chislehurst

  115

  60

  55

  Camberwell and Peckham

  110

  60

  50

  Carshalton and Wallington

  145

  60

  85

  Chingford and Woodford Green

  140

  55

  85

  Chipping Barnet

  115

  60

  55

  Cities of London and Westminster

  70

  35

  30

  Croydon Central

  140

  65

  75

  Croydon North

  145

  75

  75

  Croydon South

  110

  55

  55

  Dagenham

  185

  80

  105

  Dulwich and West Norwood

  105

  60

  50

  Haling Acton and Shepherds Bush

  110

  55

  55

  Ealing North

  135

  70

  65

  Ealing Southall

  160

  85

  75

  East Ham

  160

  85

  75

  99W

  Parliamentary Constituency

  All

  Under 65

  65 and over

  Edmonton

  125

  60

  60

  Eltham

  205

  60

  145

  Enfield North

  95

  50

  45

  Enfield Southgate

  105

  40

  65

  Erith and Thamesmead

  185

  85

  100

  Feltham and Heston

  170

  70

  100

  Finchley and Golders Green

  110

  55

  55

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  205

  75

  125

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  110

  50

  60

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  165

  85

  80

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  125

  65

  60

  Hampstead and Highgate

  95

  40

  50

  Harrow East

  130

  65

  65

  Harrow West

  95

  40

  55

  Hayes and Harlington

  115

  70

  45

  Hendon

  140

  70

  70

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  135

  65

  70

  Hornchurch

  180

  80

  100

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  90

  45

  45

  Ilford North

  180

  95

  90

  Ilford South

  145

  85

  60

  Islington North

  150

  65

  85

  Islington South and Finsbury

  130

  70

  60

  Kensington and Chelsea

  35

  15

  20

  Kingston and Surbiton

  110

  45

  60

  Lewisham Deptford

  100

  55

  45

  Lewisham East

  130

  55

  75

  Lewisham West

  120

  60

  60

  Leyton and Wanstead

  120

  55

  65

  Mitcham and Morden

  130

  60

  70

  North Southwark and Bermondsey

  145

  75

  70

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  130

  50

  80

  Orpington

  150

  75

  75

  Poplar and Canning Town

  210

  120

  90

  Putney

  105

  50

  55

  Regents Park and Kensington North

  145

  80

  70

  Richmond Park

  80

  35

  40

  Romford

  145

  55

  90

  Ruislip Northwood

  130

  55

  75

  Streatham

  110

  60

  45

  Sutton and Cheam

  115

  55

  60

  Tooting

  130

  65

  65

  Tottenham

  150

  75

  70

  Twickenham

  100

  45

  55

  Upminster

  200

  75

  125

  Uxbridge

  125

  55

  70

  Vauxhall

  120

  55

  65

  Walthamstow

  125

  70

  55

  West Ham

  160

  90

  70

  Wimbledon

  85

  35

  50

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5, totals may not sum due to founding

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample

  The following table contains the figures for the number of people who have an entitlement to Carers Allowance but do not receive it due to overlapping benefit rules, but receive a Carer Premium1.

  1 The carer premium is intended to focus help on those who have limited opportunity to gain income from work because of providing care for a person with disabilities. It is awarded where the carer receives Carer's Allowance or has an underlying entitlement to Carer's Allowance. The premium is paid in addition to other benefits and premiums, and where both the claimant and their partner satisfy the conditions, two carer premiums are paid.

  The figures include Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) data. They include all IS (over and under 60s) and JSA(IB) cases with a carer premium but with no CA From October 2003, Pension Credit replaced Income Support for people over 60. The Pension Credit calculation for people who are entitled to Carer's Allowance includes an additional amount equal to the carer premium in Income Support.
  100W

  Thousands

  Total

  All

  50.6

  Under 65

  24.7

  65 and Over

  26.0

  Note:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands. Totals do not sum due to rounding.

  3. Income-based JSA will include those receiving Income-based JSA with an underlying entitlement to Contribution-based JSA.

  4. There is an equivalent premium called the Additional Amount in Pension Credit. There are no data available on this as yet.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what powers the Child Support Agency has in making deductions from earnings orders against army personnel. [145678]

  Mr. Pond
  None. However, the Agency can ask Her Majesty's forces to use their discretionary powers to make deductions from the pay of Service personnel.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are taken by the Child Support Agency to verify the financial status of a resident parent who has a new unmarried partner in cases where the non-resident parent has applied for departures in CSA maintenance. [147835]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to John Barrett, dated 26 January 2004:
  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You asked what steps are taken by the Child Support Agency to verify the financial status of a resident parent, who has a new unmarried partner, in cases where the non-resident parent has applied for departures in CSA maintenance.
  In all cases falling under the "old scheme" where the resident parent (that is, the parent with care) is not receiving a prescribed benefit or Tax Credit, the Agency will seek to verify that parent's financial circumstances. Specifically we will ask the parent with care for evidence of their earnings and any other income, as well as their housing costs. We will do this whether or not the parent with care has a partner and whether or not the non-resident parent has applied for a departure.
  It may help you to know that, under the "old scheme", if the parent with care has a partner, the Agency will ask for verification of that partner's income only if they share a child. This is because the only relevance of the partner's income is in determining whether we should make full allowance for the shared child in the parent with care's exempt income, or whether the partner can contribute to the support of the child. Under the revised Child Support scheme the Agency does not take into account the financial circumstances of the parent with care in any way.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the projected date is for moving all existing child support cases to the new computer system. [149472]
  101W
  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1092W.

  Disability Living Allowance
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of applicants for disability living allowance assessed by a Benefits Agency Medical Service doctor were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in their applications in 2003. [148450]

  Maria Eagle
  The numbers of DLA New Claim decisions made, which have included an Examining Medical Practitioner's Report as part of the evidence used, are set out in the following table.

  January-November 2003

  Number (percentage)

  Total decisions including an EMP report in the evidence used

  126,760

  Awards

  56,780(45)

  Refusals

  69,980 (55)

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  100 per cent. MIS data

  Figures include awards made as a result of new claims only. Figures are for January to November 2003 as December 2003 figures are not yet available.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the requirement for persons who have(a) chronic mental health problems and (b) chronic physical conditions to undergo (i) IB50 and (ii) personal capability assessment. [149715]

  Maria Eagle
  The Personal Capability Assessment, which includes completion of IB50 self-assessment where relevant, is an effective method of determining a person's functional ability.

  The IB50 self-assessment questionnaire has been designed to give people the opportunity to provide information about their problems, mental or physical, that they feel the decision maker should take into account in relation to functional assessment.

  People with a severe mental illness are exempt from the Personal Capability Assessment, and procedures have been developed so that people who meet the exemption criteria are identified at the earliest possible stage. Any cause of incapacity which may include a mental health problem triggers a request for a report from the person's GP or medical specialist. People who are exempt are not required to complete a self-assessment IB50.

  We have no plans to change these arrangements at present.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve access for incapacity benefit claimants to personal capability assessment tests by introducing peripatetic surgeries in rural areas. [149716]
  102W
  Maria Eagle
  Under the contract for provision of Medical Services, SchlumbergerSema must ensure that customers are not required to travel for more than ninety minutes by public transport, on a single journey, for an examination, unless previously agreed with the customer; SchlumbergerSema will pay all reasonable and actual expenses to customers who attend for an examination and apply for reimbursement.

  Information leaflets are provided to customers, advising them to contact the Client Help desk if they expect to experience difficulties in travelling to the Medical Examination Centre. Under certain circumstances, SchlumbergerSema will authorise the refund of taxi fares if agreed in advance with the Client Help desk; domiciliary visits can also be arranged, where it is determined that a customer is unable to travel on medical grounds.

  We have no plans to change these arrangements at present.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeal tribunal decisions on incapacity benefit appeals have been challenged by social security offices in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom in each of the last two years; and how many challenges were successful in each case. [148746]

  Maria Eagle
  Decisions of tribunals may be appealed on a point of law to Social Security Commissioners. The numbers of tribunal decisions appealed in incapacity benefit cases in the last two years are in the tables.

  Tribunal decisions on incapacity benefit appealed by the Secretary of State on a point of law during 2002

  Scotland

  Elsewhere in the UK

  Decisions appealed

  7

  11

  Successful

  7

  8

  Unsuccessful

  0

  3

  Tribunal decisions on incapacity benefit appealed by the Secretary of State on a point of law during 2003

  Scotland

  Elsewhere in the UK

  Decisions appealed

  11

  34

  Successful

  5

  13

  Unsuccessful1

  1

  6

  Result awaited

  5

  15

  1 Figure for elsewhere in the UK includes one appeal withdrawn.

  Note:

  Successful appeals include decision set aside by a tribunal chairman and those found by a Social Security Commissioner to be erroneous in law.

  New Deal
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have taken part in the New Deal for Musicians in each year of the programme's existence. [147952]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is in the table.
  103W

  Number of participants in New Deal of Musicians

  Year

  Total in year

  1999

  1,515

  2000

  3,484

  2001

  4,015

  2002

  2,859

  20031

  1,590

  Total

  13,463

  1 Up to 28 August 2003

  Source:

  New Deal for Musicians Database

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) his Department and (b) Job Centre Plus are employed in administering the New Deal for Musicians. [147953]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no separate administrative resource allocated specifically to New Deal for Musicians as it is delivered as part of the wider New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been placed in sustainable employment by the New Deal for Musicians; and what percentage that represents of the total number of people taking part in the programme. [147954]

  Mr. Browne
  Since November 2002 New Deal for musicians has been adopted as part of the mainstream New Deals; New Deal for young People and New Deal 25plus. The successful job outcomes of New Deal for Musicians therefore contribute to the total data of those two programmes as appropriate.

  Separate statistical information on the number of New Deal for Musicians participants finding sustainable jobs is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the annual cost is of the New Deal for Musicians(a) this year and (b) for each year of the programme's existence. [147955]

  Mr. Browne
  The estimated cost of the three year New Deal for Musicians national pilot was £9 million. Annual costs are not available for this period. The spend on New Deal for Musicians for 2002—03 is £3.1 million and 2003—04, to December 2003, is £2 million.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has issued to(a) the trustees and (b) the administrators of occupational pension schemes where, on winding-up, the remaining assets of the scheme are insufficient to cover SERPS liabilities for some members. [148977]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Section 74 of the Pensions Act 1995 sets out the provisions on overriding scheme rules so as to enable the trustees of a scheme to discharge their liabilities to members for pensions and other benefits even if the those pensions and benefits are not fully secured. When an occupational pension scheme is winding up, it ceases to contract-out and its trustees must secure members contracted-out rights.
  104W
  The Inland Revenue manual CA15 (Cessation of Contracted-out Pension Schemes) contains guidance on securing contracted-out rights. CA15 is available via the Inland Revenue website at: www.Inlandrevenue.gov.uk. Inland Revenue writes to scheme administrators making them aware of the guidance once the scheme has ceased to contract-out. Also, when they are informed that a scheme is no longer contracted-out, the Inland Revenue sends form CA7992 to scheme trustees. This gives general guidelines on securing the liabilities, and the options that are available.

  No guidance has been issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on this subject.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners from(a) the UK, (b) Scotland and (c) Dumfries have received pension credit since its introduction. [145684]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is given in the table based on numbers of pension credit recipients in Great Britain, Scotland and Dumfries and Galloway.

  Recipients of pension credit, 31 December 2003

  Numbers of pension credit recipients

  Percentage of population aged 60 and over (percentage)

  Great Britain

  2,533,960

  21.1

  Scotland

  263,290

  24.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8,615

  22.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Percentages have been calculated using the ONS population estimates for mid 2002.

  3. Figures for recipients include a small number of partners under age 60.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the overall sum paid to pensioners under the pension credit scheme is to date in(a) England, (b) Cambridgeshire and (c) Huntingdon. [149686]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. The information that is available is as follows.

  The latest departmental information suggests that between 1 October 2003 and 30 November 2003:

  An estimated £688 million was spent on Pension Credit in England;

  An estimated £5.0 million was spent on Pension Credit in Cambridgeshire;

  An estimated £0.7 million was spent on Pension Credit in Huntingdon.

  Notes:

  1. Pension Credit was introduced on 6 October 2003, therefore this figure includes 5 days of expenditure on the Minimum Income Guarantee (the benefit Pension Credit replaces).

  2. This figure is based on total expenditure on Pension Credit in Great Britain (GB) from the departmental Programme Accounting Computer System (PACS) data. The country, county and constituency level expenditure is estimated using 100 per cent. Generalised Matching Service (GMS) data.
  105W
  3. The estimate for England has been rounded to the nearest million pounds.

  4.The estimates for Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people resident in(a) the constituency of Huntingdon and (b) Cambridgeshire have received pension credit since its introduction; [149687]

  (2) how many people resident in (a) the constituency of Huntingdon and (b) Cambridgeshire have applied for pension credit since its introduction. [149688]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At 31 December 2003 there were(a) 2,018 pensioner households (2,397 individuals) in the Huntingdon constituency and (b) 12,974 pensioner households (15,474 individuals) in Cambridgeshire receiving pension credit. Information on the number of people who have applied for pension credit is not available in respect of individual constituencies or counties.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners in the constituency of Huntingdon have received letters setting out their rights under the pension credit scheme. [149689]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people in individual constituencies who have received a letter about pension credit is not available.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people have claimed pension credit in Brent, East since it was introduced; [149908]

  (2) how many people are entitled to claim pension credit in Brent, East. [149909]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At 31 December 2003 there were 3,205 pensioner households (3,786 individuals) in the Brent, East constituency receiving pension credit. Information on the number of people who have applied for or are eligible for pension credit is not available in respect of individual constituencies. However, we estimate that approximately 450,000 pensioner households in the London region are eligible for pension credit.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of working age people contributing to a non-state pension scheme. [150452]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of working age people currently contributing to a non-state pension scheme is 11.7 million.

  The percentage of working age people currently contributing to a non-state pension scheme is 36 per cent.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 2002–03.

  Notes:

  1. Those who are 'contributing' are members of a non-state pension schemes who are themselves currently contributing to the scheme.

  2. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). 2002–03 is the latest year for which data is available. The coverage of the Survey is the UK.
  106W
  3. Non-state pension refers to either an occupational pension or personal pension

  4. Stakeholder pensions are included as personal pensions in the estimates.

  5. Working age has been defined as 20–59 for women and 20–64 for men.

  6. Some individuals may contribute to both an occupational and a personal pension scheme but there are no overlaps. The figures include those contributing to either an occupational pension or a personal pension.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of working age people accumulating rights in a non-state pension scheme. [150453]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of working age people who are currently accumulating rights to a non-state pension scheme is 14.5 million

  The percentage of working age people who are currently accumulating rights to a non-state pension scheme is 44 per cent.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 2002–03.

  Notes:

  1. Those 'accumulating rights' includes those who are members of a non-state pension with either themselves or their employer currently contributing. The figures do not include 'deferred' pension rights as neither themselves nor their employer are currently contributing.

  2. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). 2002–03 is the latest year for which data is available. The coverage of the Survey is the UK.

  3. Non-state pension refers to either an occupational pension or personal pension

  4. Stakeholder pensions are included as personal pensions in the estimates.

  5. Working age has been defined as 20–59 for women and 20–64 for men.

  6. Some individuals may contribute to both an occupational and a personal pension scheme but there are no overlaps. The figures include those contributing to either an occupational pension or a personal pension.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements he has made for wheelchair users who cannot use their hands to collect benefits and pensions at post offices when using the new PIN card system. [150786]

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements his Department has made to help partially sighted clients with post office card accounts, who have difficulty in using a PIN number, but do not wish to nominate another person to collect their money for them, to obtain their payments from the post office branch. [150998]

  Mr. Pond
  Our information campaign has an important role to play in the way we take customers through the changes, including collecting their money from their account at the post office if they wish. Customers will be supplied with information, which clearly sets out their 'account options' and enables them to freely choose the best account to suit their circumstances.
  107W
  For some people, a card-based account may not be the most suitable option and they may prefer to use an account with a cheque book or building society pass book. If post office access is a priority, people in these circumstances can choose one of the accounts that are accessible at post office branches.

  The Post Office is working to ensure its services are as accessible to as many customers as possible and is planning to make adjustments to the PIN pads installed in Post Office branches.

  We have always recognised that there will be some people, such as those who cannot open or manage any sort of account that we cannot pay by Direct Payment. In consultation with a range of bodies representing those affected, we are developing an exceptions method

  Number of Outstanding claims or not fully resolved

  December 2003

  December 2002

  December 2001

  December 2000

  (a) the RP assessment of widows and widowers

  5,702

  1—

  1—

  1—

  (b) the RP assessment of those have experienced divorce

  10,240

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  15,942

  10,604

  4,457

  3,831

  (c) change of circumstances in RP assessments for those already pension age (bereaved customers)

  20,293

  4,782

  1—

  1,825

  1 Not available

  Notes:

  1. Prior to December 2003 (a) and (b) RP claims were counted together.

  2. Figures relating to (c) refer to a change in entitlement for a surviving spouse when one or both in a couple are in receipt of RP and one of the couple dies. We have no figures available for (c) in relation to Dec 2001 due to changes in organisational structure. NPC deals with other changes of circumstance to RP eg increases in RP due to a change in the customer's contribution record. These changes of circumstance are not included in the figures stated against (c) in the table.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retired pensioners are using(a) post offices, (b) banks and (c) building societies to receive their pension in the Easington constituency. [148853]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  However from information available as at 29 November 2003, in the Easington parliamentary constituency, the number of pensioners (women aged 60 and over, men aged 65 and over) who receive their state pension is given in the following table by type of method of payment.

  Number

  Total paid at a post office, by either order book or post office card account

  9,038

  Paid direct to a bank or building society account (some of which can be accessed at post office branches)

  3,685

  Total number of state pensioners

  12,723

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample

  Information available does not differentiate between bank and building society account for payments direct to accounts. No information is held as to the number of pensioners who receive payments direct to a normal or basic bank or building society accounts who then collect all or part of their pension at the Post Office.

  The data exclude state pension recipients who receive state pension combined with another benefit and are paid through another benefit system.
  108W
  of payment to meet the needs of people in these circumstances, which will be accessible at Post Office branches.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims are outstanding or not fully resolved relating to(a) the retirement pension assessment of widows and widowers, (b) the retirement pension assessment of those who have experienced divorce and (c) change of circumstances in retirement pension assessments for those already of pensionable age for (i) the most recently available month and (ii) each same month in the three previous years. [149635]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Sema Group
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the performance of the Sema Group in its contracts to operate the Benefits Agency Medical Service. [148497]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department undertook a major review of the contract in 2001 as a basis for negotiating new and more stretching service level targets for the extension of the existing contract to 2005; the revised targets reflected recommendations for improvements made by the Social Security Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.

  There are more than 60 targets against which Medical Service's performance is measured, including targets for speed, accuracy and quality; achievement of these targets is reviewed on a monthly basis, with the vast majority being regularly met. For example, in respect of incapacity benefit examinations, the actual average clearance times target of 32 working days (from the receipt of the referral for examination from the DWP to the return of the case to the DWP) has consistently been met, with a year to date performance of 29.5 working days.

  The latest report published by the National Audit Office on 17 October 2003 recognised that there has been good progress, and significant improvements to the contracted services.

TREASURY

  Bank of England
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England. [151064]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis. As with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists, as appropriate.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much space, expressed in square metres, the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150274]

  Ruth Kelly
  The current space occupied by civil servants of the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise in(a) central London is 202,453 sq m and in (b) Greater London is 28,017 sq m.

  Complaints
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of complaints to(a) the Inland Revenue, (b) HM Customs and Excise and (c) district valuers' offices receive a substantive response within 30 working days. [146853]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Valuation Office do not capture information about substantive responses within 30 working days.

  In the nine months ended 31 December 2003, the Inland Revenue provided a substantive response to 76 per cent. of complaints within 15 working days. In the same period, the Valuation Office provided a response to 74 per cent. of complaints within 20 working days. For the six months ended 30 September 2003, Customs and Excise provided a substantive response to 84 per cent. of complaints within 10 working days.

  Compliance Performance Targets
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2004,Official Report, columns 868–69W, on taxation adjustment, whether performance related pay has been paid as a consequence of adjustments in (a) the whole and (b) part of the Large Business Office's Compliance performance in the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [151095]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Performance assessment is not linked to nor based on the individual's contribution to yield or taxation adjustments achieved. No performance related pay was paid in consequence of the Large Business Office's performance yield figures reported above.
  110W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compliance performance targets were set for the(a) Large Business Office (CT) and (b) Inland Revenue in each of the years 1998–99 to 2002–03; and on what dates these targets were set. [151096]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Large Business Office (LBO) compliance performance targets for 2002–03 are set out in the LBO Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2003. For 1998–99 to 2001–02 they are set out in the Board's Annual Reports for these years. These targets are agreed in January/February before the start of each financial year.

  (b) National Inland Revenue compliance performance targets for 1998–99 to 2002–03 are set out in the Board's Annual Reports for these years. These targets are agreed as part of the annual planning round.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter to him dated 16 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. J. Miah. [151236]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following confirmation that the letter referred to was dated 18 December, I have replied to my right hon. Friend.

  Financial Services
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on financial services. [151508]

  Ruth Kelly
  As I set out in my written statement on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 1, Lord Penrose delivered the report of his inquiry into Equitable Life to the Treasury on 23 December.

  I can report that Lord Penrose has also made his report available to the Serious Fraud Office; and having studied the contents of the report the Treasury has asked the Serious Fraud Office to consider a number of issues raised in the report.

  As I set out in my statement of 5 January, the Treasury intends to publish the report in full as soon as possible. I will keep the House fully informed.

  I can also confirm that, purely for the purpose of informing the Government's response on specific items of policy, relevant extracts of the report have been shown to named officials of the DTI.

  Green Minister
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last three months. [150874]

  John Healey
  As the Treasury's Green Minister, I am committed to 'greening' the Department's operations, to integrating environmental considerations across policy areas, and to improving the economic analysis underpinning the Government's environmental initiatives.
  111W
  In the last three months, as the Treasury's Green Minister my work has included membership of the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Green Ministers and the Sustainable Development Taskforce, and meetings with representatives of non-governmental organisations and other key stakeholders on topics ranging from climate change to waste to aviation.

  I have written to senior officials responsible for sustainable development in each of the Chancellor's Departments and agencies to stress the importance attached to ensuring that appropriate priority and commitment are given to meeting the Government's sustainable development objectives and targets, and I led a meeting of the Working Group of responsible officials from across each of these Departments and agencies in October.

  In addition, the development of a range of environmental policy measures, including those announced in the pre-Budget report (PBR) on 10 December 2003 (Cm 6042), is my responsibility. The measures contributing to the Government's sustainable development strategy set out in PBR 2003 include:
  announcing plans for changes to the eligibility criteria for climate change agreements that will provide better incentives for businesses to encourage energy efficiency and scope to extend the sectors eligible;
  the extension, subject to state aid approval, of relief from levy for aggregates used in processed products and virgin aggregate in Northern Ireland;
  a proposed framework for alternative fuels including a commitment to providing three year certainty on duty differentials for all alternative fuels;
  a gradual increase in the duty rate for LPG to a level which better reflects its relative environmental benefits;
  recycling landfill tax revenues to businesses; and
  a consultation in early 2004 on tackling diffuse water pollution, including a consideration of the pros and cons of economic instruments.

  As I confirmed in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) on 13 November 2003, Official Report, column 408, all Government Departments will be required to consider sustainable development as part of the 2004 spending review process, as they were in 2002.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which information technology procurement has improved as a result of the Gateway review process. [150927]

  Mr. Boateng
  Quantitative assessment of the Gateway process is provided to OGC's Supervisory Board three times yearly. In addition, the National Audit Office are currently compiling details of the value for money benefits to projects of the OGC Gateway review process.

  This assessment shows that use of the OGC Gateway process leads to a significant improvement in likelihood of success for all procurement projects and programmes—including IT-enabled—and this improvement is particularly marked where the process is applied to projects or programmes in their early stages.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what section of the Inland Revenue is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the Inland Revenue in relation to people with disabilities. [150411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue co-ordinates its activities in relation to people with disabilities through two sections: services for taxpayers with disabilities are co-ordinated by a team in Service Delivery; the Human Resources section co-ordinates activities and services relating to the employment of people with disabilities. The Inland Revenue also has a full time specialist disability adviser who supports both areas and works with external disability organisations.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to appoint a disabilities champion to take responsibility for the Inland Revenue's service delivery to people with disabilities. [150412]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A member of the Board of the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue has already been appointed as a consumer champion and as such covers a wide range of service delivery areas, including service to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received in relation to the definition of an incapacitated person used in tax and VAT legislation; and if he will make a statement. [150413]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations on a wide variety of subjects, including a report from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group on disability and the tax system, which included representations on this specific issue.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are taken by the Inland Revenue to advertise home visits for those with disabilities(a) in leaflets and (b) on the Inland Revenue website. [150414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue are currently developing a strategy to promote their home visits arrangements to the target groups that will include information on the internet and in leaflets.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue has a disabilities helpline; and if he will make a statement. [150416]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At present the Inland Revenue has no plans to establish a disabilities helpline. Advisers in our telephone contact centres are trained to deal with telephone calls from the full range of our taxpayers. We believe that this approach provides the flexibility to respond to the differing requirements of our taxpayers base.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all Inland Revenue offices have textphone or similar communication aids. [150418]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All Inland Revenue Enquiry Offices are registered with the BTTypetalk service.
  113W
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what equipment is available in Inland Revenue offices open to the public for those with hearing difficulties. [150419]

  Dawn Primarolo
  When last audited in early 2002, out of a total of 323 of Inland Revenue Enquiry Offices providing a face to face service, 86 per cent. had portable loop systems and 27 per cent. of them had fixed induction loop systems. We are in the process of carrying out another audit.

  In spring 2003 Inland Revenue introduced a set of national standards for their Enquiry Offices specifying that they be equipped with a fixed and portable induction loop system, and a crystal listening device. They are progressing to all of their Enquiry Centres meeting this standard.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what training is given to frontline Inland Revenue staff in dealing with people with disabilities. [150422]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All new members of staff receive disability awareness material as part of the Inland Revenue's induction process.

  During the last three years over 90 per cent. of staff have received diversity awareness training which includes disability related issues.

  In addition, individual staff are nominated for training courses according to the requirements of their role and 22,752 staff have attended a training course specifically covering disability issues over the last three years.

  Inward Migration
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an appropriate method for measuring net migration into the UK. [150333]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 26 January 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your request for a statement on progress in establishing an appropriate method for measuring net migration into the UK. (150333)
  A substantial amount of work in this area has already been completed, and a program of further work is ongoing.
  The results of the 2001 Census showed that the mid-year population estimates had over-estimated the population of the UK over the previous decade. Subsequent research showed that this was partly because net migration into the country had been over-estimated. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) made several improvements to the methodology for estimating total international migration, making fuller use of the available sources. The improved methodology was used to produce the international migration estimates for 2001, and was also applied retrospectively from 1992 onwards in order to produce revised total international migration estimates for the inter-censual decade. ONS released final revised international migration estimates for 1992–2001 in June 2003. The revised methodology was used again to produce the 2002 international migration estimates published in November 2003, which are available on the National Statistics website at the following address: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/inme1103.pdf
  114W
  It was already recognised that international migration is the hardest component of population change to measure before the results of the 2001 Census were published. A National Statistics Quality Review of international migration statistics was initiated in March 2002. This was aimed at identifying the means of making the required improvements to the reliability and comprehensiveness of international migration statistics. The National Statistics Quality Review report was published on the National Statistics website in September 2003. Following the publication of this report, ONS produced an implementation plan for taking forward the review's recommendations. This was published on the National Statistics website in January 2004. Both the review and the implementation plan are available at the following address: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/methods_quality/quality_review/population.asp
  The work outlined in the implementation plan is already underway. ONS, in conjunction with the Home Office are working to complete some of the actions identified by the end of 2004. Other actions are suitable for longer term planning, and in some cases are dependent on developments in other government departments for their successful completion.

  Lamfalussy Committee of Banking Supervisors
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the announcement on 20 January about the new Lamfalussy committee of banking supervisors. [151509]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I am delighted to inform the House that on 20 January EU Finance Ministers agreed to base the new Lamfalussy committee of banking supervisors ('CEBS') in London. The equivalent committee for securities supervisors ('CESR') will continue to be based in Paris and that for insurance ('CEIOPS') will be based in Frankfurt. The location of these regulatory committees in Europe's major financial centres is a good outcome for the UK and for financial markets in the EU. This high-level committee of EU banking supervisors and central banks will be a key forum for national authorities to improve supervisory practices and advance the EU's legislative agenda. It should help ensure that more flexible EU legislation is adopted quicker, with improved consultation, transparency, and greater input from market practitioners. This should help drive forward the EU Financial Services Action Plan, providing Europe with a more dynamic, innovative, efficient and competitive financial services sector, to the benefit of consumers and businesses. The banking committee will meet at least three times a year, and should meet in London for the first time in the spring. It has already assumed its responsibilities and is currently looking to secure permanent offices in London. The committee is currently chaired by Jose Maria Roldan, Director General of the Bank of Spain, and around forty senior regulators and central bankers will participate in its meetings.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional revenue to the Exchequer that would be generated by increasing the rate of Class 4 National Insurance contributions by 3 per cent. [150459]
  115W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the publication "Tax ready reckoner and tax reliefs, December 2003" which is available in the Library of the House and also on the Treasury website (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.Uk/mediallAAB24/pbr03_trr.pdf). The figures exclude any estimate of behavioural response to the tax change.

  £000

  Name

  Term of office

  Salary1

  Bonus1

  Alan Cook—Chief Executive

  5 years

  145–150

  10–15

  Trevor Bayley—Finance Director

  5 years

  115–120

  10–15

  Steve Owen—Partnerships and Operations Director

  Permanent

  85–90

  10–15

  Gill Cattanach—Commercial Director

  Permanent

  90–95

  10–15

  Sandra Postles—HP Director

  Permanent

  75–80

  10–15

  John Prout—Sales Director

  Permanent

  95–100

  10–15

  Richard Wright—Non Executive Director and Chair of the Board

  3 years

  15–20

  0

  Marie Stafford—Non Executive Director

  3 years

  10–15

  0

  Paul Spencer—Non Executive Director

  3 years

  10–15

  0

  Michael Medlicott—Non Executive Director

  3 years

  10–15

  0

  1 As banded in our Annual Report and Accounts.

  Public Service Contracts
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the inquiry led by Mr. Alan Wood into the awarding of public service contracts in the EU; whether its remit includes awarding train franchises; and when he expects the inquiry to report. [150992]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Review was announced in the pre-Budget report on 10 December 2003. Work has now commenced and Mr. Wood will report in Summer 2004.

  The Review's scope is all sectors covered by the EC Directives on public procurement in the fields of Services, Supplies and Works1.

  1 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC, 93/37/EEC.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) his Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months, including the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. [147982]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number of passes reported lost or stolen between 1 January and 31 December 2003 by staff and contractors in HM Treasury and departmental agencies can be found in the following table:

  Department

  Lost

  Stolen

  Total

  HM Treasury

  125

  3

  128

  HM Customs and Excise1

  26

  15

  41

  Debt Management Office

  11

  0

  11

  The Government Actuary's Department

  8

  0

  8

  Inland Revenue

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  National Savings and Investments

  13

  4

  17

  Office of Government Commerce

  14

  3

  17

  OGC Buying Solutions

  0

  0

  0

  Office of National Statistics

  101

  0

  101

  Royal Mint2

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  Valuation Office Agency

  73

  4

  77

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who the members of National Savings and Investments were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is [151308]

  Ruth Kelly
  As of 1 January 2004, National Savings and Investments have six Executive Directors and four Non Executive Directors:

  1HM Customs and Excise figures cover their offices nationwide, but some losses and thefts may have been dealt with locally, and not reported to Head Office.

  2 Royal Mint do not keep separate records for losses and thefts.

  Passes are invalidated as soon as they reported missing, so they cannot be used if found. The passes do not contain information identifying them to their respective building or organisation. Staff are regularly reminded of the importance of keeping their security pass safe, through the induction programmes and security awareness publicity.

  Sport, Health and Fitness
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the benefit to the UK economy of(a) professional and (b) amateur sports in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003; [149948]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the benefit to the UK economy of the health and fitness sector in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [149949]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  In June 2003, Sport England published the report, "The Value of the Sports Economy in England", which presented a summary of the value of the sports economy to the economy in England. The data in the report relates to 2000, the last year for which comprehensive data is available. The report found that sport generated more than £9.8 billion in value added to the economy in England, approximately 1.5 per cent. of total gross value added (GVA) for England. The breakdown according to sector is as follows:

  Value added (£ million)

  Commercial sport

  3,553

  Of which:

  Spectator sports

  709

  Participation sports

  380

  Retailing

  966

  Sport-related manufacturing

  840

  117W

  Value added (£million)

  Commercial non-sport

  4,226

  Of which:

  Higher education establishments

  422

  Voluntary sector

  1,215

  Local Government

  844

  Total

  9,838

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the financial benefit to amateur sports of setting the thresholds at which community clubs are exempt from corporation tax at £50,000; [149951]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the financial benefit to amateur sports of mandatory rate relief at 80 per cent. for registered community amateur sports clubs. [149950]

  John Healey
  The doubling of the corporation tax exemption thresholds for community amateur sports clubs will remove the requirement to complete an annual tax return for eligible clubs enabling them to concentrate on the development of their clubs. The financial benefit to amateur sport clubs will depend on the financial circumstances of each club.

  The financial benefits of mandatory rates relief for registered community amateur sports clubs will depend upon the size and structure of each club and whether it previously received discretionary rates relief from its local authority.

  Standard Life
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has received from policy holders regarding the future of Standard Life. [149728]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 13 January 2004,Official Report, columns 634–35W. The Financial Services Authority has regulatory responsibility for Standard Life. I understand that no Standard Life policy holders have made representations to the Treasury concerning the future of Standard Life.

  Tax Collection
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by the Inland Revenue to administer the collection of unpaid tax. [R] [149809]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's Receivables Management Service is responsible for the collection of unpaid tax and national insurance. As at 1 January 2004 the Receivables Management Service had 5,800 staff directly employed in collection of tax and national insurance.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the most recent standard mailing issued to all tax credits recipients by the Inland Revenue. [148967]
  118W
  Dawn Primarolo
  A copy of the most recent general mailing to tax credits recipients, the first issue of Tax Credits Update, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the child elements of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support will transfer to Child Tax Credit payments; and whether modifications to the new tax credits IT system will be needed to facilitate the transfer. [150532]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I will make a statement shortly on our plans for bringing IS/JSA claimants with children into the Child Tax Credit.

  Teenage Pregnancies (Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the number of teenage pregnancies has been in (i) Haltemprice and Howden and (ii) East Riding of Yorkshire in each of the last five years. [149669]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Davis dated 26 January 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what the number of teenage pregnancies has been in (i) Haltemprice and Howden and (ii) East Riding of Yorkshire in each of the last five years. (149669)
  To protect the confidentiality of individuals, figures for Haltemprice and Howden parliamentary constituency cannot be released as this might reveal small numbers of cases in individual wards.
  The number of teenage pregnancies for East Riding of Yorkshire UA for 1997 to 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available), are shown in the table below.
  In the answer provided, teenagers are interpreted as those under 18 at the time of conception, because the target set by The Government Strategy on Teenage Pregnancy is for this age-group.

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1997

  195

  1998

  196

  1999

  167

  2000

  174

  2001 (Provisional)

  173

  Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is being awarded to Wales above the Barnett block to cover the costs of Objective One projects in 2003–04. [150654]

  Mr. Boateng
  The additional funding was set out in the 2002 Spending Review: New Public Spending Plans, 2003–2006 (Cm 5570).

  VAT
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment his Department has made of the change in unreclaimable tax for small businesses following the recent increase in the starting threshold for VAT; [149767]
  119W
  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact on unreclaimable costs for small businesses of the recent increase in the starting threshold for VAT. [149768]

  John Healey
  With the increase in the VAT threshold to £56,000 at Budget 2003, 2,000 small businesses were removed from compulsory VAT registration. Businesses who wish to continue to be VAT registered may, of course, continue to do so voluntarily.

  There is therefore no impact on unreclaimable costs for small businesses.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Assistance Funding (Tower Hamlets)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding will be available to fund organisations helping parents in Tower Hamlets in the next 12 months; and what proportion of funding will be allocated to(a) national organisations and (b) local organisations. [146232]

  Margaret Hodge
  Funding in the next financial year—to support parents both nationally and locally—will be available from a number of sources within my department. Our best estimates of the funding options available in Tower Hamlets are as follows:

  In the financial year 2004/05 £331,909 is available in Tower Hamlets for groups to apply to the Local Network Fund for Children and Young People.

  The Local Network Fund (LNF) provides community groups with small grants to support local projects and activities for 0 to 19-year-olds experiencing disadvantage and social exclusion. The fund enables local people to identify solutions to local issues affecting children and young people through grants ranging between £250 and £7,000 to community groups under four themes: Aspirations and experience; Economic disadvantage; Isolation and access; and Children's voices. Groups whose activities support parenting, involve or target parents, providing there is a clear outcome for children and young people are eligible to apply for a Local Network Fund grant.

  Decisions on allocating funding are made by assessment panels comprising local people with knowledge of issues faced by children and young people in the communities served by the funds.

  Funding for Sure Start local programmes and children's centres in Tower Hamlets over the next financial year is as follows:

  Programme name

  Revenue funding 2004/05
  (£)

  Ocean Estate

  764,650

  Chrisp Street and Teviot

  761,063

  Weavers

  768,750

  Around Poplar

  750,000

  Shadwell

  750,000

  St. Peter's and Redcoats

  750,000

  Bromley to Burden

  680,000

  120W
  In addition each local programme has been allocated a capital grant of just over £1 million bringing the total capital investment to £7.7 million.

  For children's centres Tower Hamlets has been given indicative funding to March 2006. Revenue funding is £1,621,304 and capital funding is £4,472,384. The local authority is now planning their proposed profile of spend between now and March 2006.

  In the financial year 2004/05, £75,000 is available to Tower Hamlets from the Sure Start Plus pilot programme to provide personal support and advice for teenagers who discover that they are pregnant, so that they can make responsible and well-informed decisions according to their individual circumstances.

  In the financial year 2004/05, approximately £35,000 from all Tower Hamlets Sure Start local programmes will provide a teenage pregnancy midwifery lead for teenage parents offering one-to-one case worker support, running teenage parent ante-natal classes and developing working protocols for maternity services in supporting this group.

  Tower Hamlets received a Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation Grant of £25,258 to enable adjustments to George Greens Children's Centre to support teenage parents with babies in returning to education, training and employment and support positive parenting.

  Tower Hamlets Children's Fund spent £200,649 on services delivering parental education during July to September 2003. Further funding will be available in 2004–05 to enable the Children's Fund to continue to deliver preventative services for children, young people and their families.

  Tower Hamlets also has an allocation of over £62 million for children's social services in 2004–05 through the local government finance settlement, some of which may be available to support organisations helping parents.

  Projects in Tower Hamlets may also benefit from national programmes such as the Family Support Grant and Parenting Fund. Parents in all parts of England are able to use Parentline Plus's helpline which receives core funding from the Family Support Grant.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers social services departments will have to assist children and families from whom welfare benefits are withdrawn under clause 7 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill. [143800]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 December 2004]Local authorities may exercise any of their Children Act 1989 powers and duties to assist the children of such families. They may use section 20 to accommodate the children or section 17 to provide other support. They may not use section 17 to assist any adult member of the family unless it is to prevent a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

  Carer Breaks
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has issued to local authorities regarding the provision of short breaks for families caring for children with severe learning disabilities. [146484]

  Margaret Hodge
  "Guidance and Regulations Volume 6 Children with Disabilities" was issued following the Children Act 1989. The guidance clearly sets out local councils' responsibilities for the provision of short-term or respite care.

  In August 1995 LAC(95)14 "Respite Care: Services Short-Term Placements of Children" was issued setting out Regulations where services of pre-planned short-term placements could be treated as a single placement.

  In previous circulars issued under the Quality Protects Programme, short breaks were identified as a priority area for the Children's Services Grant.

  More recently, Guidance was issued to accompany the Carers Grant 2004/05 setting out the Grant's objective to encourage councils to provide breaks services for disabled children and their families.

  Child Care Strategy
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) new places have been created and (b) children have been helped under the National Child Care Strategy in the London boroughs of (i) Redbridge and (ii) Waltham Forest since April 1999; what the current year's Childcare Grant is; what is proposed for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [147394]

  Margaret Hodge
  1,990 new child care places were created in the London borough of Redbridge between April 1999 and June 2003, helping some 3,700 children. Net of places closing, this added 1,423 places to the stock of child care places in the borough. Grant of £764,400 is available to Redbridge in financial year 2003–04 to support the creation of new places. Grant allocations for 2004–06 are not split between the two financial years. For the two financial years together, £2,185,200 is available to Redbridge, including £1.1 million capital funding to create children's centres.

  3,037 new child care places were created in the London borough of Waltham Forest between April 1999 and June 2003, helping some 5,600 children. Net of places closing, this added 2,936 places to the stock of child care places. Grant of £988,800 is available in financial year 2003–04 to support the creation of new places. For the two financial years 2004–06, £4,780,200 is available to Waltham Forest, including £3.1 million capital funding to create children's centres.

  Child Poverty
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost was in 2002–03 of raising a child to the age of 18. [145661]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Research on expenditure on children is made complicated by the difficulty of separately identifying child and non-child expenditure within family expenditure and the issue of children 122W
  sharing in the wealth of their parents. There is no consensus on the factors to be included in estimating the cost of raising a child.

  Academic and business research on this question highlights the complexities involved and has resulted in a large range of estimates. For example, a study commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 1997 suggested a cost of around £50,000 for 'regular' support up to the age of 17. Recent research by the Centre for Economics and Business Research for the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society suggested a much higher average cost of £140,000, which includes spending on both 'necessities' and 'luxuries'. Such results are of course not directly comparable due to the differences in the factors included and the methodology used.

  Notes:

  1 Sue Middleton, Karl Ashworth and Ian Braithwaite (1997) "Small Fortunes: spending on children, childhood poverty and parental sacrifice" Joseph Rowntree Foundation

  2.Centre for Economics and Business Research (2003)http:// www.liverpoolvictoria.co.uk/press/stories/child savings.htm

  Child Protection
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children resident in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon were on the Child Protection Register on 31 December 2003. [149673]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the number of children and young people on the Child Protection Register in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon at 31 December 2003 is not collected centrally for this date. However, information about children who are registered on child protection registers is collected centrally from local councils with social services responsibilities at 31 March each year. The most recent figure, which was for 31 March 2002, shows that there were 100 children on the register maintained by Cambridgeshire county council. Information is not collected below this organisational level.

  Details of the number of children and young people on Child Protection Registers at 31 March 2003 will be published by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) on Thursday 29 January 2004.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children resident in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon who were on the Child Protection Register on 31 December 2003 had previously been registered. [149674]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the number of children and young people on the Child Protection Register in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon at 31 December 2003 is not collected centrally for this date. However, information about children who are registered on child protection registers is collected centrally from local councils with social services responsibilities at 31 March each year. The most recent figure, which was for 31 March 2002, shows that there were 30 children on the Child Protection Register maintained by Cambridgeshire county council who had previously been registered. Information is not collected below this organisational level.
  123W
  Details of the number of children and young people on Child Protection Register at 31 March 2003, including details of re-registrations, will be published by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) on Thursday 29 January 2004.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children resident in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon who were on the Child Protection Register on 31 December 2003 were also looked after by local authorities. [149675]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the number of children and young people on the Child Protection Register in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon at 31 December 2003 is not collected centrally for this specific date. However, information about children who are registered on child protection registers is collected centrally from local councils with social services responsibilities at 31 March each year. The most recent figure, which was for 31 March 2002, shows that there were 15 children on the Child Protection Register maintained by Cambridgeshire county council who were also looked after by local authorities on that date. Information is not collected below this organisational level.

  Details of the number of children and young people on Child Protection Register at 31 March 2003, including details of those also looked after on that date, will be published by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) on Thursday 29 January 2004.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children resident in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon who were removed from the Child Protection Register during 2003 had been on it for more than two years. [149676]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the number of children and young people on the Child Protection Register in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon at 31 December 2003 is not collected centrally for this date. However, information about children who are registered on child protection registers is collected centrally from local councils with social services responsibilities at 31 March each year. The most recent figure, which was for 31 March 2002, shows that 15 children were removed from the Child Protection Register maintained by Cambridgeshire county council who had been registered for more than two years. Information is not collected below this organisational level.

  Details of the number of children and young people on child protection registers at 31 March 2003, including details of de-registrations, will be published by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) on Thursday 29 January 2004.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for how many quangos dealing with child protection issues his Department is responsible. [145664]

  Margaret Hodge
  None of the non-departmental public bodies for which the Department for Education and Skills is responsible has direct responsibility for child protection issues.
  124W
  On 12 January responsibility for the Children and Family Court Advice and Support Service (CAFCASS) was transferred from the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State for Education. CAFCASS is not directly responsible for child protection but part of its role is to safeguard and promote the welfare of children involved in family court proceedings.

  Disabled Children
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what response his Department will make to the recommendations in the latest report from the National Working Group on Child Protection and Disability; [146292]

  (2) what his response is to the recommendations in the latest report from the National Working Group on Child Protection and Disability; [146301]

  (3) what measures are in place to protect disabled children from abuse; and if he will make a statement. [146296]

  Margaret Hodge
  We welcome the publication of the NSPCC report, "It doesn't happen to disabled children"—child protection and disabled children. We will consider the recommendations contained in the report carefully.

  We recognise the particular vulnerability of disabled children to abuse, which increases when, as a result of their disability, children are unable to communicate abuse. That is why Government guidance on safeguarding children, including Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999) and Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need Practice Guidance (2000), highlights the need to promote a high level of awareness of this increased vulnerability and sets out measures that should be taken to strengthen the capacity of disabled children and their families to communicate abuse.

  Both the measures outlined in the Green Paper and the forthcoming National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services will address the issue of safeguarding all children, including disabled children.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the child protection system in addressing abuse of disabled children; what the findings were; and what further research is planned; [146293]

  (2) what research has been conducted on the reasons for the higher incidence of abuse and neglect of disabled children compared to non-disabled children. [146297]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department for Education and Skills has not commissioned research in this area.

  We recognise that there is a need to improve the research base in respect of safeguards for disabled children. We will consider the best way to take this forward.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the role of support services is in preventing abuse of disabled children. [146294]
  125W
  Margaret Hodge
  Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 sets out the duties of local authorities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in need, including disabled children. Services for disabled children and their families are provided through local authorities, the health service and the voluntary sector. These services help to support families safeguard children and improve their life chances. Support services include short term breaks; day care; home help; domiciliary care; nursing and medical support; social events and outings for parents and children, as well as advice, guidance and counselling. In cases where there are concerns about possible abuse and neglect of disabled children, support services should work closely with local child protection services to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to safeguard the child.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what representations have been received from disabled children and adults in preventing abuse; and what action has been taken as a result; [146295]

  (2) if he will assess the child protection system in respect of disabled children; [146298]

  (3) what (a) the national and (b) local mechanisms are in place for monitoring and reviewing child protection policies, procedures and practices relating to disabled children; and if he will make a statement. [146299]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have not had specific representations about abuse of disabled adults. However, the Department of Health liaises closely with a number of organisations who represent vulnerable adults and the Government is aware of their concerns in this area.

  The abuse of vulnerable adults is of great concern to the Government. We have already instigated a range of general measures, such as the National Service Framework for Older People and National Minimum Standards for particular aspects of service provision, to raise the standards of care of older people and other vulnerable adults. It has implemented specific measures to tackle abuse, principally "No Secrets" guidance, which councils, the NHS and police forces have used to establish and strengthen their local procedures for preventing and tackling abuse. By June 2004, we intend to introduce the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list, which in practice will amount to a workforce ban on those who have abused or mistreated vulnerable adults in their care.

  The Department for Education and Skills regularly receives correspondence from parents and voluntary groups about issues affecting disabled children including child protection. This has included reports from the NSPCC, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and the National Working Group on Child Protection and Disability, which have influenced policy development. In particular, recent representations from the NSPCC were taken into account by the Disabled Children's External Working Group developing standards as part of the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services which will be published later this year.
  126W
  The Joint Chief Inspectors' Report Safeguarding Children, published in October 2002, contained a recommendation that all relevant Inspectorates should ensure that, prior to the next report, appropriate inspection activity had been undertaken on children with disabilities.

  Safeguarding Children asked Chief Inspectors to consider whether there was a need to supplement the planned programme of inspections in any way. In planning for the next children's safeguards review, the Inspectorates have identified that additional acitivity is required in relation to children with disabilities and special needs and are developing plans to enhance their programmes in this area.

  Local mechanisms for safeguarding disabled children are set out in chapter six of the Government's child protection guidance, "Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999)".

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what resources are available to promote the safeguarding of disabled children. [146300]

  Margaret Hodge
  It is for local councils to decide the level of resources they allocate to the safeguarding of disabled children in their area.

  Overall the local government settlement has increased resources for Children's Social Services from almost £3.7 billion in 2003–04 to just over £4.0 billion in 2004–05. This provides for an increase in total resources of some 8.7 per cent. overall.

  Every council will be receiving additional resources provided for Children's Social Services as a result of the Government's decision to provide an additional £100 million. £90 million for every council for safeguarding children, enabling councils to respond to the recommendations contained in the Victoria Climbie Inquiry Report and the Joint Chief Inspectors' report "Safeguarding Children".

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in what ways the forthcoming National Service Framework will contribute to the safeguarding of disabled children's needs. [146302]

  Margaret Hodge
  The NSF for Children, Young People and Maternity Services will address a number of cross cutting areas including the safeguarding of children. The External Working Group for Disabled Children has looked at child protection and has made a number of recommendations. These, alongside other recommendations are currently being considered before the final NSF is published later this year.

  Children (Right of Contact)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding an automatic assumption of equal right of contact by parents to children who are subject to marital break-up. [149757]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]I have regular meetings with my ministerial colleagues on the issue of child contact. In particular, I work closely with Lord Filkin, the Minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs with responsibility for Family
  127W
  Justice. I recently hosted a seminar on child contact, where academics presented findings from research to improve Ministerial awareness and understanding.

  We continue to view children's interests as being paramount and we want to encourage contact between children and non-resident parents where it is in the best interest of the child and safe for all family members.

  Working with my hon. Friends in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, we are considering carefully how the family justice system and related children's services can better meet the needs of all children and their parents following relationship breakdown. We want to ensure that better outcomes are achieved for children by, where possible, helping parents agree contact arrangements without the intervention of the courts. We expect to conclude these considerations in the early part of this year and then to publish the Government's response to the Children Act Sub-Committee's report `Making Contact Work'.

  Children's Fund
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what variations there have been to the Children's Fund allocations for 2003 to 2006 notified in writing to local fund managers in January; [144925]

  (2) what the final allocations for the Children's Fund were for 2002–03; [144926]

  (3) when he will make an announcement on Children's Fund allocation for 2004–05. [144931]

  Margaret Hodge
  Allocations to Children's Fund partnerships came to £119 million in 2002–03.

  We conducted a mid year review of expenditure in November 2003 for this financial year to identify and take back genuine under spend from the first half of the year.

  We wrote to all partnerships on 19 December advising them that the programme had become over-committed. This is because after initial under spends Partnerships are now spending much closer to profile against allocations which deliberately exceeded budget provision because of the history of under spends. The higher spending by partnerships together with the contributions made by the Children's Fund to other initiatives for the 5 to 13-year-old age group.

  All this means there will be some reduction in allocations for 2004–05 and 2005–06 in order that the programme can meet all its commitments and stay within its overall limit.

  I am not able to confirm allocations for 2004–05 or 2005–06 before the end of January. I can confirm though that the Government remain committed to the valuable work of the Children's Fund and that next year's budget will enable the programme to continue to deliver preventive services for children and young people.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding will be made available to the Lancashire Children's Fund for(a) 2004–5 and (b) 2005–06. [147041]
  128W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]I am not able to confirm the allocations for Lancashire Children's Fund for 2004–05 and 2005–06 before the end of January. My officials have met with the appropriate representative bodies and wrote to all partnerships on 19 December 2003 explaining the difficulties that had occurred because of over programming coupled with mistaken estimates of partnerships ability to spend. This together with the contribution made to other initiatives means there will be some reduction in allocations for 04–05 and 05–06 in order that the programme can meet all its commitments and remain within its financial limits.

  I can confirm though that the Government remain committed to the valuable work of the Children's Fund and that next year's budget will enable the programme to continue to deliver preventative services for children and young people.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many projects are funded by the Children's Fund; and if he will list them and the responsible parent organisation, where applicable; [147729]

  (2) for what reason cuts have been made to Children's Fund grants in the middle of the year of operation; [147730]

  (3) for what reason Children's Fund grants to projects signed up for three years will now not be paid in full; [147731]

  (4) how many projects funded by the Children's Fund are likely to face cuts to their funding in the next financial year; [147732]

  (5) how many projects funded by the Children's Fund have closed in the current financial year; [147733]

  (6) how many Children's Fund-funded projects have appealed to the Children's Directorate appeal system against costs to their funding; and how many have been successful; [147748]

  (7) for how long it is intended to run the appeal system set up for projects funded by the Children's Fund to appeal against cuts to their funding; [147749]

  (8) what arrangements are in place to replace funds being cut to Children's Fund-funded projects with other public funds. [147750]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are 149 Children's Fund partnerships in England. These are listed in the annexe together with their lead and accountable bodies. The programme was launched in November 2001 and runs until March 2006. Each partnership is made up of representatives from the voluntary and statutory sector.

  Children's Fund partnerships will continue to receive grants for 2004–05 and 2005–06. These grants will enable the partnerships to continue to deliver preventive services for five to 13-year-olds in their area. In the early years of the programme the Partnerships under spent their allocations. To avoid this recurring partnerships were allowed to increase their planned commitment with increased allocations and monies used for other initiatives for five to 13-year-olds. However, it has become clear that the partnerships have been more effective in their spending, to the point that they are

  129W
  spending more closely to profile. In order to avoid over-spends, not permitted under Government accounting, the Department is taking action now so as to reduce the levels of over-commitment without damaging the programmes already in place.

  A mid year review of expenditure was undertaken in November 2003 to identify and take back genuine under spend from the first half of 2003–04 and to estimate and take back likely under spends from the second half of the year.

  The Department did not have a formal process for appealing against mid year review decisions. However, following representations from 11 partnerships, the Department wrote to all 149 on 19 December. We advised them that decisions on taking back under spend would be revisited where they were too harsh and that we would restore funds where partnerships ability to meet contractual commitments were compromised by our decisions. These measures will ensure the mid year review does not mean partnerships have to implement

  Partnership

  Accountable body

  Region

  Wave

  Birmingham

  Birmingham City Council

  West Midlands

  1

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Blackpool

  Blackpool Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Bolton

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Bradford

  Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1

  Bristol

  Barnardos South West

  South West

  1

  Camden

  Camden Local Education Authority

  London

  1

  Cornwall

  NCH

  South West

  1

  Doncaster

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1

  Gateshead

  Gateshead Council

  North East

  1

  Greenwich

  Greenwich Council

  London

  1

  Hackney

  The Learning Trust

  London

  1

  Halton

  NCH

  North West

  1

  Haringey

  Haringey Council

  London

  1

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  North East

  1

  Islington

  Islington Council

  London

  1

  Kent

  Family Welfare Association

  South East

  1

  Kingston upon Hull

  Hull City Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1

  Knowsley

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Lancashire

  NCH

  North West

  1

  Leeds

  Leeds City Council—Social Services

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1

  Leicester

  NCH

  East Midlands

  1

  Lincolnshire

  Lincolnshire County Council

  East Midlands

  1

  Liverpool

  Liverpool City Council

  North West

  1

  Manchester

  Manchester City Council

  North West

  1

  Middlesbrough

  NCH

  North East

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newcastle City Council

  North East

  1

  Newham

  London Borough of Newham

  London

  1

  Norfolk

  Norfolk County Council

  East

  1

  Nottingham

  Nottingham Social Services

  East Midlands

  1

  Oldham

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Portsmouth

  Portsmouth City Council

  South East

  1

  Rochdale

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Salford

  Salford City Council

  North West

  1

  Sandwell

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  West Midlands

  1

  Sheffield

  Sheffield City Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1

  Southwark

  London Borough of Southwark

  London

  1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  North East

  1

  Sunderland

  City of Sunderland

  North East

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  London

  1

  Barking and Dagenham

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  London

  2

  Barnsley

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  Bournemouth

  The Children's Society

  South West

  2

  Brent

  London Borough of Brent

  London

  2

  Brighton and Hove

  Brighton and Hove City Council

  South East

  2

  Calderdale

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  Cheshire

  Cheshire County Council

  North West

  2

  Coventry

  Coventry City Council

  West Midlands

  2

  130W
  redundancies or close services. I expect the process of identifying the total number that need funds restored to be completed by the end of January.

  In a letter to all partnerships before Christmas the Department also explained that there was over-commitment in the programme and that there will therefore be some reduction in allocations for 2004–05 and 2005–06 in order that the programme can spend within its limits. Officials are currently assessing the extent of over-commitment in the programme. I expect this work to be completed by the end of January so that we can confirm partnerships' allocations for 2004–05. Until then we have advised partnerships not to commission any new services.

  There has not been any closure of Children's Fund partnerships. It is a key characteristic of the fund that decisions on which services to commission are taken locally, not by central Government, against the aims and objectives of the Children's Fund programme. Partnerships themselves may decide which services to retain or close at any time, in response to evolving local circumstances.
  131W

  Partnership

  Accountable body

  Region

  Wave

  Cumbria

  Council for Voluntary Action South Lakeland

  North West

  2

  Darlington

  Darlington Borough Council

  North East

  2

  Derby

  Derby City Council

  East Midlands

  2

  Derbyshire

  Derbyshire County Council

  East Midlands

  2

  Devon

  Playlines Trust

  South West

  2

  Durham

  Durham County Council

  North East

  2

  East Sussex

  East Sussex County Council

  South East

  2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London

  2

  Isle of Wright

  Isle of Wright Local Education Authority

  South East

  2

  Kirklees

  NCH

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  Lambeth

  Lambeth Social Services

  London

  2

  Lewisham

  London Borough of Lewisham

  London

  2

  Luton

  Luton Borough Council

  East

  2

  Medway

  Medway Council

  South East

  2

  North East Lincolnshire

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  North Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  North Tyneside

  North Tyneside Council

  North East

  2

  North Yorkshire

  NSPCC

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  Northamptonshire

  Northamptonshire County Council Education Service Finance

  East Midlands

  2

  Northumberland

  NCH

  North East

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  East Midlands

  2

  Peterborough

  Peterborough City Council

  East

  2

  Plymouth

  Plymouth City Council

  South West

  2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

  North East

  2

  Rotherham

  External Funding Team, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  Sefton

  Sefton Council

  North West

  2

  Solihull

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  West Midlands

  2

  South Tyneside

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  North East

  2

  Southampton

  Southampton City Council

  South East

  2

  St. Helens

  NCH

  North West

  2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Voluntary Action Stoke-on-Trent

  West Midlands

  2

  Suffolk

  Suffolk County Council

  East

  2

  Tameside

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  Borough of Telford and Wrekin

  West Midlands

  2

  Torbay

  The Children's Society

  South West

  2

  Trafford

  Trafford Borough Council

  North West

  2

  Walsall

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  West Midlands

  2

  Waltham

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  London

  2

  Wandsworth

  Wandsworth Borough Council

  London

  2

  Westminster

  City of Westminster

  London

  2

  Wirral

  The Children's Society

  North West

  2

  Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton City Council

  West Midlands

  2

  Bedfordshire

  Bedfordshire County Council

  East

  3

  Bracknell Forest

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  South East

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  Buckingham County Council

  South East

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  East

  3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3

  Essex

  Essex County Council

  East

  3

  Hampshire

  Hampshire County Council

  South East

  3

  Hertfordshire

  Hertfordshire County Council

  East

  3

  Milton Keynes

  Milton Keynes Council

  South East

  3

  Oxfordshire

  Oxfordshire County Council

  South East

  3

  Reading

  Turner's Court Youth Trust

  South East

  3

  Slough

  Slough Borough Council

  South East

  3

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

  East

  3

  Surrey

  Surrey County Council

  South East

  3

  Thurrock

  Thurrock Council

  East

  3

  Wakefield

  Wakefield M.D.C Social Services and Health Department

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3

  West Sussex

  West Sussex County Council

  South East

  3

  West Berkshire

  West Berkshire Council, Children's Services

  South East

  3

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  South East

  3

  Wokingham

  Wokingham District Council

  South East

  3

  York

  City of York Council

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3

  Barnet

  London Borough of Barnet

  London

  3

  Bexley

  Bexley Council

  London

  3

  Bromley

  London Borough of

  London

  3

  City of London

  Corporation of London (Education Department)

  London

  3

  Croydon

  Croydon Voluntary Action

  London

  3

  Ealing

  London Borough of

  London

  3

  Enfield

  Opportunity Links Ltd.

  London

  3

  Harrow

  London borough of Harrow Education Department

  London

  3

  Havering

  London Borough of Havering

  London

  3

  Hillingdon

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  London

  3

  Hounslow

  London Borough of Hounslow

  London

  3

  132W 133W

  Partnership

  Accountable body

  Region

  Wave

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  London

  3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

  London

  3

  Merton

  Merton Voluntary Service Council

  London

  3

  Redbridge

  Redbridge Council for Voluntary Services

  London

  3

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Richmond Council for Voluntary Service

  London

  3

  Sutton

  London Borough of Sutton

  London

  3

  Bury

  Bury MBC

  North West

  3

  Stockport

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  3

  Warrington

  Warrington Children's Fund

  North West

  3

  Wigan

  Social Services Wigan Council

  North West

  3

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Barnardos South West

  South West

  3

  Dorset

  Dorset County Council

  South West

  3

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucestershire County Council

  South West

  3

  North Somerset

  Barnardos South West

  South West

  3

  Poole

  NCH (South West)

  South West

  3

  Somerset

  Barnardos South West

  South West

  3

  South Gloucestershire

  South Gloucestershire Council

  South West

  3

  Swindon

  Swindon Borough Council

  South West

  3

  Wiltshire

  Barnardos South West

  South West

  3

  County of Herefordshire

  Herefordshire Council

  West Midlands

  3

  Dudley

  NCH Children's Fund Dudley

  West Midlands

  3

  Shropshire

  Shropshire County Council

  West Midlands

  3

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire County Council

  West Midlands

  3

  Warwickshire

  NCH Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  3

  Worcestershire

  Worcestershire County Council Youth Services

  West Midlands

  3

  Leicestershire

  Leicestershire County Council

  East Midlands

  3

  Rutland

  Rutland County Council

  East Midlands

  3

  Bradford City MDC

  Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Yorks and Humberside

  1

  Brighton and Hove City Council

  Brighton and Hove City Council

  South East

  2

  Bristol (Barnados Fund)

  Barnardos South West

  South West

  1

  Cornwall (NCH) (Kerrier)

  NCH

  South West

  1

  Durham County Council (Easington)

  Durham County Council

  North East

  2

  Greenwich Council

  Greenwich Council

  London

  1

  Haringey Council

  London Borough of Haringey

  London

  1

  London Borough of Brent Social

  London Borough of Brent

  London

  2

  London Borough of Southwark

  London Borough of Southwark

  London

  1

  Luton Borough Council

  Luton Borough Council (Lifelong Learning)

  East

  2

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester City Council

  North West

  1

  North Yorkshire (Scarborough)

  North Yorkshire County Council

  Yorks and Humberside

  2

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Northamptonshire County Council Education Service Finance

  East Midlands

  2

  Oldham MBC

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Portsmouth City Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  South East

  1

  Rochdale MBC

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  North West

  1

  Sandwell

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  West Midlands

  1

  Sheffield City Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Yorks and Humberside

  1

  Solihull MBC

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  West Midlands

  2

  Suffolk County Council (St. Edmundsbury)

  Suffolk County Council

  East

  2

  Sunderland City

  City of Sunderland

  North East

  1

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough

  The Children's Society

  North West

  2

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that the appeals process following mid-year changes to the Children's Fund is available to relevant organisations. [148911]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department met representatives from the main voluntary sector organisations involved in the Fund together with the LGA and the ADSS on 18 December. Following that meeting officials wrote to all Children's Fund partnerships on 19 December 2003.

  We advised partnerships that where our decisions at the mid-year review had compromised partnerships' ability to their meet contractual obligations, we would revisit them. Furthermore, we set aside money to assist with this and to ensure that there was no premature closure of projects. The Children's Fund regional teams have been discussing the detailed implications with partnerships and I expect the process to be complete by the end of January.
  134W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to announce resources for the Children's Fund for 2004–05. [148912]

  Margaret Hodge
  I expect to announce resources for the Children's Fund in 2004–05 at the end of January or early February.

  Children's Green Paper
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is, under the proposals outlined in the Children's Green Paper, on retention of data files kept on children when they become adults; and under what circumstances(a) children and (b) those with parental responsibility will have access to them. [145707]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Queen's Speech said that a Bill will be introduced to improve services designed to protect children. This will implement proposals contained in the Children's Green Paper "Every Child
  135W
  Matters", and, subject to consideration of responses to the Green Paper consultation, will include proposals that each local authority should set up a local information sharing system to enable practitioners to share early information about children and young people so that better services can be provided to them and their families.

  The Green Paper proposals relate to children and young people to age 19. Local authorities will be responsible for the proposed local information hubs and will be required to comply with the Data Protection Act in the way they manage and run the hubs. The data protection principles set out in the Act include requirements that personal data shall be accurate and up to date, not excessive for the purpose for which it is held and that it is kept for no longer than necessary. Data held on information hubs will be held in accordance with these requirements. How long data on any particular child is held will depend upon individual

  Maintained primary schools1: average class size2 position in January each year, 1997 to 2003

  Classes taught by one teacher

  Location

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Brent East Constituency

  26.1

  27.0

  27.1

  27.3

  27.4

  26.4

  26.9

  Brent LEA

  26.5

  26.7

  27.2

  27.4

  27.3

  27.1

  27.6

  London

  27.1

  27.2

  27.3

  27.3

  27.0

  26.9

  26.9

  England

  27.5

  27.7

  27.5

  27.1

  26.7

  26.3

  26.3

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the Census in January.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Maintained secondary schools1: average class size2 position in January each year, 1997 to 2003

  Classes taught by one teacher

  Location

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Brent East Constituency

  20.3

  19.9

  20.2

  20.9

  21.8

  21.0

  22.4

  Brent LEA

  20.5

  20.2

  20.0

  20.5

  22.2

  21.5

  21.3

  London

  21.7

  21.7

  21.8

  22.0

  22.1

  22.1

  21.9

  England

  21.7

  21.7

  21.9

  22.0

  22.0

  21.9

  21.9

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the Census in January.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Divorce Courts
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of Mr. Justice Nicholas Wall's recommendations regarding the divorce courts system have been implemented. [148940]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on 6 January 2004,Official Report, column 293W.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of failing schools of providing a higher score as a result of failing in English than of failing in maths and science. [149873]
  136W
  circumstances.

  Except where there is an exemption under the Data Protection Act, children or those with parental responsibility for them would have access to the information held about them on the proposed information hubs, under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act. They would also be able to comment on any information held on the system that was inaccurate or which needed updating.

  Class Sizes
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in (i) Brent East constituency, (ii) the London Borough of Brent, (iii) London and (iv) England was in each year since 1997. [149897]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The requested information is given in the tables.

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]The Department has made no assessment of this particular matter. The weight attached to particular judgments within an individual school inspection is a matter for Ofsted. I have asked HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, to write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Formula Spending Share (Deprivation)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the value of the formula spending share for each primary school pupil for deprivation is in each local authority for 2004–05. [150070]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]The education formula spending share allocates the same value for each primary aged pupil with additional educational needs. For 2004–05, this value is £1,370. The proportion of primary aged pupils with additional educational needs is estimated in each authority using
  137W
  measures of children in families in receipt of income support, children in families in receipt of working families tax credit and pupils who do not have English as their mother tongue.

  Further Education Funding
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of funding per pupil in further education was in(a) Brent East, (b) the London borough of Brent, (c) London and (d) England in each year since 1997. [149901]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not collect information on the level of funding per pupil in further education at the local or regional level. Mark Haysom the Learning and Skills Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Member with details of further education spend per pupil in(a) Brent East, (b) the London borough of Brent, and (c) London. A copy of his letter will be placed in the House Library.

  The following table shows funding per full-time equivalent student in further education in England from 1997–98 to 2003–04. These are cash figures that show total funding for the further education (FE) sector. The figures include monies provided for participation and certain funding for earmarked purposes, including capital, the Standards Fund and other special grants to colleges. These figures are consistent with those published in the 'Departmental Annual Report 2003'.

  Funding per full-time equivalent student in further education 1997–98 to 2003–04

  £

  Total funding

  1997–981

  3,070

  1998–991

  3,090

  1999–20001

  3,380

  2000–011

  3,640

  2001–022

  3,890

  2002–033

  4,020

  2003–043

  4,240

  1 Actual

  2 Provisional

  3 Planned

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has undertaken to examine what the effect on provision would be were all the further education colleges funded by the Further Education Funding Council to withdraw from all work-based learning provision. [150006]

  Alan Johnson
  None. There is no evidence of which the Department is aware that further education providers are considering withdrawal from Work Based Learning for Young People (WBL) on a large scale. Further education providers currently deliver around 20 per cent. of WBL provision and are an important and valued means of delivering such learning to young people. Further education providers are now funded by the Learning and Skills Council, the body responsible for planning and funding all post-16 learning (other than higher education).

  Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the reasons why 10 per cent. of the pupils who achieve two A level passes do not go into higher education. [147015]

  Alan Johnson
  The Youth Cohort Study shows that around nine in 10 young people who achieve two or more A-levels by the age of 18 progress to Higher Education by the time they are 21.

  Research published by the Department in 2001 ("Social Class and Higher Education: Issues Affecting Participation by Lower Social Class groups" Connor, H. at al DfEE Research Report No. 246) looked at the factors affecting participation in HE by different social class groups. It found that among those who were qualified to enter higher education but had decided against going, the main reasons were because they wanted to start work, because they did not need a higher education qualification for their chosen career or because of the expected costs involved.

  In addition, the Youth Cohort Study identified other reasons for choosing not to enter HE:
  to earn money and become financially independent;
  not achieving the grades for their chosen course;
  self belief, with young people thinking they could not get in or they would find higher education too difficult.;
  lack of interest.

  Other research has identified ethnicity, housing tenure and parental education as significantly affecting the decision to enter higher education.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into the effects of tuition fees on medical manpower planning. [149759]

  Alan Johnson
  I have not commissioned such research. Since the introduction of tuition fees in 1998, demand for places on medical courses has continued to outstrip significantly the number of places, despite an increase in the number of places available. Between 1999 and 2001, plans for some 2,250 more medical school places in the UK were announced. As a result of the extra investment, the number of students entering medical school will increase to over 7,300 in 2005. The number of UK applicants to study medicine at UK universities is also at its highest since 1986 (the earliest year for which data is available).

  We do not anticipate any significant impact on demand for medical courses after the introduction of variable fees. The Department of Health will, however, be monitoring demand for, and take-up of, places on medical courses. Department of Health Ministers have made it clear that they will, if necessary, take measures to ensure that any increase in the level of tuition fees will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into the repayment of tuition fees by women medical students. [149760]
  139W
  Alan Johnson
  I have not commissioned such research. Medical students do not have to repay student loans until they graduate and earn over £15,000 per year. Doctors earn considerably in excess of the national average: a newly qualified GP can expect to earn over £45,000, and will receive considerably more than that in time. Consultants will earn even more. So medical graduates will be able to pay off their student loan for living costs and for tuition fees comparatively rapidly.

  If, despite the high salary levels generally, some doctors who work part time or take career breaks pay off their student loans more slowly, the student support proposals announced by my right. hon. Friend on 8 January are helpful. The Government intend to write-off outstanding student loan balances after 25 years. This will apply to those entering HE from 2006 and cover maintenance and fee loans.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the number of higher education students who will be affected by the introduction of top-up fees. [149774]

  Alan Johnson
  The number of students affected by variable fees will depend on a wide range of factors, including decisions on fee levels to be taken by institutions providing higher education to full time undergraduates.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he will require universities charging higher than average variable fees to pay their academic staff more. [149947]

  Alan Johnson
  Higher education institutions are responsible for their own academic and administrative affairs, including pay for their staff. The Government plays no part in setting levels of pay in the higher education sector. Universities themselves are the best judges of how to deploy the funding they receive.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the current higher education participation rate in England is with respect to people under the age of 30. [149509]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]The current Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR) is 43.9 per cent. for 2001/02.

  The HEIPR covers English-domiciled 17 to 30-year-old first-time entrants to Higher Education courses who remain on their course for six months or more.

  The HEIPR will replace the Initial Entry Rate (IER) as the way that we measure progress toward 50 per cent. A time-series of HEIPR figures will be published in Spring 2004.

  The IER was recently quality-reviewed under guidelines issued by the Office for National Statistics. The review (published in November 2003) concluded that the IER was -basically robust"1 but highlighted some minor shortcomings which the HEIPR corrects for. More detail can be found in the report of the review, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  140W
  An Age Participation Index (API) also exists for Great Britain—though does not include students aged over 20 or part-time students. The current figure for 2001/02 is 35 per cent.
  1 Review of the Initial Entry Rate into Higher Education, DfES, p6

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills from which Learning and Skills Council-funded work-based learning providers funding contracts were removed in 2002–03. [149990]

  Alan Johnson
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent by each Learning and Skills Council on employer initiatives in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [150007]

  Alan Johnson
  As a member of the national Skills Alliance the Learning and Skills Council has a major part to play in securing the effective implementation of our Skills Strategy. The Strategy sets a new framework for tackling our long-standing skills gaps.

  The amount spent by each local LSC on employer initiatives is an operational matter and I have asked Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has held with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the appropriateness of transferring responsibility for skills from Learning and Skills Councils to elected regional assemblies. [150089]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's national Skills Strategy, published in July 2003, emphasises the need for all relevant agencies to work together collaboratively in support of the skills agenda. We are committed to building strong and effective Regional Skills Partnerships, which will enable Regional Development Agencies, local Learning and Skills Councils, and other key stakeholders to work together to deliver skills, training, business support and employment services. The partnerships will help take forward the priorities identified in the regional economic strategies.

  Elected Regional Assemblies also have an important role in training and skills, and in our White Paper 'Your Region, Your Choice' we set out proposals for each Assembly to appoint two members to the Board of each local LSC in its region, and for the national LSC to consult Assemblies on its guidance to local LSCs.

  As well as these regional and sub-regional roles, there is a vital national dimension to the planning and funding of learning and skills, discharged by the Learning and Skills Council. The Skills Alliance Delivery Partners Group, which is chaired by the LSC Chief Executive Mark Haysom and includes an RDA representative, is

  141W
  charged with stimulating co-ordinate action between the relevant national and regional agencies to secure effective delivery of the skills strategy.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will give parents of three-year-old children flexibility to use the 10 hours per week nursery voucher; and if he will make a statement; [149501]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of children in (a) England and (b) Gloucestershire who attend nursery schools for 10 hours or more per week; and if he will make a statement. [149502]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Nursery Education Voucher scheme ended in May 1997. It was replaced by an entitlement to a free high quality nursery education

  Number1 of free nursery education places taken up by three and four year olds in Gloucestershire Local Education Authority area and England

  Location

  Three year olds

  Four year olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools2

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  Maintained nursery and primary schools2

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent pro viders4

  Total 3 and 4 year olds5

  Gloucestershire LEA

  50

  4,200

  4,200

  2,200

  10,600

  England

  218,700

  226,100

  472,200

  107,100

  1,024,000

  1 Part-time equivalent number of children.

  2 Includes classes in maintained primary schools only. Gloucestershire does not have any maintained nursery schools.

  3 Part-time equivalent number of children aged three at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Nursery Education Grant data collection exercise.

  4 Part-time equivalent number of children aged four at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Early Years Supplementary data collection exercise.

  5 The totals do not add up to their constituent parts due to rounding.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many inspectors have resigned from Ofsted in each year since 1996–97. [149872]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Parentline
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the total cost to public funds has been of supporting the charity Parentline Plus since its inception; [147715]

  (2) what the percentage change in the number of telephone calls to Parentline by parents is expected to be once the investment of £763,000 has been made; [147716]

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Family Support Grant (ex-Home Office, now Department for Education and Skills)

  Project to develop materials for Afro-Caribbean communities

  145,000

  Core funding

  1,000,000

  1,000,000

  1,000,000

  Share Parent Plus for activity based materials project

  48,000

  Project to support parents of teenagers

  45,000

  40,000

  142W
  place which may be taken up at a range of providers in the maintained, private, voluntary and independent sectors. From April 2004, six months ahead of the original target. the entitlement will be extended to all three year olds. A free place consists of a minimum of five two and a half hour sessions for thirty-three weeks of the year. It is underpinned by a statutory Code of Practice which encourages local authorities and providers to allow parents to take up their entitlement flexibly.

  Around 88 per cent. of three year olds nationally are already receiving some free provision. The latest figures on Under 5's provision in England were published in Statistical Bulletin 'Provision for children under five years of age in England—January 2003', a copy of which is available on the Department's website www. dfes.gov.uk/statistics. The number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four year olds in Gloucestershire Local Education Authority area and England was as follows:

  (3) what the cost to public funds is estimated to be per email answered by the charity Parentline; [147717]

  (4) what the estimated number of service users is for the email service of the charity Parentline; [147718]

  (5) how many parents are expected to benefit from the recent investments made to the charity Parentline. [147719]

  Margaret Hodge
  Parentline Plus is the operating name of FamilyLives, and was formed through the merger of Parentline UK, Parent Network and the National Stepfamily Association, in winter 1999. Parentline Plus is a registered charity.

  Family support helpline

  From financial year 2000–01 onwards (the first full financial year applicable), central Government funds supporting Parentline Plus in its work as a family support helpline have been:
  143W

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Telephone parenting support funded with Department of Health

  20,000

  20,922

  Parenting Fund (Department for Education and Skills)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1762,690

  Totals

  190,000

  1,060,000

  1,068,922

  1,762,690

  1 Family Support Helpline extension, as detailed below

  The Home Office commissioned an evaluation of the Parentline Plus family support helpline. This was carried out between August 2002 and March 2003 by the Thomas Coram Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London, and will be published on the Home Office website shortly. The evaluation recognised that Parentline Plus provides a good quality helpline service to over 60,000 callers pa (three quarters of whom were first-time callers), and that further expansion in the helpline service is necessary to meet demand from callers. The charity makes significant use of trained volunteers.

  The main work supported by the recent £762,690 investment from the Parenting Fund is:

  (a) expanding helpline provision to answer 75,000 calls pa (equivalent to a 25per cent. increase in call numbers);

  (b) developing and piloting an email service to answer an anticipated 10,000 emails pa;

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Marriage and Relationship Support Grant (ex- Lord Chancellor's Department, now Department for Education and Skills)

  Core funding

  60,000

  61,500

  62,000

  62,000

  Research and development

  40,000

  Youth Justice Board (NDPB reporting to Home Office)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Information dissemination, marketing of telephone support service, advice to YJB, equipment for call centres

  64,914

  Improving Behaviour in School Team (Department for Education and Skills)

  Bullying helpline

  180,000

  183,500

  188,928

  192,744

  Research project on bullying, with Family Service Units

  80,000

  40,000

  Section 64 (ex-Department of Health, now Department for Education and Skills)

  n/a

  n/a

  Capital grant

  5,000

  Telephone parenting courses project

  20,200

  20,700

  Teenage Pregnancy Unit (ex-Department of Health, now Department for Education and Skills)

  n/a

  Time to Talk project to help parents talk to their children about sex and relationships (also for staff training).

  76,944

  97,872

  Delivery of work connected to relationship work and helpline

  88,500

  Sure Start (Department for Education and Skills)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  115,000

  Children's Fund (Department for Education and Skills) (including funding by Children's Fund partnerships)

  n/a

  n/a

  Young Runaways helpline project

  15,998

  31,720

  Piloting Services and Disseminating/Alone in London

  21,456

  74,909

  Parenting courses for parents and carers in local communities across Liverpool.

  5,785

  Wirral Parents' Group and Phoneline project

  6,976

  Essex helpline services.

  3,825

  Totals

  304,914

  382,144

  497,739

  515,674

  1 Preliminary work on Change Development Project

  Procurement (Outsourcing)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department
  144W

  (c) developing and piloting a more efficient system for call handling, in particular for improved ways of working with more specialist providers of family support advice;

  (d) developing a ring-back telephone support service offering more detailed support to those parents who need most help;

  (e) establishing telephone-based parenting groups; and

  (f) promotion of the helpline and email service.

  Staffing and systems at Parentline Plus will be flexible so that call-takers can deal with either telephone calls or emails. This means that the 75,000 telephone call/10,000 email balance may change, to best meet demand. It is therefore not possible to quote the cost per email dealt with. It is not possible to state the exact number of parents benefiting from recent investment, although the number of calls/emails are detailed above.

  Other work

  From the financial year 2000–01 onwards (the first full financial year applicable), central Government funding (including that from Children's Fund partnerships) to Parentline Plus for other work has been:

  has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147592]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department's procurement policy is based on value for money, having due regard to
  145W
  propriety and regularity. My Department complies with the EU Treaty, including the principle of non-discrimination, the EC procurement directives and the UK's international obligations. Provided these principles, and other more detailed arrangements such as those set out in the "Staff Transfers in the Public Sector—Statement of Practice", are satisfied, there is no reason why my Department should not let contracts to offshore companies. This said, my Department has not outsourced any former internal IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies. We have no plans to do so. My Department also lets a considerable number of contracts for services with a very wide variety of partners. Some of those contracts have included IT and call centre elements as an integral part of the delivery arrangements. In no case has there been a direct contractual relationship with an offshore company for an IT or call centre related contract.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much(a) revenue and (b) capital funding each local education authority has been allocated by the Department to establish pupil referral units. [148430]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The Department does not allocate funding specifically for the setting up or maintaining of pupil referral units. Local education authorities receive revenue funding for pupils with high cost needs through the high cost pupil sub-block of the Education Formula Spending Share. The proportion of pupils with high cost needs is estimated for each authority using population data, children in families in receipt of Income Support and low birth weight.

  School Meals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether a school governing body can refuse to accept delegation from a local education authority of responsibility for the school meals service. [150028]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]The effect of the Education (Transfer of Functions Concerning School Lunches etc.) (England) (No. 2) Order 1999 is that when a school's budget share includes funding for meals, the statutory duties to provide school lunches (including free school meals for eligible pupils), and to comply with nutritional standards, are transferred to the school's governing body. The governing body cannot refuse. In Essex funding is delegated in budget shares for all schools and consequently the statutory duties rest with the schools' governing bodies. If the authority provides a 'buy-back' service a school may choose to purchase that from the authority; if it does not, the school governing body must make alternative provision. The Department is in touch with Essex County Council regarding support for schools as the current contract comes to an end.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether there is a responsibility upon a local education authority to provide school meals to pupils attending its schools. [150908]
  146W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Local education authorities have a duty to provide free and paid for school meals that meet nutritional standards. Where a school has a delegated budget for meals, this duty becomes the responsibility of the governing body. From April 2000, funding for school meals was delegated to all secondary schools. Primary and special schools can opt for delegation.

  Secondary Schools (Collaboration)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) formal, (b) federated and (c) informal collaborations are taking place (i) between secondary schools and (ii) between secondary schools and further education colleges, broken down by local education authority. [150025]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]70 per cent. of all secondary schools are involved in at least one formal collaborative network with other secondary schools. The numbers of schools involved in formal collaborative networks by LEA are contained in the following table.

  The Department does not hold details of collaboration taking place between secondary schools and further education colleges; nor does the Department collect information on collaboration that takes place informally.

  Number of schools involved informal collaborative networks by LEA

  LEA

  Number of secondary schools in network

  Barking and Dagenham

  8

  Barnet

  13

  Barnsley

  14

  Bath and North East Somerset

  10

  Bedfordshire

  20

  Bexley

  9

  Birmingham

  76

  Blackburn with Darwen

  9

  Blackpool

  8

  Bolton

  16

  Bournemouth

  6

  Bracknell Forest

  4

  Bradford

  28

  Brent

  13

  Brighton and Hove

  9

  Bristol City of

  18

  Bromley

  11

  Buckinghamshire

  21

  Bury

  5

  Calderdale

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  Camden

  9

  Cheshire

  32

  Cornwall

  23

  Coventry

  14

  Croydon

  16

  Cumbria

  27

  Darlington

  5

  Derby

  11

  Derbyshire

  24

  Devon

  23

  Doncaster

  17

  Dorset

  17

  Dudley

  16

  Durham

  30

  Ealing

  12

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  10

  East Sussex

  24

  147W

  Number of schools involved in formal collaborative networks by LEA

  LEA

  Number of secondary schools in network

  Enfield

  17

  Essex

  62

  Gateshead

  10

  Gloucestershire

  33

  Greenwich

  14

  Hackney

  8

  Halton

  8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8

  Hampshire

  37

  Haringey

  10

  Harrow

  6

  Hartlepool

  6

  Havering

  13

  Herefordshire

  8

  Hertfordshire

  51

  Hillingdon

  12

  Hounslow

  14

  Isle of Wight

  4

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Islington

  9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  Kent

  70

  Kingston upon Hull City of

  15

  Kingston upon Thames

  8

  Kirklees

  18

  Knowsley

  11

  Lambeth

  10

  Lancashire

  59

  Leeds

  43

  Leicester

  16

  Leicestershire

  14

  Lewisham

  12

  Lincolnshire

  54

  Liverpool

  32

  Luton

  12

  Manchester

  22

  Medway

  11

  Merton

  5

  Middlesbrough

  6

  Milton Keynes

  10

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  11

  Newham

  15

  Norfolk

  31

  North East Lincolnshire

  8

  North Lincolnshire

  9

  North Somerset

  9

  North Tyneside

  11

  North Yorkshire

  19

  Northamptonshire

  27

  Northumberland

  18

  Nottingham

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  31

  Oldham

  15

  Oxfordshire

  22

  Peterborough

  10

  Plymouth

  12

  Poole

  6

  Portsmouth

  8

  Reading

  3

  Redbridge

  15

  Redcar and Cleveland

  11

  Richmond upon Thames

  6

  Rochdale

  14

  Rotherham

  17

  Rutland

  2

  Salford

  14

  Sandwell

  18

  Sefton

  22

  Sheffield

  27

  Shropshire

  18

  Slough

  10

  148W

  Number of schools involved in formal collaborative networks by LEA

  LEA

  Number of secondary schools in network

  Solihull

  12

  Somerset

  28

  South Gloucestershire

  10

  South Tyneside

  9

  Southampton

  9

  Southend-on-Sea

  9

  Southwark

  12

  St. Helens

  11

  Staffordshire

  25

  Stockport

  8

  Stockton-on-Tees

  13

  Stoke-on-Trent

  17

  Suffolk

  27

  Sunderland

  17

  Surrey

  25

  Sutton

  7

  Swindon

  7

  Tameside

  9

  Telford and Wrekin

  8

  Thurrock

  9

  Torbay

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  16

  Trafford

  13

  Wakefield

  13

  Walsall

  18

  Waltham Forest

  17

  Wandsworth

  9

  Warrington

  7

  Warwickshire

  24

  West Berkshire

  10

  West Sussex

  16

  Westminster

  8

  Wigan

  15

  Wiltshire

  13

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  5

  Wirral

  22

  Wokingham

  5

  Wolverhampton

  18

  Worcestershire

  16

  York

  11

  Total

  2,391

  Source:

  EduBase 13/01/04

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans his Department has to provide help to develop management information systems where secondary schools or further education institutions are(a) undertaking collaborative working and (b) are part of a federated structure. [150026]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]The Department has provided funding and is working closely with LEAs to support them in ensuring they have an infrastructure for management information systems in all their maintained schools, including those schools working collaboratively with other educational institutions or those within a federated structure. Total funding is £30 million via LEAs in 2001–02 and £7 million supplementary in 2002–03. Collaborative working is also supported in the form of access to on-line communities through the National College of School Leadership's Talk2Learn facility and will be part of a single annual conversation with the education system on targets, priorities and support and improved data flows.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average student loan taken out by students from(a) Huntingdon, (b) Cambridgeshire and (c) England was in each year since 2000 –01. [149685]

  Alan Johnson
  The tables show the average full-time income-contingent loan taken out by students in Cambridgeshire and in England and the average mortgage style loan taken out by students in England.

  Data on the average student loan taken out by students from Huntingdon are not available.

  Average income-contingent loan1,2 taken out by domicile of students in academic years 2000/01 to 2002/033(£)

  Academic year

  2000/01

  2001/024

  2002/03 (provisional)

  Cambridgeshire5,6

  3,170

  3,210

  7—

  England

  3,160

  3,190

  3,240

  1 New student support arrangements were introduced from academic year 1998/99. New students in 1998/99 (apart from certain specified exceptions) received support for maintenance expenditure through means-tested grants (comprising about a quarter of the support available) and non income-assessed student loans (comprising about three quarters of the support available). From 1999/2000 students who entered higher education after 1998/99 received support for maintenance expenditure through loans, of which approximately three quarters of the value was non income-assessed. Loans made under these arrangements are repayable on an income contingent basis.

  2 Excludes the fixed rate loans (£500) for eligible part-time students, introduced in September 2000

  3 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10

  4 Latest year for which data by local education authority (LEA) are available

  5 LEA of domicile of student

  6 LEA level data have been taken from available information and may include a small number of loans which have been authorised for payment but not paid.

  7 Regional breakdown not yet available

  Source:

  Student Loans Company

  Average mortgage style1 loan taken out by domicile of student—academic years 2000/01 to 2002/032

  £

  Academic year

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03 (provisional)

  England

  1,460

  1,520

  1,580

  1 Loans available to students who entered higher education up to academic year 1997/98 and those who entered in 1998/99 under existing arrangements. These loans are non income assessed and are repayable on a fixed term, mortgage style, basis.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  Source:

  Student Loans Company

  Data on the local education authority of domicile of students taking out fixed rate mortgage style loans (normally those who entered higher education before 1998/99) are not available because applications are made through the students' education institution. The data provided in the answer relate to student loans
  150W
  available from the Student Loans Company and do not include bank loans, overdrafts, and informal loans from family and friends.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many students he expects to receive the full £1,500 maintenance grant, assuming current student numbers; and how many will receive an amount of grant; [148563]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the introduction of higher education maintenance grants of £1,500 in 2006. [148575]

  Alan Johnson
  Based on the current student cohort we estimate about 30 per cent. of English and Welsh students will benefit from the full grant when it is introduced in the 2004/05 academic year. Approximately a further 10 per cent. of students should benefit from a partial grant. I refer my hon. Friend to the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published on 8 January, which sets out the costs of increasing the grant to £1,500 a year from 2006/07. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what fees will be chargeable to students for part-time degrees at(a) universities and (b) further education colleges under the provisions of the Higher Education Bill. [150537]

  Alan Johnson
  Universities and further education colleges are currently free to determine the level of fees which are chargeable to part-time students in higher education. The Higher Education Bill will not change this.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the steps his Department is taking to monitor the effectiveness of the Sure Start programme. [148641]

  Margaret Hodge
  A major evaluation of the Sure Start programme began in January 2001. It will examine the effectiveness of Sure Start on children, families and communities, both in the short, medium and long-term by tracking a sample of eight thousand (8,000) children and their families over time. The first information on impact and effectiveness will become available over the next 12 months.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have had contact with Sure Start in Battersea since its inception. [144773]

  Margaret Hodge
  Contact by Sure Start local programmes is defined to mean that a child aged 0–3 years and/or their parent or carer has taken up services. Since its inception in October 2000 Sure Start Battersea reports that it has provided services to some 630 children under four living in the catchment area.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual budget is for the Sure Start Childcare and Early Years magazine. [147929]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Sure Start Childcare and Early Years magazine was published twice in 2003. The cost for
  151W
  the two issues was £66,339.61 including distribution to 37,000 partners.

  The Sure Start Childcare and Early Years magazine was merged with our Upstart magazine at the end of 2003. The new magazine is called Sure Start. The planned annual budget for the new magazine is approximately £160,000 which includes distribution to 60,000 partners.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which constituencies in Yorkshire and Humberside have one or more Sure Start initiatives. [149344]

  Constituency

  Number of Sure Start local programmes

  Number of Early Excellence Centres

  Number of neighbourhood nurseries

  Number of children's centres

  East and North Ridings

  Beverley and Holderness, James Cran, Conservative

  2

  Brigg and Goole, Ian Cawsey, Labour

  1

  City of York. Hugh Bayley, Labour

  1

  Cleethorpes, Shona Mclsaac, Labour

  1

  2

  Great Grimsby, Austin Mitchell, Labour

  4

  3

  1

  Hull East, John Prescott, Labour

  2

  2

  Hull North, Kevin McNamara, Labour

  2

  3

  Hull West and Hessle, Allan Johnson, Labour

  3

  2

  Scarborough and Whitby, Lawrie Quinn, Labour

  1

  2

  Scunthorpe, Elliot Morley, Labour

  2

  1

  Selby. John Grogan. Labour

  1

  1

  Yorkshire East. Greg Knight, Conservative

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley Central, Eric Illsley, Labour

  2

  9

  Barnsley East and Mexborough, Jeff Ennis Labour

  2

  1

  Barnsley West and Penistone, Michael Clapham, Labour

  1

  3

  Don Valley, Caroline Flint, Labour

  1

  1

  Doncaster Central, Rosie Winterton, Labour

  1

  Doncaster North, Kevin Hughes, Labour

  3

  Rotherham. Denis MacShane, Labour

  1

  1

  1

  Rother Valley, Kevin Barron, Labour.

  1

  1

  1

  Sheffield Attercliffe, Clive Betts, Labour

  1 (part of the Sheffield EEC network)

  2

  Sheffield Brightside, David Blunkett, Labour.

  3

  1 (part of the Sheffield EEC network)

  1

  Sheffield Central, Richard Caborn, Labour

  3

  1 (part of the Sheffield EEC network)

  3

  Sheffield Heeley, Meg Munn, Labour

  1

  Sheffield Hillsborough, Helen Jackson, Labour

  2

  Wentworth, John Healey, Labour

  1

  2

  1

  West Yorkshire

  Batley and Spen, Mike Wood, Labour

  1

  Bradford North, Terry Rooney, Labour

  2

  3

  Bradford South, Gerry Sutcliffe Labour

  4

  Bradford West, Marsha Singh, Labour

  1

  1

  2

  Calder Valley, Chris McCafferty, Labour

  1

  1

  Dewsbury, Ann Taylor, Labour

  2

  1

  Halifax, Alice Mahon, Labour

  2

  Hemsworth, Jon Trickett, Labour

  1

  Huddersfield, Barry Sheerman, Labour

  3

  1

  3

  Keighley, Ann Cryer, Labour

  1

  Leeds East, George Mudie, Labour

  1

  1

  3

  Leeds Central, Hilary Benn, Labour.

  3

  4

  Leeds North East Fabian Hamilton, Labour

  1

  Leeds North-west, Harold Best, Labour.

  1

  Leeds West, John Battle, Labour

  1

  2

  Morley and Rothwell, Colin Challen Labour

  3

  Pontefract and Castleford, Yvette Cooper, Labour.

  2

  Shipley, Chris Lesley, Labour

  1

  Wakefield, David Hinchcliffe, Labour

  2

  1

  1

  152W
  Margaret Hodge
  The following table shows the constituencies in Yorkshire and Humberside that have operational Sure Start local programmes, Early Excellence Centres, neighbourhood nurseries and children's centres based within them. Figures for neighbourhood nurseries however are changing by the day as new settings open. The Government intend that, wherever possible, existing Sure Start provision will develop into children's centres as part of the expansion of high quality integrated services to all pre-school children and their families living in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in England.
  153W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many toothbrushes have been distributed free by each Sure Start project. [149398]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]This information is not collected. It is estimated that to date some 450,000 packs have been distributed to families under the Department of Health's Brushing for Life scheme. This scheme operates in the 29 former district health authority areas with the highest levels of tooth decay and all Sure Start Local Programmes in areas where the water is not fluoridated. Many Sure Start Local Programmes also distribute similar packs to babies and young children under their own oral health promotion schemes.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what legal services and goods Sure Start projects are(a) authorised and (b) forbidden to provide at no cost to the recipient. [149399]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]There are 524 Sure Start local programmes delivering services to children under 4 and their families in the most disadvantaged areas of the country. They aim to achieve better outcomes for children, parents and communities by increasing the availability of child care, improving health, education and emotional development for young children, and supporting parents as parents and in their aspirations towards employment. Services to meet these aims are designed in consultation with families in the area to ensure they reflect local needs. Programmes are neither prevented nor required to provide any goods or legal services free of charge.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to evaluate Sure Start schemes; and what arrangements have been made to ensure that lessons from such evaluations are disseminated. [145079]

  Margaret Hodge
  A comprehensive evaluation of the Sure Start programme began in January 2001. It will examine the effectiveness of Sure Start on children, families and communities in the short, medium and long-term by tracking a sample of eight thousand (8,000) children and their families over time. The first information on impact and effectiveness will become available over the next 12 months.

  Lessons from the evaluation will be disseminated widely; through the Sure Start Unit Research Publication series, academic journals and practitioner publications and through workshops, seminars and conferences for both practitioners and the academic community.

  Teacher Qualifications
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the relative value of the(a) English and (b) Welsh Qualified Teacher Status qualifications; [150599]

  (2) what assessment he has made of obstacles to prospective teachers who live on the Welsh borders qualifying as teachers; [150600]

  (3) whether a teacher who completes their initial teacher training course in England may undertake the practical experience element in a Welsh school. [150603]
  154W
  Mr. Miliband
  The funding, content and standards required of courses of initial teacher training provided by Welsh institutions are matters for the National Assembly for Wales. Courses funded by the Department for Education and Skills through the Teacher Training Agency and which lead to the award of Qualified Teacher Status by the General Teaching Council for England are governed by the Education (School Teachers' Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003. These require that any periods of practical experience undertaken as part of a course of initial teacher training in England must take place wholly or mainly at schools in England, but do not preclude some periods of teaching experience taking place elsewhere. The same regulations provide for the automatic recognition in England of teaching qualifications awarded by the General Teaching Council for Wales.

  Teenage Parents
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the proportion of teenage parents who were in local authority care in each of the last five years. [147334]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not currently available at national level. Officials within DfES are currently identifying ways in which this data can be collected. At the meeting of the Technical Working Group on Personal Social Services Statistics, held on 23 October 2003, it was agreed that the question "Was the young person a parent at 31 March (if female)" would be included in the SSDA903 return for 2004–05. In addition, the Technical Working Group agreed that other questions for future returns and detailed guidance be referred to an ad hoc Working Group for further consideration. The newly established Working Group will assess the feasibility of obtaining information about births among young people in and leaving care and identify methods for collecting this information, taking account of legal and confidentiality considerations.

  Tribunal Judgments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanism exists for monitoring and enforcement of local authority compliance with Special Education Needs and Disability Tribunal judgments; and if he will make a statement. [146979]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are no formal mechanisms to monitor or enforce the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal's decisions on special educational needs appeals or disability claims. By law, local education authorities (LEAs) must carry out the Tribunal's decision. If a parent believes that an LEA has failed to comply with the Tribunal's decision within the given timescale they can write to complain to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who will consider what action to take.

  Universities (Children in Care)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children in care went to university in each of the last five years: and how many completed their course in each year. [147331]
  155W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Department for Education and Skills collects data from local authorities about accommodation and activity of children and young people in their nineteenth year, who were recently looked after by local authorities. This data collection was introduced for the first time in 2002℃03. The collection specifically records the number of young people who were in education, training or employment at age 19 and of those, the number involved in higher education. It does not identify which are at university or those in other age groups.

  In 2002–03, of the 4,900 young people in the cohort, 2,400 were in education, training or employment on their nineteenth birthday. Of these, 280 were in higher education (6 per cent. of children). This figure includes those studying for degrees, diplomas in higher education, teaching and nursing qualifications. Data is not available on how many completed their courses.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether University for Industry-funded learning targets were achieved in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002£03. [149992]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2001–02, my Department set Ufi/ learndirect 12 targets. Of these nine can be classified as "learning targets"—the others referred to the information and advice service/learning materials. Ufi achieved eight out of these targets. In 2002–03, Ufi/learndirect met four out of seven "learning targets".

  Website Publications
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria his Department uses when deciding whether a leaflet which it publishes is to be made available only on its website. [149556]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department does not publish leaflets on websites only. We do make printed material available on our websites but it is not departmental policy to publish leaflets online only.

  Working Skills
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of the working age population in the West Midlands reaching degree level qualifications. [149832]

  Alan Johnson
  These are a range of initiatives from which the region will benefit.

  Foundation Degrees are a positive step in expanding opportunities for people to enter higher education. The combination of academic study and work-based learning with this flexible approach means that they appeal to a wide variety of people including those already in work. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has invited the region to bid for 1,000 additional student places in 2004/05.

  For mature learners we are providing an important pathway to higher education through Access to HE Courses. The West Midlands is served by one of the larger Access providers—the Open College Network for the West Midlands.
  156W
  The Aimhigher Programme in conjunction with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Learning and Skills Council is very active in the region in improving links between its schools, FE colleges and HEIs, with part of its remit to encourage more young people to take up degrees.

  We are also funding five 14–19 pathfinders in the West Midlands to test local delivery of 14–19 education and training with the aim, amongst other things, of equipping young people to enter further or higher education.

  Excellence in Cities is raising aspirations and attainment in Schools. A part of their remit is to encourage pupils to consider higher education. From 2005 Excellence in Cities will be involved in all secondary schools across the City of Coventry.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Cambridge Private Planning Application
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will allow the Cambridge private planning application to proceed. [150787]

  Keith Hill
  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister issued his decision to grant planning permission for the application by Cambridge University to build a B1(b) research centre on 20 November 2003. My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister has no further jurisdiction with regard to this matter and cannot therefore make any further comment. The implementation of this permission is now a matter for Cambridge University. However, the decision is the subject of a legal challenge.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he has issued to local authorities on the minimum council tax level appropriate for a band D home. [150123]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has issued no guidance on the minimum level of council tax.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) average, (b) maximum and (c) minimum council tax is for a band D home. [150378]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average area council tax for a Band D property occupied by two adults in England in 2003–04 is £1,102. The maximum is £1,294 and the minimum is £570.

  In practice, lower figures than those quoted above are payable where discounts have been granted, and zero council tax is payable for Band D properties that are exempt.

  Erith Marshes
  John Austin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the environmental consequences of building on the Erith Marshes; what assessment he has made of whether such development conflicts with the(a) local council's biodiversity plan and (b) recommendations of the biodiversity team of the

  157W
  Mayor of London; what assessment he has made of the increased flood risk in adjacent areas if the development proceeds; and if he will make a statement. [150904]

  Keith Hill
  These are matters for consideration by the local planning authority as part of the planning process. Where a project is receiving funding through the Thames Gateway programme a flood risk assessment is required, and applicants must consult with the Environment Agency where there is a potential risk of flooding.

  EU Funding
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the funding amount allocated from the European Regional Development Fund is during the 2000 to 2006 period to(a) the North-East, (b) the North-West and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside. [150091]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following amounts of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) have been allocated for the period 2000 to 2006. The allocations are in euros.

  €

  North-East Objective 2

  581,330,000

  North-West Objective 1

  893,048,000

  North-West Objective 2

  808,330,000

  Yorkshire and Humber Objective 1

  785,588,000

  Yorkshire and Humber Objective 2

  448,360,000

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister from which budget within his Department the sum for funding for the European Regional Development Fund is allocated. [150092]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In England, all Departments with European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) policy responsibilities provide their own budgetary cover. However, all income and related expenditure from ERDF are accounted to parliament by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the Managing Authority. The devolved administrations have separate arrangements for their own geographical areas.

  Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the changes in the number of jobs in Kent County Fire and Rescue Service that would arise as a result of the proposed regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. [149306]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him and to the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Taunton (Mr. Flook), for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 22 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1457–58W.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list those whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise the Kent Fire and Rescue Service; [149307]
  158W
  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Kent on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; and what their advice was. [149309]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him and the hon. Members for Buckingham, Taunton, North Wiltshire, Runnymede and Weybridge, South East Cambridgeshire, Brentwood and Ongar, Poole and Spelthorne on 22 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1454–57W.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Kent without the consent of Kent county council. [149308]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for Buckingham, Taunton, North Wiltshire, Runnymede and Weybridge, South East Cambridgeshire, Brentwood and Ongar, Poole and Spelthorne on 22 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1458–59W.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research relating to Kent he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149310]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for Buckingham, Taunton, North Wiltshire, Runnymede and Weybridge, South East Cambridgeshire, Brentwood and Ongar, Poole and Spelthorne on 22 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1453–54W.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what level of grant has been provided to each(a) metropolitan fire authority, (b) county council fire authority and (c) combined fire authority for each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [150949]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will put the information that the hon. Member for Wealden has asked for in relation to metropolitan fire authorities in the Library once officials have completed work on the local government settlement.

  However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to provide the information that the hon. Member has asked for in relation to county council fire authorities because the grant that they receive is general grant to cover all services supplied by the county. No amount is hypothecated for fire and rescue services. Nor can the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister provide the requested information on combined fire authorities because they will not have received any grant before 2004–05.

  Nonetheless, the Government have delivered another good settlement for fire and rescue authorities. The Government have ensured that once again all authorities receive above inflation increases, with fire and rescue authorities receiving increases in grant between 3.5 per cent. and 5 per cent. and averaging 4.3 per cent. Since taking office, this Government have increased funding by 30 per cent. in real terms.
  159W

  Expenditure provision for the fire and rescue service in England (£ million)

  Increase on previous year (percentage)

  1997–98

  1,237

  4.4

  1998–99

  1,299

  5.0

  1999–2000

  1,346

  3.6

  2000–01

  1,393

  3.5

  2001–02

  1,463

  5.0

  2002–03

  1,521

  4.0

  2003–04

  1,583

  4.0

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he gives to fire authorities on the level of financial reserves they should maintain. [150950]

  Phil Hope
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) wrote to all fire and rescue authorities with guidance on 23 January. In that letter my right hon. Friend acknowledged that for Combined Fire Authorities the transition to precepting status has raised a number of issues, including the level of financial reserves. The letter clarified the Government's position on a number of points, including:

  (a) In line with CIPFA guidance, there is no recommended level of reserves.

  (b) The impact on council tax payers should be considered by authorities when considering reserves. This may point to spreading any burden on council tax payers over a number of years.

  (c) The level of risk will not change as a result of the move to precepting status. CFAs should explore arrangements with their constituent authorities that reflect this.

  Fire Service Circular 1/2004, also issued on 23 January, contained more detailed guidance on these issues.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take account of the need for fire authorities to build up reserves in decisions on capping precepting fire authorities. [150951]

  Phil Hope
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he expects council tax and precept increases in all authorities to be in low single figures. This applies to all authorities, including fire and rescue authorities. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to use his capping powers if necessary. When considering capping, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would want to look closely at local authorities' budgets and council tax rises before coming to a view on what might be appropriate factors to take into account.

  Flooding
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many flood plains in England have been given planning permission for housing in each of the last five years. [147737]

  Keith Hill
  Data on planning permissions granted within the flood risk areas defined by the Environment Agency is not collected or held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the 160W
  Environment Agency and local planning authorities report annually under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA's) High Level Target 12 on consultations on developments in floodplains and the extent to which the decision follows the agency's advice. The report for 2002–03 can be found on the Environment Agency website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister land use change statistics show that for the period 1998 to 2001, 9 per cent. of land that changed to residential use in England was in flood risk areas, and 12 per cent. of new dwellings were in the areas defined by the Environment Agency as at risk from coastal or river flooding. Some 64 per cent. of these were on previously developed land, much of which was defended against flooding to an appropriate minimum standard. About 12 per cent. of the land area of England is within the river and coastal flood risk areas.

  Housing
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of the Chief Executive of the Rent Service's correspondence with the Rent Service's area manager for London since November 2001. [150138]

  Keith Hill
  Correspondence between the Chief Executive of the Rent Service and the Rent Service's Area Manager for London is largely of a confidential nature under Part 2 (2) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. To identify any correspondence that is not confidential would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to find new sites upon which to build(a) private and (b) social housing; and what budget has been allocated for that purpose in 2003–04. [150379]

  Keith Hill
  The Sustainable Communities Plan sets out the policies, resources and partnerships necessary create a better balance in housing supply and demand. This includes the steps the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is taking to improve site assembly for both private and social housing. It is backed by £22 billion investment over three years.

  Key initiatives include:
  Provision of additional homes in designated growth areas, with £610 million over three years for site assembly, delivery mechanisms, additional affordable housing and essential local infrastructure. Combined with London, the growth areas have the potential to deliver an extra 200,000 homes above planned levels.
  Making better use of surplus public sector land, for instance through a new register established by English Partnerships and through the introduction of new arrangements for its disposal. Identifying sites for additional housing, which would include developments for both private housing, affordable housing and homes for key workers, is one of the key priorities for English Partnerships.

  161W
  Proposals to allow local authorities to seek affordable housing on smaller sites where this is justified, a measure particularly important in the South-east where almost 80 per cent. of housing sites are less than half a hectare in size.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he has taken to ensure that new housing estates are not built on land that is prone to flooding; and what plans he has for further measures. [150381]

  Keith Hill
  The Government's policy requirements for England have been given in Planning Policy Guidance Notes 3 "(Housing)" and 25 "(Development and Flood Risk)". PPG25 categorises the suitability of land for various types of development, including housing, of the basis of the flood risk maps issued by the Environment Agency. The policies in PPG25 are due to be reviewed later this year against possible developments in flood risk assessments since it was issued in 2001.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of social housing is owned and operated by private housing foundations; and what plans he has for the further transfer of social housing to such foundations. [150382]

  Keith Hill
  In 2003 the breakdown between social housing owned by registered social landlords and local authorities was 41.4 per cent. and 58.6 per cent. respectively. The transfer of local authority housing to registered social landlords remains one of the three options available to local authorities where additional resources are required to deliver decent homes.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to encourage council tenants to take better care of their rented property. [150384]

  Keith Hill
  The duty to carry out on-going repairs and maintenance as well as any necessary major improvement works to a home lies with the local authority landlord rather than the tenant. Certain small, urgent repairs which are likely to affect the tenant's health, safety or security are covered by the 'Right to Repair', which means that by law, these must be carried out by the local authority quickly and at no cost to the tenant.

  However, through their tenancy agreement, tenants may have responsibilities to carry out certain types of repair or to behave in a way which does not cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. The Council Tenant's Charter, published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is readily available to councils and tenants and provides further details of the rights and responsibilities of council tenants.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what proportion of tenants in the social rented sector are paying rents above the average rent for the appropriate bedroom category in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each London borough; [150400]

  (2) what proportion of tenants in the social rented sector are paying rents £10 or more above the average for their bedroom size in (a) each region of England and (b) each London borough; [150401]
  162W
  (3) what proportion of tenants in the social rented sector are paying £10 or more above the average for properties with (a) one bedroom, (b) two bedrooms, (c) three bedrooms and (d) four or more bedrooms. [150402]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Corporation and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hold data on rents paid by tenants, but only at the level of the average rent paid to RSLs/LAs for each bedroom category. However, the information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on demand for housing in the UK of the housing needs of nationals of the EU accession states who may come to the UK [151066]

  Keith Hill
  No assessment has been made of the impact upon demand for housing of immigrants who may come to the UK from EU accession countries.

  However, this Government does not believe that housing shortages in London and the south-east can be blamed on international migration. We recognised in the Sustainable Communities Plan that for more than 30 years all Governments failed to meet housing need.

  The Sustainable Communities Plan sets out the policies, resources and partnerships that will achieve the step change essential to turn around the legacy of decades of neglect and under-investment, including:
  £5 billion for more affordable homes to be built, including at least £1 billion for key worker housing
  Measures to ensure delivery of 930,000 new homes in existing regional plans for the south-east to 2016.
  Additional homes to be provided in designated growth areas, with £610 million over three years for site assembly, delivery mechanisms, additional affordable housing and essential local infrastructure. Combined with London, the growth areas have the potential to deliver an extra 200,000 homes above planned levels
  Measures to make better use of the existing housing stock, especially to bring empty properties back into use.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list information technology contracts in his Department and its predecessors with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146190]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and those components of former Departments that make up the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have not let any contracts that meet this description

  Local Government
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the total value of central government grant paid to each local authority in Leicestershire in each financial year between 1996–97 and 2003–04 [149464]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows.
  163W

  £ million

  1996–971

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Leicestershire County Council

  Specific grants inside AEF

  22.812

  15.668

  15.945

  25.960

  41.017

  54.495

  71.908

  48.995

  Revenue Support Grant

  244.985

  127.070

  130.033

  131.938

  126.384

  141.285

  119.944

  154.610

  National non domestic rates

  188.387

  115.272

  121.614

  132.527

  149.629

  147.894

  162.341

  163.571

  Total grant

  456.184

  258.010

  267.592

  290.425

  317.030

  343.674

  354.193

  367.176

  Blaby

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.100

  0.094

  0.091

  0.087

  0.093

  0.086

  0.105

  0.220

  Revenue Support Grant

  0.271

  0.375

  0.434

  0.212

  0.000

  0.194

  0.000

  0.945

  National non domestic rates

  3.018

  2.704

  2.747

  2.959

  3.292

  3.280

  3.707

  3.153

  Total grant

  3.389

  3.173

  3 272

  3.258

  3.385

  3.560

  3.812

  4.318

  Charnwood

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.217

  0.230

  0.214

  0.231

  0.354

  0.319

  0.361

  0.637

  Revenue Support Grant

  2.792

  3.102

  3.428

  3.208

  2.851

  3.453

  2.963

  4.765

  National non domestic rates

  5.417

  4.900

  4.995

  5.360

  5.917

  5.921

  6.656

  5.358

  Total grant

  8.426

  8.232

  8.637

  8.799

  9.122

  9.693

  9.980

  10.760

  Harborough

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.081

  0.082

  0.081

  0.080

  0.088

  0.080

  0.104

  0.216

  Revenue Support Grant

  0.636

  0.852

  0.624

  0.549

  0.334

  0.443

  0.131

  1.063

  National non domestic rates

  2.506

  2.290

  2.366

  2.561

  2.863

  2.851

  3.258

  2.680

  Total grant

  3.223

  3.224

  3.071

  3.190

  3.285

  3.374

  3.493

  3.960

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.127

  0.131

  0.134

  0.137

  0.157

  0.145

  0.180

  0.287

  Revenue Support Grant

  0.819

  0.978

  1.036

  0.857

  0.610

  0.894

  0.568

  1.683

  National non domestic rates

  3.455

  3.095

  3.138

  3.376

  3.720

  3.703

  4.137

  3.496

  Total grant

  4.401

  4.204

  4.308

  4.370

  4.487

  4.742

  4.885

  5.466

  Melton

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.065

  0.067

  0.071

  0.066

  0.072

  0.065

  0.060

  0.138

  Revenue Support Grant

  0.872

  0.927

  0.970

  0.938

  0.810

  0.992

  0.824

  1.469

  National non domestic rates

  1.648

  1.475

  1.493

  1.607

  1.763

  1.783

  2.015

  1.670

  Total grant

  2.585

  2.469

  2.534

  2.611

  2.645

  2.840

  2.899

  3.277

  North West Leicestershire

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.144

  0.144

  0.147

  0.151

  0.152

  0.174

  0.179

  0.386

  Revenue Support Grant

  1.922

  2.150

  1.685

  1.548

  1.386

  1.671

  1.371

  2.416

  National non domestic rates

  2.940

  2.659

  2.704

  2.914

  3.238

  3.225

  3.647

  2.990

  Total grant

  5.006

  4.953

  4.536

  4.613

  4.776

  5.070

  5.197

  5.791

  Oadby and Wigston

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.062

  0.067

  0.067

  0.081

  0.102

  0.094

  0.108

  0.154

  Revenue Support Grant

  0.508

  0.643

  0.671

  0.571

  0.417

  0.595

  0.417

  1.023

  National non domestic rates

  1.878

  1.689

  1.716

  1.841

  2.009

  2.018

  2.273

  1.947

  Total grant

  2.448

  2.399

  2.454

  2.493

  2.528

  2.707

  2.798

  3.123

  Leicester City

  Specific grants inside AEF

  1.117

  9.188

  9.413

  12.963

  22.630

  32.027

  55.142

  47.292

  Revenue Support Grant

  24.016

  148.702

  153.958

  152.799

  151.781

  160.180

  158.277

  187.441

  National non domestic rates

  10.377

  66.883

  69.487

  74.954

  84.757

  81.834

  89.118

  84.754

  Total grant

  35.510

  224.773

  232.858

  240.716

  259.168

  274.041

  302.537

  319.487

  Rutland

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.041

  0.620

  0.911

  1.188

  1.701

  3.421

  4.681

  3.698

  Revenue Support Grant

  0.549

  6.748

  6.199

  5.835

  5.236

  6.075

  5.646

  8.899

  National non domestic rates

  1.190

  7.833

  8.330

  9.080

  10.279

  10.393

  11.622

  10.480

  Total grant

  1.780

  15.201

  15.440

  16.103

  17.216

  19.889

  21.949

  23.076

  Leicestershire Police Authority

  Specific grants inside AEF

  0.340

  1.024

  1.602

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  6.721

  7.031

  Revenue Support Grant

  15.848

  16.343

  16.530

  17.096

  15.935

  17.615

  15.452

  25.535

  Police Grant

  47.056

  48.312

  49.102

  51.332

  53.166

  55.515

  55.660

  60.032

  National non domestic rates

  18.929

  18.198

  18.032

  19.412

  21.499

  21.470

  23.380

  13.198

  Total grant

  82.173

  83.877

  85.266

  87.840

  90.600

  94.600

  101.213

  105.797

  1 Figures for 199–7 are not comparable with those for later years for Leicestershire County Council, Leicester City and Rutland due to local government organisation. This resulted in Leicester City and Rutland becoming unitary authorities on 1 April 1997.

  Notes:

  1. AEF = Aggregate External Finance

  2. More generally, figures have not been adjusted to take account of changes between years in function or responsibility.

  Source:

  RA and RS returns to ODPM
  164W 165W
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what representations he has received from Taunton Deane borough council on the level of increase received in(a) revenue support grant and national non-domestic rates and (b) rent allowances for handling rents and council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement; [150065]

  (2) by what percentage central Government funding to Taunton Deane borough council has changed in 2004–05; [150066]

  (3) what the (a) revenue support grant and (b) national non-domestic rate settlement for Taunton Deane was for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05 [150084]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received two representations from Taunton Deane borough council on the provisional local government finance settlement 2004–05, which include comments on the transfer of funding for rent allowances and council tax benefit (CTB) to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

  In order to make a fair comparison, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has assessed what Formula Grant the authority would have received in 2003–04 had the transfer of benefits taken place in the previous year. On this basis the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) plus National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) will increase by 3.3 per cent

  In 2003–04 Taunton Deane received £3.458 million in RSG and £3.579 million in NNDR. Under the Government's proposals for 2004–05, Taunton Deane receives £3,680 million in RSG and £2,824 million in NNDR.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what his policy is on enabling councils to raise a greater proportion of their income themselves; [150133]

  (2) what plans he has to reform the way in which local councils are funded; [150376]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (b) the Prime Minister regarding re-structuring the way in which local councils are funded. [150377]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The ways in which local councils are funded are being considered by the Balance of Funding Review which is due to report in the summer. Papers for the Review's Steering Group are available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/balance.htm.

  Lottery Revenue
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total value is of Lottery revenue used to support Government-sponsored projects within his Department since 1997 [149627]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no policy or operational responsibility for distribution of National Lottery Fund

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) on 26 January 2004, Official Report, column 45W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the Questions tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for Named Day Answer on 19 January, reference(a) 148012, (b) 148011 and (c) 148014 [150230]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Parliamentary Questions tabled by the hon. Member for Named Day answer on 19 January were all duly answered on the day requested.

  PPG25
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what percentage of planning applications rejected by planning authorities pursuant to revised PPG25 have been subsequently allowed on appeal [150873]

  Keith Hill
  The Environment Agency's report on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) high-level target 12—Development and flood risk—contains details of 50 appeals in 2002–03, which had involved a sustained objection by the agency on flooding grounds. Of these, two were withdrawn by the appellant and in five cases the flooding objection was resolved before the appeal decision.

  In four cases (8 per cent.), appeals for minor development were allowed contrary to advice from the Environment Agency. Six appeals (12 per cent.) were allowed with the agency's objections fully mitigated through planning conditions and 33 appeals (66 per cent.) were dismissed, 30 of which were for minor developments. 28 cases are reported as dismissed using agency advice and five as dismissed not using Agency advice. Further details are in the report, which is available on the Internet at www.environment-agency.gov.uk

  Prison Leavers
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what strategy the Government have for the reintegration of prison-leavers into social housing and their surrounding community. [144094]

  Paul Goggins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Social Exclusion Unit report on reducing re-offending by released prisoners, published in July 2002, recommended that the Government develop and implement a National Rehabilitation Strategy involving all relevant departments and agencies. In response, the Home Office has set up two inter-departmental groups of Ministers and officials to develop an action plan planned for publication in early 2004. Its work strands include finance and benefits; drugs; health; employment, training and education; children and families; and accommodation.

  Within the accommodation strand, the Home Office, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), and the Department for Work and Pensions are working together to devise an accommodation strategy for offenders. This will aim initially to increase the number of people leaving prison with some form of accommodation arranged. Its longer terms aims will be: to assess and identify the particular accommodation needs of each offender; to enable offenders to maintain or, where appropriate/to close down their accommodation while in

  167W
  custody; and to develop systems that enable offenders to access appropriate and sustainable housing options on release. The strategy will encompass the roles and responsibilities of the correctional services, local authorities and other housing providers, the voluntary sector and Jobcentre Plus. Pilots are currently being developed to test how best to join up these services, working initially with street crime offenders.

  The strategy will build on some important provisions already in place in the community and custody: the Homelessness Act 2002; the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002; the Supporting People programme; and the Prison Service's Custody to Work Initiative.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether elected regional assemblies will have power to determine transport-related priorities within their regions. [150077]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The transport powers of elected regional assemblies were set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm 5511).

  Elected regional assemblies will be responsible for identifying transport priorities and producing a regional transport strategy, advising the Government on funding allocations for local transport schemes and for allocating Rail Passenger Partnership grants. They will also have powers to make proposals to the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority for schemes of regional importance.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he expects elected regional assemblies to have the power to determine how public spending within the region is allocated [150079]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The finance powers of elected regional assemblies were set out in Chapter 5 of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm 5511).

  Assemblies will be funded primarily by central Government grant and will have freedom to spend their funding as they judge best.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which powers elected regional assemblies will take from existing local authorities. [150080]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The powers and responsibilities of elected regional assemblies were set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm 5511). The Fire White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808), published in June 2003, subsequently announced that responsibility for the fire and rescue service will transfer to a regional level in regions which choose to have an elected assembly. Other than this element, the powers of elected regional assemblies will not be drawn from local authorities.

  Regional Economic Disparities
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken since 1997 to close economic disparities between the English regions. [149692]
  168W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have pursued an active regional policy since 1997 by:Setting up the Regional Development Agencies to promote economic development and regeneration in the regions and supporting their work with £1.8 billion (for 2003–04) in annual funding;
  Facilitating the establishment of voluntary regional chambers/assemblies, and developing the role of Government Offices;
  Announcing proposals for directly elected regional assemblies in those regions that wish to have them which will assist in improving regional economic performance;
  Putting in place a stable macroeconomic framework to provide an essential basis for economic growth both nationally and regionally;
  Agreeing a PSA target to make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions and to reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between the regions;
  Commissioning Sir Michael Lyons to make recommendations on the relocation of-civil service and other public sector posts to the English regions.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total number of staff working in the Government Office for the Regions in each region is; what change in staff numbers there would be in regions where an elected regional assembly is established; and what the total savings would be consequent on these reductions. [149648]

  Yvette Cooper
  The total number of staff currently working in the Government Office by region is:

  Government Office

  Number of staff

  London

  296

  East

  266

  West Midlands

  320

  East Midlands

  283

  North West

  351

  North East

  256

  Yorkshire and Humber

  306

  South West

  344

  South East

  320

  The number of people that may transfer from each Government Office when an elected assembly is created will vary between regions. But it will probably be between 60 to 100, based on existing staffing levels for the activities that would be expected to transfer to an elected regional assembly, including responsibility for administering EU structural funds.

  It is estimated that about £5 million per year of the running costs of regional assemblies will be directly off-set because staff will be transferring from existing bodies, including the region's Government Office.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional scrutiny the regional chambers in each of the English regions have undertaken since 2001. [149702]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 2001, the regional chambers have undertaken a variety of scrutiny activities in respect of the work of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), funded by Government grant. Chambers report to the region on the work of the RDAs and provide recommendations that seek to improve their effectiveness.
  169W
  The reports and recommendations arising from these activities are published and widely disseminated to regional partners. Chambers usually issue between two and four reports every year

  Rehousing (Brent)
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average waiting time for a person to be rehoused in Brent was in each year since 1997. [149883]

  Keith Hill
  The information on the average waiting time for a person to be rehoused in Brent is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are on the housing list waiting to be rehoused in Brent [149884]

  Keith Hill
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing waiting list (excluding tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April in their annual Housing Investment programme return. As at 1 April 2003 the latest reported figures are 13,425.

  Skills Funding
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is his policy that powers and funding in relation to skills should transfer from Learning and Skills Councils to elected regional assemblies [150088]
  170W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The powers and responsibilities of elected regional assemblies were set out in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice": "Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm 5511). Paragraph 4.29 sets out the responsibilities elected regional assemblies will have for learning and skills.

  Telecoms Companies
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many telecommunication companies have been overcharged in business rates in the last five years; and how much was repaid to them on appeal in each year [149210]

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

  Thames Gateway
  John Austin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Association of British Insurers regarding flood risk in the Thames Gateway Development Area; and if he will make a statement. [150903]

  Keith Hill
  The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has regular meetings with my hon. Friend, the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), to discuss flood management issues generally. Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be discussing flood management issues in the Thames Gateway growth area with the ABI.

HEALTH

  Alendronate
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the clinical efficacy of Alendronate (Fosamax) in the treatment of osteoporosis, following trials at Manchester Royal Infirmary. [149385]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 20 January 2004] The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have been looking at five osteoporosis drugs, including Fosamax (Alendronate), as part of a technology appraisal. Their draft recommendations are currently out for consultation. NICE has a key role to play in widening choice. Patients and carers need clear authoritative advice on the sort of care that might be appropriate for them and the standards of care they can expect from the national health service. NICE is due to publish its technology appraisal on drug therapies for osteoporosis in June 2004

  Ambulance Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions have taken place between the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service and the Greater Manchester Ambulance Service on improving(a) the handling of 999 calls and (b) other matters relating to ambulance services. [148252]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Antibiotics
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what antibiotic usage was for each NHS hospital in England in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by specialty; and if he will make a statement [147509]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This data is not collected centrally.

  Cancer
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of skin cancer there have been in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and what assessment he has made(a) to determine the causes of skin cancer and (b) to determine the action needed to reduce the incidence of skin cancer. [147936]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on the number of incidents of skin cancer overall are not available in the form requested. Cancer registrations for non-melanoma skin cancer are unreliable and incomplete as the registers are being continuously updated retrospectively.

  The number of registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant melanoma of the skin in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years are shown in the table.
  172W

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases for skin cancer in the United Kingdom, 1996–20001

  Malignant melanoma of the skin2

  1996

  5,700

  1997

  6,000

  1998

  6,100

  1999

  6,000

  2000

  7,000

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 100.

  2 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10)code C43

  Sources:

  1. Office for National Statistics.

  2. Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit.

  3. Scottish Cancer Registry.

  4. Northern Ireland Cancer Registry.

  A new sun awareness initiative, SunSmart, was launched on 27 March 2003 by Cancer Research UK to make the public aware of the dangers of exposure to the sun. The campaign is based on the successful SunSmart campaign in Australia. The campaign has received funding from the United Kingdom Health Departments' this year. We will be providing further funding for the campaign for next summertime.

  The campaign's aim is to increase the profile of the issue of skin cancer and methods of effective sun protection. The key objectives are to increase knowledge of the causes of skin cancer, to increase awareness of actions that can be taken to prevent skin cancer and to influence positively attitudes to sun protection.

  The Department has separately developed the SunSafe web pages in 2002, designed with children in mind. These are available on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/sunsafe

  Information is also contained on the Wired For Health website at: www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk/teaching/sun/intro.html

  We continue to fund annually the Meteorological Office to provide the daily ultra-violet index in the media (television, radio, Meteorological Office website).

  The Department also provides core funding to the National Radiological Protection Board, which provides expertise on ultra-violet radiation issues.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of lung and cervical cancer there were in the North West in each of the last five years; and what action has been taken in the North West(a) to prevent cancer, (b) to inform the public about the causes of cancer, (c) to provide equipment and services to treat cancer and (d) to provide palliative care for patients who are terminally ill. [147937]
  173W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested on lung cancer and cervical cancer in the North West is shown in the tables.

  1. Primary Diagnosis (ICD10 code C34) Lung Cancer: Finished in-year admission episodes by regional office of treatment—NHS hospitals in England, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  North West Regional Office

  Unknown

  1998–99

  16,023

  —

  1999–2000

  5,088

  —

  2000–01

  5,878

  —

  2001–02

  6,881

  —

  2002–03

  7,299

  1,163

  2. Primary Diagnosis (ICD10 code C53) Cervical Cancer: Finished in-year admission episodes by regional office of treatment—NHS hospitals in England, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  North West Regional Office

  Unknown

  1998–99

  2,415

  —

  1999–2000

  672

  —

  2000–01

  691

  —

  2001–02

  718

  —

  2002–03

  796

  81

  Notes:

  1. Finished in-year admissions—a finished in-year admission is the first period of in-patent care under one consultant within one healthcare provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data year. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year diagnosis (Primary Diagnosis) —The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 200–3) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  2. Grossing—figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–2002 and 2002–2003, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  source:

  Hospital Episode Statics(HES), Department of health.

  Information about the Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Network and its work can be found in its annual report, which is available on www.mccn.nhs.uk.

  Care Provision
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government is taking to ensure that there is provision in place in(a) residential and (b) domiciliary care settings to provide sufficient care to cover the projected increase in the number of those requiring it. [150598]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Planning and Priorities Framework 2003–06 sets a target for local councils to increase the number of those supported intensively to live at home to 30 per cent, of the total being supported by social services at home or in residential care. The average annual increase in resources for personal social services of six per cent, over these three years is consistent with this target. It is for local councils to use these increased resources to ensure that the right amount and range of care is made available, taking account of local circumstances and priorities.

  Cataracts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the costs of NHS cataract services to a level equivalent to that being achieved by Netcare. [149028]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]We are developing a nationally set tariff for most national health services activity, including cataract activity, based on NHS average prices. All NHS trusts will be expected to achieve tariff by 2008

  Through the treatment centre programme and the introduction of a single agreed care pathway for cataract we are aiming to maximise productivity, improve clinical outcomes and reduce variation in cost and quality

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are waiting for cataract operations; [149473]

  (2) how many patients joined the waiting list for cataract operations in each of the last five years [149475]

  Mr. Hutton
  Central waiting list returns are collected by specialty, for example, ophthalmology. Information on the number of patients waiting for cataract operations specifically is therefore not available, as cataract operations are a procedure within ophthalmology.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cataract operations were carried out in each of the last five years. [149474]

  Mr. Hutton
  Published information on the number of hospital admissions for cataract operations is available up to 2002–03. The number of operations in each of the last five years for which information is available is shown in the table

  Number of finished episodes

  2002–03

  270,605

  2001–02

  247,847

  2000–01

  237,507

  1999–2000

  201,020

  1998–99

  201,682

  This information is available on the Department's web-site under hospital episode statistics.

  Children's Diets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each of the last 10 years for(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each strategic health authority the number and proportion of (i) boys, (ii) girls, and (iii) children aged (A) 4–5, (B) 6–7, (C) 8–9, (D) 10–11, (E) 12–13, (F) 14–15 and (G) 16–17 who have nothing to eat before school (1) once a week, (2) twice a week, (3) three days a week, (4) four days a week, (5) every school day and (6) at weekends [146352]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information is not collected in the form requested. However, the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, which carried out a survey in 1997 of the food consumption of young people aged four to 18 years, found that the youngest group of children, aged
  175W
  four to six years, were significantly more likely than the oldest group, aged 15 to 18 years, to have eaten breakfast cereals (not whole-grain or high fibre types). Boys were more likely than girls to eat non-whole-grain or high fibre cereals—74 per cent, to 64 per cent.

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the number of employees in his Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type [148991]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Disability broken down by disability type

  Total number of employees

  Visual impairment

  20

  Hearing impairment

  30

  Speech impairment

  3

  Walking impairment

  13

  Physical co-ordination impairment

  26

  Reduced physical capacity

  26

  Severe disfigurement

  1

  Learning difficulties

  3

  Mental illness

  21

  Progressive conditions

  20

  Neurological conditions

  12

  Other1

  28

  1 This figure refers either to an unspecified disability or a disability that is outside of the categories for which data is collected.

  Staff in the Department provide information on disability on a voluntary basis so the figures in the table may not reflect the total number of staff who have a disability.

  Colonoscopy
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of those undertaking colonoscopy had been fully trained to do so in the latest year for which figures are available. [150235]

  Mr. Hutton
  All professional staff who undertake colonoscopy procedures have received the appropriate training to do so. A national initiative to improve standards of training for all endoscopic procedures is under way. £9 million has been made available over the next three years.

  Information about the number of staff who undertake colonoscopy is not held centrally.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in his Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146906]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has 56 staff who work in the West Midlands, including those who work in North Staffordshire. The number of staff working in North Staffordshire is riot recorded separately

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department uses when deciding whether a leaflet which it publishes is to be made available only on its website [149557]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Leaflets, being short publications primarily intended for a public audience, are printed. However, it is our policy to make the content of these and other publications available on the Department of Health's web-site and other departmental-commissioned web-sites, in line with the Government's e-delivery objectives.

  There are occasions when other types of publications are made available only electronically. In this case, consideration of audience access to the internet is important and documents may be published exclusively on the web when the intended audience is a specialist one with ready access to the internet.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 January to questions,
  reference 145050 and 145051, if he will list those audiology departments in England that do not fit digital hearing aids routinely. [147758]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]The Department of Health does not hold centrally a list of audiology departments in England. However, details of those audiology departments that are or will be involved in the modernising hearing aid services project are available at www.mhas.info. Details have been placed in the Library.

  Electronic Recruitment
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Department will retain the intellectual property rights for the services developed by third parties for the NHS electronic recruitment project. [144825]

  Mr. Hutton
  The electronic recruitment service for the national health service will be provided by Methods Consulting Ltd. under contract to the Department of Health for five years from 11 August 2003. Methods Consulting owns the intellectual property.

  Eye Infections
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether contact lens wearers are at risk, when washing their face with tap water, of developing a serious eye infection caused by the water borne amoeba acanthamoeba keratitis; and what is being done to reduce the incidence of acanthamoeba keratitis in tap water [147939]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There is always a risk of contracting acanthamoeba keratitis when contact lenses are exposed to water as acanthamoeba can be found in chlorinated swimming pools, baths, showers and bottled water as well as in domestic tap water; with approximately one in 30,000 contact lens wearers.
  177W
  contracting the disease. It is believed that any increased risk for contact lens wearers by washing their face with tap water is minimal.

  Contact lens solutions have been developed in recent years to take account of this. All contact lens wearers are advised to only use recognised cleaning solutions and follow practitioners' directions when cleaning their lenses.

  Surface water is treated in a manner to minimise the risk of parasites entering the distribution system and the main risk to water lies with 'natural' contamination of water in domestic storage.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, columns 602–3W, on foundation hospitals, whether guidance and best practice will be automatically sent to foundation hospital trusts without the need for a specific request. [149505]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service foundation trusts will, like NHS trusts, receive the NHS Chief Executive's bulletin. This includes information on all Departmental guidance issued, which can be accessed through the Department's website.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the individuals and organisations from which his Department, its executive agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible received a response to the consultation, Reform of the General Medical Council: a paper for consultation. [149871]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 January 2004] The Department of Health received responses to its consultation on the Reform of the General Medical Council from the following:

  Academy of Medical Royal Colleges

  Association of Surgeons of GB and Ireland

  British Medical Association (BMA)

  BMA Wales

  Department of Health, Northern Ireland

  General Chiropractic Council

  General Medical Council

  Joint Consultants Committee

  Medical Defence Union

  Medical Defence Organisation

  Medical Practitioners' Union

  Royal College of Anaesthetists

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Ophthalmologists

  Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

  Royal College of Pathologists

  Royal College of Physicians

  Royal College of Physicians (Edinburgh)

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow

  Royal College of Radiologists

  178W

  Royal College of Surgeons

  Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales

  Consumers' Association

  Diabetes UK

  Harrogate CHC

  National Consumer Council

  North Staffordshire CHC

  Welsh Consumer Council

  Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training and General Practice

  UK Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education

  West Midlands Deanery

  Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries

  National Clinical Assessment Authority

  National Patient Safety Agency

  Privy Council Office

  The Wellcome Trust

  Amber Valley Primary Care Trust

  Basildon PCT

  Eastern Wakefield PCT

  Gloucester Partnership NHS Trust

  Harrow PCT

  Kennet and North Wilts PCT Lewisham

  North Surrey PCT

  North East London Health Authority

  Northamptonshire Heartlands NHS Trust

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich

  Royal London Hospital

  South East London Strategic Health Authority

  South Gloucestershire PCT

  SW London and St. Georges Mental Health NHS Trust

  Wakefield West PCT

  West Yorkshire Health Authority

  Weston Area Health NHS Trust

  Dr. W. I. Jones

  Mr. T. Benson

  Dr. J. Cawson

  Dr. P. Anastassiadis

  Dr. J. Jin

  Dr. A. Robbins

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints the Health Service Ombudsman has received about general practitioners removing patients from their practice lists in each of the past five years; how many of these complaints led to investigations; how many investigations led to criticisms of the general practitioners' decisions; and how many patients have then been reinstated on to the lists of the general practitioners concerned. [148152]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not held by the Department. The Health Service Ombudsman publishes information about the handling of cases in her
  179W
  annual report, copies of which are available in the Library and on the Ombudsman's website at: www.ombudsman.org.uk

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with primary care trusts on night-time cover following the introduction of the new contract for general practitioners. [142259]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is working closely with strategic health authorities to ensure that primary care trusts and local providers of out of hours medical services are ready to accommodate the changes arising from the new general medical services contract.

  Haemoglobinopathies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason there is no centre for information, screening and support on haemoglobinopathy in Havering;. [147892]

  (2) for what reason Havering council does not provide services for sickle cell and thalassaemia support groups; [147893]

  (3) for what reason there is no integrated comprehensive network care for sickle cell and thalassaemia sufferers in Havering. [147898]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is Department of Health policy, within the framework set out in the NHS Plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative, to devolve funding decisions to the front line. It is now for primary care trusts (PCTs), in partnership with strategic health authorities (SHAs) and their local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health based on the specialised knowledge they have of the local community.

  However, I understand from the North East London SHA that Havering is regarded as a priority area for introducing screening for haemoglobinopathies. Neonatal screening started across the North East London SHA from 1 September 2003 and antenatal screening is planned to start from April 2004.

  I am informed by North East London SHA that sickle cell and thalassaemia services are at present provided by a specialist unit based at Newham General Hospital. The North East London sector wide network is currently considering proposals for Havering PCT to link into the Newham sickle cell and thalassaemia service, with satellite basis for local access.

  There is also a support group for sickle cell and thalassaemia, based in Romford, which is part of the Sickle Cell Society, which is part funded by the local authority.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what preparations are being made for the Government's health plan on the Haemoglobinopathy Screening Programme for pregnant women and neonates; [147896]

  (2) where the special designated team to implement the Haemoglobinopathy Screening Programme is based. [147899]
  180W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Local implementation of the national health service sickle cell and thalassaemia screening programme in England is being supported by a UK National Screening Committee development programme. The programme is being developed in partnership with the key community and voluntary sector stakeholders.

  Key elements of the national work include developing laboratory services, standards and quality assurance, an education and training strategy for professionals and identifying and involving communities, professionals, women and their partners.

  The national team supporting the NHS implementation is based at the Department of Public Health Sciences at Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine in London

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government plans to address the change in the numbers of sickle cell and thalassaemia sufferers travelling to inner London hospitals to seek medical attention. [147897]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has already started to do preliminary work on looking at services for haemoglobinopathy patients.

  The Department is working with professional organisations to consider proposals for clinical networks of services to be developed allowing patients to be cared for locally. However, it will ultimately be a decision for the primary care trusts, which have discretion over where best to commission health care from national health service hospitals or other public, private or voluntary sector health care providers.

  Healthcare Costs (Patient Contributions)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in poor health in England contributed to the cost of their healthcare on the last date for which figures are available. [148925]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We do not collect information on the number of people who contribute to the cost of their health care through national health service charges.

  Health Forums
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is being spent in supporting patient and public involvement at local level. [149765]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is not possible to provide this information, as individual NHS trusts and primary care trusts decide how much to invest in patient and public involvement. The Government, however, have made available £35.4 million to the Commission for Patient and Public involvement in Health for 2003–04

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be required to patient and public involvement in health forums established in NHS trusts which gain foundation status. [149769]
  181W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Health and Social Care (Community Standards) Act 2003 requires a patients' forum to be established for national health service foundation trusts. When a NHS trust becomes a NHS foundation trust, it is intended that the membership of the patients' forum will remain the same and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will notify members that they are now members of a NHS foundation trust patients' forum

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health renamed the local network providers as forum support organisations; and for what reasons the change was made. [149770]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since 1 December 2003, local network providers have been known as forum support organisations because the new name more accurately reflects their purpose of providing practical support to patients' forums.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Commission for Patient and Public

  NHS doctors by Government Office Region

  England2

  Number (headcount)

  Change

  1997

  2001

  2002

  1997–2002

  2001–02

  England

  89,619

  99,169

  103,350

  13,731

  4,181

  North East

  5,033

  5,656

  5,823

  790

  167

  Of which:

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  2,015

  2,228

  2,252

  237

  24

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  3018

  3,428

  3,571

  553

  143

  North West

  12,870

  14,082

  14,497

  1,627

  415

  Yorkshire and the Number

  9,057

  10,075

  10,601

  1,544

  526

  East Midlands

  6,691

  7,162

  7,343

  652

  181

  West Midlands

  8,916

  9,963

  10,387

  1,471

  424

  East of England

  8,329

  9,125

  9,590

  1,261

  465

  London

  17,107

  19,048

  19,872

  2,765

  824

  South East

  13,056

  14,313

  15,028

  1,972

  715

  South West

  8,277

  9,545

  10,042

  1,765

  497

  Special Health Authorities and Other Statutory Bodies

  283

  200

  167

  -116

  -33

  1 Excludes GP Retainers and medical hospital practitioners and medical clinical assistants most of whom are also GPs working part-time in hospitals.

  2 1997 GPs data as at 1 October 1997, all other data as at 30 September.

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, and Practice Nurses employed by UPEs1 by Government Office Region

  England2

  Number (headcount)

  Change

  1997

  2001

  2002

  1997–2002

  2001–02

  England

  318,856

  350,381

  367,520

  48,664

  17,139

  North East

  18,390

  20,727

  21,504

  3,114

  777

  Of which

  County Durham and Tees Valley SHA

  7,524

  8,350

  8,647

  1,123

  297

  Northumberland Tyne and Wear SHA

  10,866

  12,377

  12,857

  1,991

  480

  Northwest

  48,903

  52,507

  55,989

  7,086

  3,482

  Yorkshire and the Number

  33,606

  36,064

  37,803

  4,197

  1,739

  East Midlands

  24,275

  26,251

  27,597

  3,322

  1,346

  West Midlands

  33,132

  37,143

  38,949

  5,817

  1,806

  East of England

  28,481

  33,028

  34,651

  6,170

  1,623

  London

  52,993

  58,000

  60,638

  7,645

  2,638

  South East

  46,702

  51,202

  53,397

  6,695

  2,195

  South West

  31,867

  34,868

  36,461

  4,594

  1,593

  Special Health Authorities and Other Statutory Bodies

  506

  591

  531

  25

  -60

  182W
  Involvement Forums monitors and assesses the performance of forum support organisations. [149771]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The regional centres of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health are responsible for managing the contracts placed with the forum support organisations—this includes performance management of those contracts.

  Health Professionals
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) matrons have been employed (i) in each region and (ii) in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland since (A) 1997 and (B) 2001. [148405]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of doctors and nurses in England, each Government Office Region and within County Durham and Tees Valley and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear Strategic Health Authorities areas for the years requested is shown in the table. Separate information is not collected centrally on the number of matrons employed in the national health service.
  183W
  1 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps.

  2 1997 practice nurse data as at 1 October 1997, all other data as at 30 September.

  Notes:

  1. Government Office Regions are based on grouped Strategic Health Authority areas

  2. 1997 and 2001 include estimated data for County Durham and Tees Valley based upon the proportioning of staff who moved from Northallerton NHS Trust.

  3. Other Government Office Regions include estimated data for Trent, North West London, Cheshire and Merseyside SHA's and Special Health Authorities based on staff at Rampton, Broadmoor and Ashworth Special Hospitals.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Health Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact population growth will have on Chorley and South Ribble primary care trust; and what extra monies will be made available; [148214]

  (2) what extra staff and funding at Chorley Hospital he plans to make available to meet population growth in Chorley; [148215]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact that population growth in Chorley will have on Chorley Hospital. [148216]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An assessment of the impact of population growth on the local health economy has been made by Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Services Trust. It is noted from population forecasts provided by local councils that the population is due to decline slowly over the 10 years from 2001. There is no perceived impact on the local health economy, including Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust (PCTs), or Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and its services across Chorley, South Ribble or Preston, and Chorley Hospital in particular.

  For each round of allocations, the weighted capitation formula used to inform funding for PCTs is updated to take account of the best available measure of population from the Office for National Statistics.

  Revenue allocations for PCTs covering the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002. There are no plans to revisit these allocations.

  Any changes in population figures will be used for the next round of allocations. We will commence preparatory work on the next round of allocations early this year.

  Healthy Living Centres
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1124W, on healthy living centres, what funding he is providing for centres (a) providing activities covering diet and nutrition and (b) offering physical and sporting activities. [148039]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  114 healthy living centres—167 in the United Kingdom—are providing activities covering diet and nutrition and 207 healthy living centres—282 in the UK—are offering physical and sporting activities. A substantial number of health living centres are addressing all of these: diet, nutrition and physical activity. Healthy living centres are funded through the New Opportunities Fund and do not receive any central funding from Department of Health.

  Hip and Knee Replacements
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost per operation is for(a) hip and (b) knee replacements in each hospital trust; and if he will make a statement. [149007]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in Library. The table contains the average unit costs (per operation) for each national health service trust in England for primary hip replacements and primary knee replacements where the operation is undertaken as an elective (planned) admission

  The data source is the Reference Costs 2002 Collection, relating to the financial year 2001–02. This is the most current data available in the public domain

  Calculation of the costs provided are based on all activity and costs associated with each procedure, regardless of the specialty in which the activity is recorded

  Hospital-acquired Infection
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients with MRSA bacteraemia in NHS hospitals in England died of their infection in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what comparable figures his Department has collated regarding mortality in other countries. [147499]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on deaths from methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemias is not routinely available. Currently, mortality data can only be provided by enhanced surveillance or special studies. We do not have figures for other countries.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which members of staff and at what level of seniority will be filling the new posts of directors of infection control; [144139]

  (2) how the performance of the newly created directors of infection control will be managed; and by whom; [144140]

  (3) whether it is his policy that existing consultant microbiologists or infection control nurses will be redeployed to the new posts of directors of infection control. [144141]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The director of infection prevention and control is not a new post but an extra responsibility for an existing senior health professional within every organisation providing national health service services. They will:report directly to the chief executive and the board and not through any other officer;

  185W
  have the authority to challenge inappropriate clinical hygiene practice as well as antibiotic prescribing decisions;
  assess the impact of all existing and new policies and plans on infection and make recommendations for change; and
  be an integral member of the organisation's clinical governance and patient safety teams and structures.

  We would expect consultant microbiologists and infection control nurses to be among the healthcare professionals taking on this role but designation of the new director is a local decision. However, what is important is that the individuals concerned have the appropriate expertise and authority to act to reduce infection rates.

  Strategic health authorities will monitor performance against the objectives of "Winning ways" and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be asked to give priority to assessing NHS performance in reducing health care associated infection

  Human Tissue Authority
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the Retained Organs Commission will be wound up; on what date he proposes that a shadow Human Tissue Authority will be created; and what transitional arrangements he will put in place to bridge any gap between these two dates. [149379]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Human Tissue Bill, which received its second reading on 15 January 2004, sets out plans to create a Human Tissue Authority. The intention is to establish a shadow authority, in advance of the new authority, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.

  The Retained Organs Commission was scheduled to close on 31 March 2003. It was extended for a further year until 31 March 2004 to enable it to complete its work

  The aims of the Commission are primarily to oversee national health service arrangements for the return of human organs and tissue and to ensure that any returns reflect families' wishes and take place promptly and sensitively. As the Commission's support to the NHS in dealing with inquiries from families will cease, it is currently engaging with trusts and strategic health authorities (SHAs) to secure the sensitive transfer of these responsibilities to them before it closes.

  The Commission also issues guidance, and advises Government on the retention and use of human organs and tissue from post-mortems. It will issue final guidance to SHAs and trusts before it closes and provide a final report to Government. Any subsequent guidance in this area will be issued by the Department of Health or by the Human Tissue Authority in due course

  Independent Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to disclose information concerning the(a) financial and (b) clinical performance of independent diagnostic and treatment centres on the same basis as information collected and reported on direct NHS services. [148684]

  Mr. Hutton
  Providers of independent sector treatment centres will be paid a fixed price for the period of the contract to provide an agreed number of procedures. They will be expected to provide full activity and outcome information, as required for hospital episode statistics data. The Department has also developed a national, standardised set of performance indicators for independent sector treatment centres.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the performance standards set for the first wave of independent diagnostic and treatment centres. [148685]

  Mr. Hutton
  Performance standards for the first wave of independent sector treatment centres are part of the project agreement for the contract between national health service sponsors and providers. The performance standards are subject to continuing commercial negotiation and will be placed in the Library once commercial agreement has been reached on all projects

  Influenza
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 77W, on influenza, what steps have been taken to ensure there are adequate supplies of medication to treat cases of influenza. [142796]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]Officials are in regular contact with manufacturers to monitor the quantities of antiviral medications they have in stock

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list information technology contracts in his Department above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146194]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information technology (IT) contracts let by the Department of Health and its arms length bodies in the last 10 years in excess of £20 million are shown in the table. Costs are shown as whole life costs and may, therefore, include elements of internal costs. A number of the contracts listed are IT framework contracts which National Health Service organisations can utilise to deliver IT infrastructure and software services

  Information about when NHS systems became fully debugged and the cost of over-runs is not held centrally.
  187W

  Contract

  Whole life cost (£m)

  Inception date

  Fully functional

  1994

  (None awarded in 1994)

  1995

  NHSNet central framework contract with BT and Cable & Wireless

  129.6

  1995

  7–10 year contract 1996 for BT 1997 for Cable & Wireless

  Nation-Wide Clearing Service

  30.0

  1996

  8 year contract (basic contract period of 5 years plus option to extend for 3 years).

  1996

  Infrastructure Management Services Framework agreement

  40.0

  1996

  5 year contract with Fujitsu to support DH infrastructure services, with optional extension up to 7 years

  1997–99

  (None awarded in 199–9)

  2000

  Project Connect (formerly GPNet)

  150.0

  2000

  6 year contract, with gradual rollout from date of contract signature in December 2000. This funding represents the cost of Wide Area Networks to connect GPs to NHSNet. In addition to this, £318 million more was committed to the provision of the necessary Local Area Networks within each GP practice. However, as this effectively involved one contract per practice, all of this money was committed in small contracts.

  Clinical Messaging

  50.0

  2000

  7 year contract. Gradual rollout from 2000.

  NHS Direct-Clinical Decision Support, Software

  22.3

  2000

  7 year contract. The level of cash-releasing benefits means that the contract pays for itself.

  2001

  Microsoft software enterprise agreement

  138.6

  2001

  3 year contract. This is a software purchase contract

  Electronic Staff Record

  325.0

  2001

  10 year contract. Gradual rollout from 2001

  2002

  Shared Services Centres two pilot centres

  21.0

  2002

  2 year contract

  NHS Net purchase of additional bandwidth

  96.5

  2002

  5 year contract. Gradual rollout from 2002

  Email and directory services

  326.2

  2002

  10 year contract. System scheduled to be completely rolled out by March 2003

  Dental Practice Board—reprocurement of IT systems

  40.0

  2003

  Two related contracts, both running for 7 years— one with IBM (£31. 9m) and one with Astron(formerly Hays) (8. 1m)

  Infrastructure Management Services Framework Agreement

  60

  2002

  7 year contract with CSC to support DH IT infrastructure services, with optional extension up to 10 years.

  2003

  NHS Direct intelligent phones

  29.7

  2003

  6 year contract

  National Programme: National Electronic

  64.5

  October 2003

  5 year contract. National rollout complete 2005.

  Booking System

  (core services)

  Options exist for extensions to contract length and range of services provided.

  National Programme: NHS Care Record Service (NCRS) "data spine"

  620

  December 2003

  9 year contract plus one year optional extension.

  National Programme: NCRS, London Cluster

  996 (core services)

  December 2003

  9 year contract plus one year optional extension.

  National Programme: NCRS, North East Cluster

  1,099 (core services)

  December 2003

  9 year contract plus one year optional extension.

  National Programme: NCRS, North West and West Midlands Cluster

  973 (core services)

  December 2003

  9 year contract plus one year optional extension

  National Programme: NCRS, Eastern Cluster

  934 (core services)

  December 2003

  9 year contract plus one year optional extension

  2004

  National Programme: NCRS, South Cluster

  Contract yet to be signed

  National Programme: New National Network (N3) infrastructure

  Contract yet to be signed

  Lancashire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times ambulance services had 999 calls passed to them by BT operators who were unable to connect the call to the Lancashire Ambulance Service in the last 12 months. [148375]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Medical Records
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance was available in the(a) 1970s and (b) 1980s in respect of routine recording of myodil injections on medical records; and if he will make a statement. [148778]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are unaware of any specific guidance available in the 1970s or 1980s on the routine recording of Myodil injections on medical records

  Memory Clinics
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collates on access to memory clinics in England. [150150]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No information is collected centrally on access to memory clinics

  Meningitis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards the introduction of a meningitis B vaccine. [148274]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No vaccine is yet available to protect against meningitis B. However, a number of candidate vaccines are being developed. The Health Protection Agency is working closely with manufacturers to ensure the prompt evaluation of the candidate vaccines as they become available. We are also monitoring developments in this area abroad.

  Sensory Impairment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people aged 65 years and over who suffer from sensory impairment, broken down by sense. [149790]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department collects statistics on the numbers of people in England who are registered with councils as blind, partially sighted, deaf and hard of hearing. The numbers of people over 65 years so registered, as at 31 March 2003, were: blind—121,115; partially sighted—22,165; deaf—19,030, hard of hearing—116,070. Registration is voluntary.

  Mental Health
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care homes are registered as catering for the needs of the elderly mentally infirm. [149791]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data on the number of care homes that are registered as catering for the needs of the elderly mentally infirm are not centrally available. The available information is shown in the table.

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

  Table: Number of care homes primarily for people with mental illness—England at 31 March 2001

  Residential1

  Nursing2

  18 and over

  3,050

  820

  Of which:

  65 and over

  1,130

  3—

  1 Includes dual registered homes

  2 Excludes dual registered homes

  3 Not available

  Source:

  DH forms RA and RH(N)

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of prisoners with severe mental illness have a care plan. [150045]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National health service mental health in-reach teams will be in place in some 90 prisons in England by March 2004, covering those establishments where mental health need is greatest. Our expectation is that where such teams are fully operational, care plans will have been drawn up for all prisoners with severe mental illness.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics he has collated on the use of NHS Direct in Lancashire, broken down by constituency. [149939]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The statistics collated by NHS Direct North West Coast for the last six months—1 July to 31 December 2003—broken down by constituencies, are shown in the table.

  Constituency

  Number of calls

  Blackburn

  31,632

  Blackpool

  6,343

  Burnley

  4,473

  Chorley

  1,151

  190W

  Constituency

  Number of calls

  Darwen

  4,096

  Hyndburn

  7,487

  Lancaster and Wyre

  4,181

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  1,321

  Preston

  18,289

  Ribble Valley

  1,120

  Total

  80,093

  NHS Pay (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) male and (b) female NHS employees in Leeds are paid (i) below £5,000, (ii) £5,001–£10,000, (iii) £10,001–£12,500, (iv) £12,501–£15,000, (v) £15,001–£17,500, (vi) £17,501–£20,000, (vii) £20,001–£22,500, (viii) £22,501–£25,000, (ix) £25,001–£27,500, (x) £27,501–£30,000, (xi) £30,001–£35,000, (xii) £35,001–£40,000, (xiii) £40,001–£45,000, (xiv) £45,001–£50,000, (xv) £50,001–£60,000, (xvi) £60,001–£70,000, (xvii) £70,001–£80,000, (xviii) £80,001–£90,000, (xix) £90,001–£100,000, (xx) £100,001–£150,000, (xxi) £150,001–£200,000 and (xxii) above £200,000. [149033]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not held centrally.

  NICE Guidance (Pregnancy)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will publish guidance on managing problems in early pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [149302]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published a clinical guideline entitled, "Ante-Natal Care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman", on 22 October 2003. Full details of this guideline are available on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk.

  Nurses
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 467W, how many public health nurses there were in the NHS in each of the last 10 years. [148910]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Workforce information currently collected by the Department does not identify either school nurses or communicable disease control nurses, two of the main groups of public health nurses. Health visitors are the only public health nurses separately identified in the non-medical workforce census. The following table shows the number of health visitors employed in the national health service since 1992.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified health visitors in England as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1992

  12,038

  1993

  12,059

  1994

  11,548

  1995

  12,079

  1996

  12,350

  1997

  12,410

  1998

  12,572

  1999

  12,800

  191W

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified health visitors in England as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  2000

  12,827

  2001

  13,053

  2002

  12,774

  Notes:

  1. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995.

  2. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

  Obesity
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding he has provided for(a) the Weight Wise website and (b) Weight Concern's toolkit on obesity. [147931]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health has provided £66,700 over two years to the British Dietetic Association for the development of the Weight Wise website. The website went live on 3 December 2003 and is designed to be used by both health professionals and members of the public.

  Funding of £130,000 over three years was provided for Weight Concern's toolkit on obesity. The funding was used to recruit experts in psychology, nutrition and exercise to develop materials, create a workbook to assist individuals and professionals managing obesity, and carry out a preliminary evaluation.

  Funding for both these pieces of work was provided through the Department's Section 64 grant scheme.

  Operation Telic
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of military personnel serving in Operation Telic who have returned from Iraq have since received treatment for mental health problems; [147744]

  (2) of those who suffered from mental health problems after participating in Operation Telic, how many suffered from and were treated for (a) depression, (b) post-traumatic stress disorder, (c) Gulf War Syndrome, (d) panic disorder, (e) anxiety disorder and (f) motor neurone disease; [147746]

  (3) of those who suffered from mental illness on returning from Operation Telic, how many were treated (a) by the NHS and (b) privately. [147747]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is currently being collated. I expect to be able to write to the hon. Gentlemen shortly and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Pain Management Clinic (Guys and St. Thomas')
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the waiting list for access to the INPUT pain management clinic at Guys 192W
  and St. Thomas's hospital is reduced; and when he will respond to the letter from Mrs. Jackson of Christchurch dated 5 December 2003 on this subject. [150536]

  Mr. Hutton
  Officials responded to Mrs. Jackson's letter of 5 December 2003 regarding the INPUT pain clinic on the 13 January 2004.

  I am assured by Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals National Health Service Trust that they have taken steps to reduce waiting times for the INPUT pain clinic:
  Extra clinic sessions have been added.
  All referrals have to be validated by the consultant.
  The non-general practitioner referral waiting list is currently being validated to ensure that patients still wish to attend for assessment.
  Improvements in the administration system mean it now provides better information about clinic slot availability and facilitates the offer of vacant slots to non-GP referral patients.
  Staff are now able to compile reports in order to manage clinics more effectively.
  A review of the systems for sending out-patient appointments has taken place and a reminder system will be introduced to minimise the number of appointment slots, which might otherwise be wasted if patients did not attend.
  To increase psychologist out-patient capacity, the weekly timetable for all psychologists is currently being reviewed, in order to identify how their workloads can be altered to allow more outpatient assessment time.
  The trust also plans to employ a service improvement facilitator to help improve the service provided by the clinic.

  Practice Staff (Complaints)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received about the treatment of practice staff by general practitioners; what the complaints procedure is in the event of staff concerns; and if he will make a statement. [144940]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners are independent contractors to the national health service. They are responsible for employing their own staff, and for agreeing their terms and conditions of employment. Practice staff, like all other employees, have statutory employment rights which are enforceable by the employment tribunal.

  Public Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the public health content of strategic health authority local development plans; and if he will make a statement. [144784]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities were required to produce local delivery plans to deliver the national priorities set out in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The next three years: Priorities and Planning Framework (PPF) 2003–2006." A copy is available in the Library.

  The plans cover a whole range of areas— improvements to cancer services; tackling coronary heart disease; reducing health inequalities and improving access to services—which will improve the public's health.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the funding for the Public Health Laboratory Service was in each year from its establishment until 1996–97. [147658]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The funding for the Public Health Laboratory Service is described in its annual report and accounts, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Stroke (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities there are in the NHS in Gloucestershire to identify those most at risk from strokes; and if he will make a statement. [149468]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In line with our policy of Shifting the Balance of Power, it is now for primary care trusts, in partnership with health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services, based on the specialised knowledge they have of the local community.

  I am informed by Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority that the National Health Service in Gloucestershire is involved in a wide range of prevention programmes, including exercise and diet, linked to health promotion. There is regular screening in primary and secondary care for example for high blood pressure, smoking and other familial factors with prescribing where appropriate. The NHS in Gloucestershire also participates in audits to monitor and improve practice in general practitioner surgeries and hospitals.

  Quarter

  Qtr 1 (April-June 2003)

  Qtr 2 (July-September 2003)

  Number of patients treated for breast cancer within two months of urgent referral by their GP

  3,844

  4,047

  Percentage of breast cancer patients treated within two months of urgent referral by their GP

  96.8

  97.8

  Number of patients treated for breast cancer during the quarter but not within two months of urgent referral by their GP

  127

  91

  By 2005, all cancer patients will receive their first treatment within two months of urgent referral for suspected cancer by their general practitioner, except for a good clinical reason or through patient choice. Targets of one month from urgent referral for suspected cancer to the start of treatment were introduced in 2001 for testicular cancer, acute leukaemia and children 's' cancers. Data on achievement of NHS cancer Plan waiting times targets are published on the Department's' website or strategic health authorities and trusts, at www.doh.gov.uk/cancerwaits.
  194W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what NHS services are offered to stroke victims in their homes; and if he will make a statement. [149469]

  Dr. Ladyman
  People who have experienced a stroke for the first time should be admitted to hospital for immediate assessment and to plan for their rehabilitation. Many stroke units are now developing early discharge schemes to help some people (usually those with satisfactory domestic caring arrangements) to return home at an early opportunity to continue rehabilitation at home for a few more weeks. Most disabled stroke patients who are discharged from hospital at any stage of their care will benefit from a period of post-discharge rehabilitation. This has been shown to stabilise the patient's function and make a small additional improvement in independence. During the period following discharge, there will also commonly be contact with mainstream health and social care community services. These will include: the patient's general practitioner; community nurses; and the home care service. These contacts often continue long-term for patients with persisting disability. The national service framework for older people has stipulated that stroke patients should have a review, performed by a stroke co-ordinator six months after discharge, to reassess their care needs.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancer patients waited longer than two months between urgent general practitioner referral arid first treatment in each of the last eight years. [149918]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]The data requested are not available centrally.

  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out our strategy to reduce waiting times for cancer patients. A maximum two month wait from urgent referral to treatment was introduced for breast cancer in December 2002. Data on performance of this target has been reported from the first quarter of 2003–04 and is shown in the table.

  Working Time Directive
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new medical posts NHS hospital trusts have bid for to help respond to the EU Working Time Directive. [149341]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not available centrally.

  Strategic health authorities are currently working with their respective trusts locally on plans to achieve compliance for doctors in training from August 2004.

HOME

  Infanticide
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) women and (b) men are in prison having been convicted of causing the deaths of their own children; [145030]

  (2) how many (a) women and (b) men have been convicted in each of the last 10 years for causing the deaths of their own children. [145031]

  Paul Goggins
  Available information is in the form of all suspects convicted of homicide by type of homicide and sentence. The latest 10 years data were published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2001–2002: Supplementary Volume", Table 1.10.

  Data for suspects causing the deaths of their own children are not published separately.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the minister responsible for animal experimentation takes to secure advice on these matters from sources independent of officials. [148849]

  Caroline Flint
  Under sections 9(1) and 18(2) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, members of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate provide the Secretary of State with expert technical advice about whether and on what terms applications for licences and certificates should be granted, and on their review, amendment or variation. The Inspectorate is the only source of such advice considered necessary in dealing with most applications for project licences, personal licences and certificates of designation. The Inspectorate has no powers to grant, refuse, revoke or vary licences or certificates. That responsibility lies with the Secretary of State.

  Where issues arising from project licence applications prompt the Secretary of State to seek advice from other experts, the 1986 Act makes provision, under section 9(1), for the appointment of independent assessors. This option is seldom used, but may be exercised in a variety of circumstances. For example, advice may be sought when the issues raised require specific, expert knowledge not available within the Inspectorate. It may also be appropriate when there is debate within the scientific or welfare communities, or between the Inspectorate and an applicant, as to the scientific validity of the hypothesis or methodology; the scope for further refinement of the programme of work; the benefits likely to arise from a programme of work; or the welfare costs to the animals.

  Section 12 of the Act defines the actions to be taken by the Secretary of State when it is proposed to refuse an application for authorities under the Act, or to vary or revoke existing authorities other than with the consent of the holder of the licence or certificate. In such circumstances, the Act allows the appointment of a person of suitable legal qualification to consider any representations against such proposals and to report the outcome to the Secretary of State.
  196W
  Sections 19 and 20 of the 1986 Act establish the Animal Procedures Committee, an independent body created to advise the Secretary of State on matters concerned with the Act and the Secretary of State's powers under it. The Committee may consider and advise on matters of its own choosing, as well as those that are referred to it by the Secretary of State. In its considerations, the Committee must have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering and unnecessary use in scientific procedures. The Committee regularly publishes general advice to Ministers, most recently in its reports on the use of non-human primates and on the cost benefit assessment, and also offers additional advice on the limited range of project licence applications referred to it.

  The Secretary of State is not bound by the advice received from the Inspectorate, assessors, persons appointed to consider representations, or the Animal Procedures Committee, in respect of licence applications. Such advice only informs the Secretary of State's decision.

  More generally, as the Home Office Minister responsible for the implementation of the 1986 Act, I regularly meet representatives of the scientific community and animal welfare and animal protection groups, as well as Ministerial colleagues in other Government Departments and Members of Parliament, to discuss policy relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. I also receive correspondence and a variety of reports and written representations from these and other sources on the use of animals in scientific procedures.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards the 10-year anti-drugs strategy targets of(a) halving the number of young people using Class A drugs, (b) halving the availability of Class
  A drugs, (c) doubling the number of drug misusers in treatment and (d) halving the levels of re-offending by drug-misusing offenders. [149865]

  Caroline Flint
  The Updated Drug Strategy published in December 2002 sets out revised targets aimed at reducing the harm caused by drug misuse to society communities, individuals and their families.

  The current Drug Strategy targets are as follows:
  Reduce the use of Class A drugs and the frequent use of any illicit drug among all young people under the age of 25 especially by the most vulnerable young people;
  Reduce the availability of illegal drugs by increasing the proportion of heroin and cocaine target on the UK which is taken out;
  the disruption/dismantling of those criminal groups responsible for supplying substantial quantities of Class A drugs to the UK market;
  the recovery of drug-related criminal assets;
  contribute to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan, with poppy cultivation reduced by 70 per cent. within five years and elimination within 10 years;
  reduce drug-related crime, including as measured by the proportion of offenders testing positive at arrest;

  197W
  increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008. And increase year on year the proportion of users successfully sustaining or completing treatment programmes.

  Information on progress against these targets is available as follows:
  The Home Office Annual report 2002–03 published in May 2003 provides details of progress against each of the drug strategy targets.
  In addition, the Home Office Autumn report published in December 2003 provides an update on the young people and drug related crime targets. Both of these documents are in the Library and on the Home Office website.
  Recent information on the number of drug users receiving treatment was announced on 11 December 2003 and is available in the Library and on the Department of Health's website.
  Recent information on progress to reduce the availability of drugs which cause the most harm is available on Her Majesty's Custom & Excise website. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office website provides an update on the progress of poppy eradication in Afghanistan.

  Asylum Seekers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged under 18 have been returned to their families in their countries of origin in each of the last three years. [144992]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the ages of those people removed from the United Kingdom is not collated centrally and would only be available by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Although statistics of the removal of failed asylum seekers include unaccompanied minors; they are not separately identified. However, as a matter of policy, unaccompanied children are not removed under Immigration Act powers unless we are satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for their reception and care in the destination country.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much benefit was paid to asylum seekers living in the United Kingdom in 2003. [148953]

  Beverley Hughes
  The budget for asylum support costs for 2002–03 is £1,067 million. The actual outturn will be published in the audited resource accounts for the Home Office.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times control and restraint have been used on children in(a) Stoke Heath, (b) Huntercombe and (c) Castington Young Offender Institutions in each of the last 12 months. [144355]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the use of control and restraint was not recorded centrally until the beginning of last year. The data for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 November 2003, in Stoke Heath, Huntercombe and Castington Young Offender Institutions is set out in the table.
  198W

  Stoke Heath

  Huntercombe

  Castington

  January

  16

  28

  24

  February

  11

  32

  7

  March

  4

  33

  18

  April

  14

  26

  15

  May

  7

  12

  22

  June

  9

  18

  27

  July

  11

  26

  32

  August

  8

  31

  18

  September

  9

  38

  34

  October

  7

  23

  17

  November

  4

  27

  14

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were held on the basic level of incentives and earned privileges scheme in(a) Stoke Heath, (b) Huntercombe and (c) Castington Young Offender Institutions in September. [144356]

  Paul Goggins
  Data on the number of children held at each level under the rewards and sanctions scheme (formerly known as incentives and earned privileges scheme), including those on basic, for September 2003, is set out in the table.

  Establishment

  Basic

  Standard

  Enhanced

  Stoke Heath

  12

  133

  27

  Huntercombe

  13

  210

  95

  Castington

  13

  175

  41

  Cleveland Coroner
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were outstanding in the jurisdiction of the Cleveland Coroner in(a) July, (b) August, (c) September and (d) October 2003. [147649]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]The number of inquests in the jursidiction of the Cleveland coroner which were outstanding at the end of July, August, September and October 2003 respectively is shown in the table.

  Inquests outstanding at date

  31 July 2003

  273

  31 August 2003

  268

  30 September 2003

  261

  31 October 2003

  245

  30 November 2003

  238

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests in the jurisdiction of the Cleveland Coroner were heard in(a) August, (b) September and (c) October 2003 by the (i) coroner, (ii) deputy coroner and (iii) assistant deputy coroner. [147650]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of inquests heard by the Cleveland coroner and his deputies in the months of August, September, October and November 2003 respectively is shown in the table.
  199W

  Inquests heard by:

  Coroner

  Deputy coroner

  Assistant Deputy Coroner

  August 2003

  20

  2

  3

  September 2003

  23

  1

  6

  October 2003

  22

  7

  6

  November 2003

  19

  11

  3

  The figures include all inquests concluded in the relevant months (i.e. a verdict was delivered, or the coroner (or deputies) declared that the inquest was not to be resumed after a Secton 16 adjournment).

  Community Justice Centre
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his timetable is for the establishment of the pilot community justice centre announced on 10th September. [143407]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs and Crown Prosecution Service are working together to develop the first pilot Community Justice Centre in the United Kingdom, which is to be located in Liverpool. Our current timetable is for the Centre to be operational by the end of 2004. This will be conditional on a number of factors, including the identification of an appropriate site to accommodate the Centre and ensure it is fit for purpose. We also want to develop the Centre with the full engagement of the local community. From early 2004 a local community needs assessment will be undertaken which will feed into the design of the Centre and into community sentence planning and community work. From April 2004 these community projects which will be run in conjunction with the Centre.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where in Liverpool the pilot community justice centre will be located. [146311]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs and Crown Prosecution Service are working together to develop the first pilot Community Justice Centre in the United Kingdom, which is to be located in Liverpool. The area of the city that the Community Justice Centre will be located is in the Liverpool north. This part of the city has experienced the problems that the Justice Centre will aim to tackle, such as anti-social behaviour and low-level criminal activity, but maintains a strong sense of community spirit and pride that the Justice Centre can build on and enhance.

  Agents, with experience of developing court buildings, are working with Liverpool City Council to locate suitable sites for the Justice Centre in this part of the city. The site will accommodate a building housing a multi-jurisdictional court room as well as criminal justice and other agencies to provide on-site services for offenders, victims and the wider community. The exact location of the Liverpool Community Justice Centre is due to be announced later this year to ensure that the Justice Centre can commence operations at the end of 2004.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish(a) the draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill and (b) the legislative timetable for the Bill; and if he will make a statement. [140793]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]The Government are committed to reforming the law on corporate manslaughter. We intend to publish our proposals for legislation in the near future, followed by a draft Bill in the spring.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 23 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to E. Elbasani; [147611]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 13 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. E. Elbasani. [149549]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 23 January 2004.

  Crime Reduction Initiatives
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to reduce and tackle persistent offending through targeting(a) prolific offenders and (b) improving security; where such schemes and projects are being trialled; and how and when such initiatives will be introduced in Middlesbrough South and Cleveland, East. [144756]

  Paul Goggins
  The national Persistent Offender Scheme was launched in April 2003. It is a component of Local Criminal Justice Boards' action plans to increase the number of offences brought to justice, aimed at targeting a small group of prolific offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. Areas have devised their own 'premium service' protocols which include elements of proactive policing, improved investigation and case management, priority court listings, and strategies for rehabilitation.

  The National Probation Service is piloting 15 Intensive Supervision and Monitoring Schemes (ISMSs) for persistent offenders in local probation/ police areas. All Schemes involve joint working between probation and police. In addition, some Schemes are testing mechanisms for involving the prison service in pre-release work with persistent offenders. ISMSs target the most prolific offenders in a locality, based on police intelligence. They provide intensive surveillance and supervision of offenders, offering fast access to services and support for rehabilitation, alongside swift action and penalties for non-compliance. They involve other partner agencies such as providers of housing, education and training, alcohol and drug abuse treatment groups and employment services.

  In addition, the Government has given the courts new secure remand and tagging powers for 12- to 16-year olds who repeatedly offend on bail, funded the Youth Justice Board's Intensive Supervision and Surveillance
  201W
  Programmes for the most prolific young offenders and renewed its commitment to maintain the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders at or below 71 days.

  The following local schemes cover the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency:
  Intensive Supervision and Monitoring Scheme for adult offenders (Police/Probation).
  Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes for young offenders (Youth Offending Teams).

  Both schemes operate throughout Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland.
  Criminal Justice Intervention Programme (CJIP)—there is an existing scheme operating in Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland will benefit from the CJIP funding being made available to all parts of the country.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to formulate a definition of a crime of violence in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. [146281]

  Paul Goggins
  None. The Scheme has functioned effectively since its inception in 1964 without the need to define what is meant by such terms as 'criminal injury' or 'crime of violence'. Any detailed definition runs the risk of being too prescriptive and excluding borderline cases where discretion might reasonably be exercised. There would also be the risk of failing to include sufficient scope to accommodate changes in the nature of crime, such as deliberately infecting someone with Aids, or stalking. We consider that in its present form the Scheme strikes an appropriate balance between breath of scope and necessary clarification.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government is taking to ensure the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme does not deem physical violence to be an essential component of a sexual offence. [146282]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme already recognises that physical violence is not an essential component of sexual offences by making provision (at paragraph 9 of the 2001 Scheme) for compensation to be paid where such offences have caused mental injury alone.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme deals with the role of grooming as a tactic of abusers. [146283]

  Paul Goggins
  In considering applications for compensation submitted in respect of alleged abuse of children, claims officers of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority take account of any available evidence of grooming and/or abuse of power when they decide whether an applicant was able to give and actually gave informed consent to what took place.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been conducted on the suitability of trusts as a means for 202W
  victims to retain their eligibility for benefits after a compensation pay-out; and if he will make a statement. [146285]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office has conducted no such research, nor is any planned.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will accept the recommendations of Victim Support in their report Insult to Injury. [146286]

  Paul Goggins
  We have issued a consultation paper inviting views on ways in which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme might be changed to release resources for wider victims' programmes. Victim Support has been consulted about the developing proposals. We will consider their report's recommendations, and any further comments they wish to offer.

  Criminal Justice Interventions Programme
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme in addressing drug-misusing offenders. [148428]

  Caroline Flint
  The Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP) is a programme of measures designed to help drug misusing offenders reduce their offending behaviour by accessing drug treatment. The programme includes enhanced arrest referral, drug testing on charge and a range of initiatives to improve treatment needs of offenders while serving their sentence. CJIP also encourages the positive reintegration into society of drug misusers after they have left the judicial system.

  CJIP rolled out on April 2003 and will expand its coverage from April 2004.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is planned on disabled children and young people's(a) access to and (b) experience of the criminal justice system. [146291]

  Paul Goggins
  There is no specific research planned on disabled children's and young people's access to the criminal justice system. However work is under way with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) to ensure that the criminal justice system is adequately covered in the Citizenship section of the National Curriculum. As part of this we will ensure that disabled children have the same opportunities to learn about and experience the criminal justice system as other children.

  Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. [146670]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Crown Prosecution Service share a Criminal Justice System tri-lateral Public Service Agreement target to increase value for money from the Criminal Justice System by 3 per cent. a year. The technical note for how this target will be achieved was published and announced in the House in July 2003.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, broken down by Act, the criminal offences created in legislation sponsored by his Department in session 2002–03. [143273]

  Paul Goggins
  The following offences have been created, modified or re-enacted by the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

  section 1: Rape

  section 2: Assault by penetration

  section 3: Sexual assault

  section 4: Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent

  section 5: Rape of a child under 13

  section 6: Assault of a child under 13 by penetration

  section 7: Sexual assault of a child under 13

  section 8: Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity

  section 9: Sexual activity with a child

  section 10: Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity

  section 11: Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child

  section 12: Causing a child to watch a sexual act

  section 13: Child sex offences committed by children or young persons

  section 14: Arranging or facilitation commission of a child sex offence

  section 15: Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc

  section 16: Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child

  section 17: Abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity

  section 18: Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child

  section 19: Abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act

  section 25: Sexual activity with a child family member

  section 26: Inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity

  section 30: Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice

  section 31: Causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity

  section 32: Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice

  section 33: Causing a person, with a mental disorder impeding choice, to watch a sexual act

  section 34: Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder

  section 35: Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception

  section 36: Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder

  section 37: Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception

  section 38: Care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder

  section 39: Care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity

  section 40: Care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder

  section 41: Care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act

  204W

  section 45: Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17

  section 46: Criminal proceedings, investigations, etc

  section 47: Paying for sexual services of a child

  section 48: Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography

  section 49: Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography

  section 50: Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography

  section 52: Causing or inciting prostitution for gain

  section 53: Controlling prostitution for gain

  section 55: Penalties for keeping a brothel used for prostitution

  section 56: Extension of gender-specific prostitution offences

  section 57: Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation

  section 58: Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation

  section 59: Trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation

  section 61: Administering a substance with intent

  section 62: Committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence

  section 63: Trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence

  section 64: Sex with an adult relative: penetration

  section 65: Sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration

  section 66: Exposure

  section 67: Voyeurism

  section 69: Intercourse with an animal

  section 70: Sexual penetration of a corpse

  section 71: Sexual activity in a public lavatory

  section 72: Offences outside the United Kingdom-extension of jurisdiction

  section 91: Offences relating to notification (breach of the notification requirements)

  section 113: Breach of sexual offences prevention order or interim sexual offences prevention order

  section 122: Breach of foreign travel order

  section 128: Breach of risk of sexual harm order or interim risk of sexual harm order.

  Under section 81 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 it is now an offence to obstruct a person carrying out an inspection of the Schengen Information System, the Europol Information System or the Customs Information System. Section 88 of the Act extends the scope of section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 so it will also apply to the forgery of bankers drafts, promissory notes and debit cards.

  The Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 creates a number of new offences. Under section 4 of the Act (closure of premises where drugs are used unlawfully) a person commits an offence if he remains on or enters premises in contravention of a closure notice. A person also commits an offence if:

  (a) He obstructs a constable or authorised person acting under section 1(6) (service of a closure notice) or section 3(2) (entering the premises or doing anything reasonably necessary to secure the premises against entry).

  (b) He remains on premises in respect of which a closure order has been made.

  (c) He enters the premises.

  205W
  Under section 32 (Dispersal of groups) a person who knowingly contravenes a direction given to him under section 30(4) (to disperse, to leave the relevant locality or prohibiting a return to the relevant locality) commits an offence.

  Under section 37 it is an offence to carry an air weapon (whether loaded or not) or an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

  Under section 38 it is an offence for a person under the age of 17 to have with him an air weapon or ammunition for an air weapon.

  Under section 38 it is an offence for a 14 to 16-year-old to fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of private land under the circumstances where he has the permission of the occupier to shoot unsupervised.

  Under section 39 it is an offence for a person to possess, purchase or acquire, or manufacture, sell or transfer any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system. If at the time that this provision comes into force, a person has such an air rifle, air gun or air pistol in his possession, he will not be prevented from continued possession, but it will be an offence for him to continue possession without a licence.

  Under section 40 a person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he permits premises to be open in contravention of a closure order issued because a public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises.

  Under section 54 a person commits an offence if he sells an aerosol paint container to a person under the age of 16.

  Under section 58 a person commits an offence if he knows that a direction under section 63(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has been given which applies to him and he makes preparations for or attends a rave within 24 hours of the direction being given.

  Under section 61 a person commits an offence if he knows that a direction under section 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has been given which applies to him and he fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, or if, within three months of the direction being given, he enters any land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser with the intention of residing there.

  Under section 75 a person commits an offence if he fails to comply with a remedial notice to take action in relation to a high hedge.

  Under section 77 a person commits an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person exercising the powers to enter the neighbouring land in order to carry out their functions under the Act.

  As a result of legislation introduced by private members, the following offences were enacted in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003:

  section 1: Offence of female genital mutilation

  section 2: Offence of assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia

  206W

  section 3: Offence of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia

  section 4: Extension of sections 1–3 to extra-territorial acts.

  Sections 1 and 2 of the 2003 Act re-enact existing offences under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. Sections 3 and 4 introduce new offences.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow the Crown Prosecution Service to have early access to police files to assist case preparation. [144016]

  Paul Goggins
  Following successful pilots of the Auld recommendation to increase the role of crown prosecutors in charging decisions, measures to put this on a statutory footing have been enacted in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The relevant provisions will be brought into effect in April 2004, and the new arrangements will then be implemented on an area-by-area basis.

  In preparation for that implementation, Crown Prosecution Service areas and their police partners are establishing shadow charging arrangements in each area. This will provide an infrastructure of duty prosecutors working in police operational units to provide on-the-spot advice to investigators, to be available for early consultation in investigations, and to make charging decisions in a wide range of cases.

  Early guidance will focus on the lines of enquiry to be pursued in individual cases, the likely charges to be preferred and the evidential requirements to support these. Guidance will also be given on the case preparation requirements in each individual case.

  Charging decisions will be made by crown prosecutors following a review of all the available evidence in each case. Where the evidence presented by an officer is insufficient for the charging decision to be made at that time, further guidance will be given on continuing case preparation and evidential requirements.

  Curfew Orders
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length was of(a) an electronically monitored curfew order and (b) a home detention curfew in financial year 2002–03. [143411]

  Paul Goggins
  In the financial year 2002–03 the average length of an electronically monitored curfew order was 95 days, and the average length of a home detention curfew was 52 days.

  Departmental Leaflets
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria his Department uses when deciding whether a leaflet which it publishes is to be made available only on its website. [149559]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The decision process to make information available only on the Home Office website is as follows:

  The target audience for every publication is ascertained at the initial planning stage of each project.
  207W
  If, after investigation, it is the case that the most cost-effective and efficient method of disseminating the information is by way of the website then that method would be employed. The approved information will also be sent for Legal Deposit in compliance with the Legal Deposit Act 2003 extension covering non-printed materials.

  Informability aspects are also considered at this initial stage, therefore the document may appear in additional formats such as the Welsh or ethnic minority languages or in formats for people with disabilities.

  Departmental Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press releases were issued by his Department in 2003. [148508]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The number of press releases issued by the Home Office in 2003 was as follows:

  Number of press releases

  Home Office

  374

  Prison Service

  43

  Criminal Justice Service

  13

  Prisons Inspectorate

  68

  Probation Inspectorate

  11

  Police Inspectorate

  3

  Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs

  1

  Animal Procedures Committee

  2

  Assets Recovery Agency

  1

  Compact Working Group

  1

  UK Passport Service

  3

  Total

  520

  Detention and Training Orders
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the early release scheme for detention and training orders issued since 2001. [145648]

  Paul Goggins
  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) commissioned an internal study from PA Consulting on the factors inhibiting or assisting the take up of early release.

  PA's report, in September 2003, found that establishments generally saw early release as a useful incentive to influence the behaviour of trainees serving terms of eight months or more. Where early release was not granted, the main reasons were decisions by review meetings that trainees were unsuitable; lack of appropriate accommodation for them to go to; and young people's refusal of early release. PA recommended monitoring the reasons for decisions not to agree early release; investigating ways of improving the availability of suitable accommodation; and developing a system to record centrally the outcomes of early release decisions. The YJB are pursuing these recommendations.

  Discharged Cases
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants in(a) 2003 and (b) each of the last four years have been
  208W
  discharged due to delays in gathering evidence, pressure of work and errors on the part of the (i) police and (ii) Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [143964]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office does not keep any data on the reasons for discharges and the Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records of reasons for the outcome of proceedings. The Crown Prosecution keeps data on the number of unsuccessful outcomes (finalisations other than a conviction) for magistrates and crown courts, and the stage at which the outcome was unsuccessful.

  The proportion of total magistrates court outcomes that were unsuccessful as a result of being-discontinued or bound over; write off; discharged committals; dismissal no case; or dismissals after trial was 22.0 per cent. for 2003 (to September). The corresponding figure was 23.4 per cent. in 2002, 23.5 per cent. in 2001, 23.5 per cent. in 2000, and 23.1 per cent. in 1999.

  The implementation of the compass case management system will enable a full record of the reason for all unsuccessful outcomes in magistrates courts and in the crown court to be provided.

  Drug or Alcohol Treatment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time was between the referral by courts of individuals with criminal convictions for drug or alcohol treatment and the commencement of their treatment programmes in each of the last five years. [146539]

  Paul Goggins
  Information relating to the national average waiting time to access drug or alcohol treatment by offenders in the community in each of the last five years is not available. However, since October 2000 drug treatment can only be imposed by the courts as a provision of a drug treatment and testing order (DTTO). The DTTO National Standard requires that appointments are arranged to take place with the Probation Service within one working day and with the treatment provider within two working days of the order being made and this is being achieved in over 75 per cent. of cases. From 2004–05 areas have been set a target to increase this performance to 90 per cent.

  Forensic Medical Examiner Training
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the toxicology awareness module for forensic medical examiner training will be in use; and when details of it will be available. [146768]

  Paul Goggins
  Training on collecting evidence for toxicology is already in place for Forensic Medical Examiners (FMEs). It is incorporated in the Association of Forensic Physicians (AFP) introductory and development training courses. More specialised teaching also occurs at regional training courses and at conferences. The courses include training on toxicology issues relating to complainants of sexual assault and drug facilitated sexual assault.

  Gun Crime
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings his Department has had with community organisations working to combat gun crime. [149785]

  Caroline Flint
  We have held three round-table meetings on gun crime, the most recent on 25 November 2003. These have included representatives from community groups and organisations. The meetings have provided opportunities to take stock of existing action to tackle gun crime and gun culture and have helped to inform our forward approach.

  In addition, the Home Office hosted a major gun crime/community involvement event in Birmingham on 19 and 20 January this year. The event brought together individuals from communities, local groups, voluntary organisations, young people, the police and policy makers to explore the nature of gun crime and gun culture and to help identify what more can be done to tackle these issues.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which offences are assessed as being unsuitable for release on home detention curfew. [149088]

  Paul Goggins
  Prisoners currently serving sentences for the following offences are statutorily excluded from release under the Home Detention Curfew scheme:Violent and sex offenders serving an extended sentence
  Prisoners serving a sentence for an offence under section 1 of the Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act 1995 (for failure to return to custody following a period of temporary release)
  Prisoners serving a sentence imposed under paragraph 3(1) (d) or 4(1) (d) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in a case where the prisoner had failed to comply with a requirement of a curfew order
  Fine defaulters and contemnors, whether civil or criminal.

  Prisoners who are liable to the registration requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 are also excluded from the scheme.

  In addition, with effect from 14 July 2003, prisoners serving sentences for the following categories of offences are presumed unsuitable for release under the Home Detention Curfew scheme unless there are exceptional reasons to grant release:

  Homicide

  Causing explosions, placing explosives, possessing explosives

  Possession of offensive weapons

  Possession of firearms with intent

  Cruelty to children

  Racially aggravated offences

  The presumption against suitability also applies to prisoners with any history of sexual offending.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of the Home Detention Curfew Scheme. [149089]

  Paul Goggins
  The operation of the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme is monitored on a weekly basis. Between January 1999, when the scheme was 210W
  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 while subject to HDC.

  In addition, the Home Office published an evaluation of the operation of the first 16 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 what assessment he has made of the confidence of the public in the Home Detention Curfew Scheme. [149090]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office has not carried out a survey specifically addressing public attitudes to the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme but the scheme has been running successfully for over four years and public confidence in the Prison Service over this period has remained good. Ministers regularly receive correspondence about the scheme. Most of this concerns individual cases; only a small proportion expresses any concerns about the principles that underpin HDC.

  Human Trafficking
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department offers to(a) women and (b) children who have been victims of human trafficking; and what funding has been allocated to this work. [144610]

  Paul Goggins
  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven"—published in February 2002—sets out our general proposals for assisting the victims of trafficking. On March 10, we launched a pilot scheme offering protection and support to adult female victims of trafficking for purpose of sexual exploitation. The victims who are willing to come forward to the authorities, and help law enforcement against organized criminals, are offered protection—through safe accommodation, and a range of support services such as counselling and health checks, managed by a voluntary sector organisation.

  We will also consider, in the light of individual circumstances, whether it would be appropriate to allow such victims who have co-operated to remain here. Where they are to return home, we will assist them to do so, providing them with initial counselling, ensuring that they have suitable accommodation to return to, and providing help to enable them to re-integrate into their own community and find employment.
  211W
  Under the provisions of the Children Act 1989, minors are the responsibility of local authority social services departments. It is not possible for minors to be admitted to the pilot scheme.

  The funding allocation over three years (2002–05) is £1.3 million.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the potential costs and benefits of identity cards in reducing automated fraud within Government departments; if he will make a statement on current levels of effectiveness in dealing with automated fraud within Government departments; and how his Department plans to ensure personal privacy once identity cards are introduced. [147447]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Cabinet Office Study on Identity Fraud (published in 2002) estimated the cost of identity fraud in a number of Government departments. According to the Study the main departments affected by identity fraud are Department of Health, Customs and Excise, Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office—the amount lost in 2000–01 was estimated to be £681 million.

  The incorporation of biometric information into identity documents, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement on a national identity cards scheme, will provide a unique link between the identity document and the person to whom it is issued. This will allow Government departments who provide a public service to identify uniquely whom they are dealing with and therefore help to prevent losses caused by identity fraud.

  Identity cards will also allow Government departments to prevent unauthorised access to services, an example would be claims to free non-emergency NHS treatment by people whose immigration status does not entitle them to this treatment.

  The Home Office has recently established a cross public-private sector work programme to tackle identity theft and identity fraud. This programme is specifically examining:
  policy development (eg identify opportunities for combating identity fraud through data sharing or creating new criminal offences)
  developing and sharing good practice (eg improving the procedures for checking and issuing official documents such as passports and driving licences)
  scoping studies and potential pilots to identify new systems to counter identity fraud

  In addition to this work, the Passport Service is piloting a system to conduct more background checks on passport applications. DVLA is working with the Passport Service and other Government Departments to raise the quality of its identity checks using good practice already identified elsewhere.

  We have also looked at legislative changes to make identity theft or fraud easier to prosecute or to ensure that the penalties associated with fraudulent use of documents reflect their use in creating false, or stealing genuine, identities. The Criminal Justice Act 2003
  212W
  changed the law to align the penalty associated with fraudulently obtaining a driving licence with that for fraudulently obtaining a passport and to make these offences arrestable. This will ensure consistency of approach during prosecution so that fraudulently obtaining either document will incur a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, serving as a more effective deterrent and ensuring that neither document is considered a weak link in establishing a false identity.

  We have also announced our intention to create a new offence relating to being in possession or control of false identity documents, without reasonable cause. This offence will provide the police with the means to disrupt the activities of organised criminals and terrorists at an earlier stage of their activities.

  The Home Office and its Agencies take every reasonable action to identify fraudsters and pass on their details to the police for appropriate action.

  We are satisfied that an identity cards scheme that complies with the Data Protection and Human Rights Act can be developed and implemented, just like other similar schemes operating currently in European countries.

  "Identity Cards—The Next Steps" (Cm 6020), published in November 2003, by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained that the National Identity Register would only contain basic identity information such as name, address, date of birth, gender, immigration status and a confirmed biometric—and that this will be set out in statute. Organisations using the National Register to verify identity will not be able to get other personal information, for instance health or tax records, via the Register.

  The police and other organisations will not have routine access to data stored on the National Register. However, there are strong arguments for giving them access to help fight serious crime and terrorism. Such access will be set out in statute and there will be independent(image not proper) oversight of the arrangements as there is at the present time. There will be no new power for the police to stop someone and demand to see their card.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the compulsory phase for the holding of an identity card will commence. [149206]

  Beverley Hughes
  In his announcement on 11 November 2003, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated that the Government have decided to build a base for a compulsory identity cards scheme. We intend to proceed by incremental stages. When the conditions are right, the first stage phased roll-out will be followed by a move to a compulsory card scheme in which it would be compulsory to have a card, though not to carry it.

  A final decision on a move to compulsion will require a full debate and a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with representatives from other countries on the(a) benefits and (b) best practice in the introduction of identity cards; and what the outcome of those meetings was. [149207]
  213W
  Beverley Hughes
  Identity card schemes have existed in all EU countries for many years, with the exception of Denmark and Ireland.

  Home Office officials have had detailed discussions with colleagues involved in the operation of identity card schemes in Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands and lessons learned have informed the development of policy where appropriate.

  In addition, comprehensive information has been supplied by each of the EU member states on the operation of their card schemes, including its introduction and the benefits associated with the card scheme. The results of this work comprise Annex 3 of "Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud: A Consultation" (CM 5557) published in July 2002, and have since been updated.

  Home Office officials will continue to work closely with colleagues in EU member states.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost per card of introducing identity cards; and what percentage of this each card-holding citizen will be expected to pay. [149208]

  Beverley Hughes
  In his announcement on 11 November 2003, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated that the Government have decided to begin the process of introducing a national identity cards scheme.

  Set up costs for the first three years have been estimated at £186 million. Costs thereafter will be covered by charges. It would not be appropriate to publish more detailed information than that set out in the Identity Cards—The Next Steps publication while we prepare options for procurement and implementation of the identity cards scheme. However, we are continuing to work with potential suppliers and partners to ensure estimates are accurate, realistic and deliverable.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) private and (b) public companies will collect the biometric information necessary for the proposed identity card scheme. [149209]

  Beverley Hughes
  In his announcement on 11 November 2003, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated that the Government have decided to begin the process of introducing a national identity cards scheme.

  The first stage of the process will include close work across Government to develop effective technology, particularly on biometrics, and to introduce systems to ensure that biometric data can be collected, stored and used effectively. This includes a biometric pilot which is being run by the United Kingdom Passport Service to test the recording of face, iris and fingerprint biometric information.

  It is too soon to make any decisions on the types of organisation which may collect biometric information.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of identity cards for the common travel area between the UK and Ireland; [149931]
  214W
  (2)when he next plans to meet Irish government officials to discuss the introduction of identity cards in the UK; [149932]

  (3)what negotiations he has had with the Irish Government concerning the introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom. [149933]

  Beverley Hughes
  There have been discussions with the Irish Government at both Ministerial and official level about those aspects of the introduction of identity cards which are of particular relevance of them, including the Common Travel Area. The Common Travel Area cover the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as well as Ireland, and the UK and its operation affects everyone travelling within it, whatever their nationality. Routine immigration checks are not carried out on people travelling within the area. The Government's proposals for identity cards do not compromise the principle of the Common Travel Area. Discussions will continue with the Irish Government on those issues.

  Identity Theft
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to counter identity theft. [148596]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following the conclusion of the consultation on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud in July 2003, the Home Office is taking work forward on the introduction of identity cards, including examining the role identity cards could have in countering identity theft and fraud.

  In addition to this work, the Passport Service is piloting a system to conduct more background checks on passport applications. DVLA is working with the Passport Service and other Government Departments to raise the quality of its identity checks using good practice already identified elsewhere.

  We have also looked at legislative changes to make identity theft or fraud easier to prosecute or to ensure that the penalties associated with fraudulent use of documents take account of their use in creating false, or stealing genuine, identities. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 changed the law to align the penalty associated with fraudulently obtaining a driving licence with that for fraudulently obtaining a passport and to make these offences arrestable. This will ensure consistency of approach during prosecution so that fraudulently obtaining either document will incur a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, serving as a more effective deterrent and ensuring that neither document is considered a weak link.

  we also announced in 2003 our intention to create a new offence relating to being in possession or control of false identity documents, without reasonable cause. This offence will provide the police with the means to disrupt the activities of organised criminals and terrorists at an earlier stage of their activities.

  The Home Office has recently established a cross public-private sector work programme to tackle identity theft and identity fraud. This programme is specifically examining:

  215W
  policy development (e.g. identify opportunities for combating ID fraud through data sharing or creating new criminal offences);
  developing and sharing good practice (e.g. improving the procedures for checking and issuing official documents such as passports and driving licences); and
  scoping studies and potential pilots to identify new systems to counter ID fraud.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to the public on the protection of their personal details. [148599]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not currently a criminal offence for a person simply to use another identity. However, false identities are often used to facilitate other offences such as deception and money laundering. Crimes such as theft and robberies are carried out sometimes to obtain personal documents, which are subsequently used to create false identities.

  The general guidance we have issued on being safe, secure and how to avoid being a victim of crime, will help prevent personal documents from being stolen and misused. This includes caution on sending financial details in emails and ordering goods over the internet and being mindful of carrying valuables on the person.

  Police forces offer advice to the public on how to avoid being a victim of identity theft as part of their crime prevention activity.

  Passports and driving licences are the two main official documents that are used currently to help prove identity. The UK Passport Service has produced guidance on keeping passports safe and what to do if they are lost or stolen. It highlights that
  "If your passport is lost or stolen you should be aware that, in addition to the inconvenience of acquiring a replacement, the document (passport) and your identity are open to misuse".

  The booklet also explains how to keep your passport secure when abroad.

  DVLA is considering the advice that it currently provides and is looking into what guidance it can offer to drivers on looking after their licences. including the fact that their identity could be open to misuse if their licence is lost or stolen.

  Establishment

  Ashfield

  Hollesley Bay

  Huntercombe

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Total

  Juveniles

  December 2001

  13

  0

  0

  1

  1

  15

  2002

  166

  4

  4

  1

  9

  184

  20031

  159

  2

  38

  2

  14

  215

  Total juveniles

  338

  6

  42

  4

  24

  414

  YOs

  December 2001

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2002

  48

  0

  2

  0

  0

  50

  20031

  101

  0

  7

  0

  0

  108

  Total YOs

  153

  0

  9

  0

  0

  162

  Total incidents

  491

  6

  51

  4

  24

  576

  1 Up to 30 November 2003.

  Note:

  The figures provided are number of incidents, not number of individuals. Some individuals will repeatedly self-harm. In December 2002, a new form for reporting self-injury (the F213SH) was introduced across the prisons estate, which seeks to address the problem of under-reporting of self-injury.
  216W
  We have encouraged financial organisations and utilities to provide regular guidance to their customers on how to safely dispose of statements and bills, which are often used to help prove identity. We hope that private sector organisations will play their part in raising public awareness on how to handle and safely dispose of these and other types of personal documents.

  International Criminal Conduct
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers the Secretary of State has to intervene in matters of international criminal conduct, in relation to imprisonment in the UK of those found guilty of crimes. [147122]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 13 January 1003]The investigation and prosecution of those suspected of criminal conduct are matters for the competent police and judicial authorities and the Secretary of State cannot intervene in the decisions taken. As a general rule, the courts here can only deal with crimes committed in this country. There are some exceptions to the general territorial rule including murder, terrorism, sexual offences against a child and torture. Decisions on whether to seek a person's extradition for the purposes of prosecution are also a matter for the competent authorities.

  Under the terms of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984, and international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party, the Secretary of State can request the repatriation to the United Kingdom of British nationals imprisoned overseas and authorise the repatriation of foreign nationals imprisoned here. Under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the United Kingdom can also reach agreement with the Court so that persons convicted by the Court can serve their prison sentences in this country.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of self-injury have been recorded at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since 1 December 2001. [144357]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is provided in the table. As the establishments hold both juveniles (aged 15–17 years) and young offenders (YOs, aged 18–20 years), a breakdown of self-harm incidents by age range is also provided.
  217W
  A number of intervention strategies have been introduced into prisons, young offender and juvenile establishments for people who self-harm. These include counselling, support groups, and specialised psychological interventions.

  Intercept Evidence
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the admissibility of intercept evidence in criminal trials. [144579]

  Paul Goggins
  A review is currently under way

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government intends to introduce the extension of magistrates courts' sentencing powers under the Criminal Justice Act 2003(a) before and (b) after the planned implementation of the custody plus scheme. [143295]

  Paul Goggins
  No final decisions have been made about the timing of implementation of these two provisions

  Merseyside Crime Initiative Unit
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many swift justice cases there have been due to the Street Crime Initiative Unit in Merseyside. [146238]

  Paul Goggins
  Under the Street Crime Initiative, courts are ensuring that street crime cases move through the criminal justice system without unnecessary delay and that trials are given hearing dates as early as practicable.

  Merseyside aim to provide a good quality of prosecution, using the Premium Service approach. The Crown Prosecution Service are co-located and work closely with the police from an early stage of investigation to progress cases through the courts. In one case last year a defendant was charged and convicted in the Liverpool Crown court in 30 hours

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what percentage of witnesses on Merseyside applied for special measures in giving evidence in the last year for which figures are available; and how many and what percentage had their request granted; [146240]

  (2)what assessment has been made of witnesses' reactions to the special measures available in Merseyside to allow them to give their best evidence in court; [146241]

  (3)what research has been undertaken on witnesses' views of their treatment by Merseyside Crown Prosecution Service. [146242]

  Paul Goggins
  In 2003 the Crown court at Liverpool received 497 applications for Special Measures. Information on the number of applications received by magistrates courts and youth courts is not held centrally.218W
  The number and percentage of successful requests in the Crown court is also not held centrally. These figures could be produced only at disproportionate cost

  Surveys of witnesses' views towards special measures were conducted before and after the first phase of implementation of the special measures. The findings of the pre-implementation survey were published in 2001 (Home Office Research Findings 147, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r147.pdf). The post-implementation survey was conducted in 2003 and is currently being written-up.

  The Witness Satisfaction Surveys of 2000 and 2002 measured general witness satisfaction with various agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors230.pdf, http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r133.pdf, http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/f189.pdf

  Witnesses interviewed for these surveys were drawn from courts throughout England and Wales and analysis was done on that basis. Apart from the disproportionate cost of gathering the information requested, the number of interviews carried out in Merseyside would probably be too small to allow statistically meaningful analysis.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which unit in his Department dealt with reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice before the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission; how many applications the unit received in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how many cases were referred to the appropriate court of appeal; and how many sentences were(a) reduced and (b) quashed as a result of referral in each of the last 10 years for which the unit operated. [143482]

  Paul Goggins
  C3 was the unit responsible for reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice before the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1997.

  Figures for the number of applications to C3 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, it is recorded that
  "the figure for 1992 was 790 of which 634 involved a custodial sentence".

  Figures relating to referrals of convictions are only readily available from 1989 onwards and referrals of sentences from 1990. The convictions referred to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal by the Home Secretary from 1990 to the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and their outcomes are as follows:

  Convictions referred

  Convictions upheld

  Convictions quashed

  1989

  6

  0

  6

  1990

  20

  0

  20

  1991

  12

  0

  12

  1992

  13

  4

  9

  1993

  10

  4

  6

  1994

  12

  7

  5

  219W

  Convictions referred

  Convictions upheld

  Convictions quashed

  1995

  17

  1

  110

  1996

  12

  2

  10

  19972

  3

  1

  2

  1 Includes one case where only two of several counts were overturned.

  2 January to March only.

  In addition the Home Secretary referred sentences back to the Court of Appeal as follows:

  Sentences referred

  1990

  3

  1991

  8

  1992

  1

  1993

  0

  1994

  3

  1995

  2

  1996

  7

  19971

  0

  1 January to March only.

  However, the information available on their outcomes is uncertain and could be verified only at disproportionate cost.

  Multi-agency Public Protection
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders are covered by the multi-agency public protection arrangements; what proportion of these are(a) registered sex offenders, (b) other sexual offenders or (c) violent offenders; and how many are considered to pose a high risk to the public. [143390]

  Paul Goggins
  The total number of offenders falling within the remit of the multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) in the reporting period 2002–03 was 52,809. 41 per cent. were registered sex offenders; 56 per cent. were violent offenders and other sexual offenders; and 3 per cent. were other offenders who fall into neither of the first two categories but who pose a risk of serious harm. In 2002–03, 2,843 MAPPA offenders were referred to a multi-agency public protection panel because they posed the highest risk of harm and/or because the management of those risks was particularly difficult.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have been referred to a multi-agency public protection panel in the last 12 months. [143391]

  Paul Goggins
  In the reporting year 200–3, 2,843 offenders subject to the multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) were referred to a multi-agency public protection panel.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders subject to the multi-agency public protection arrangements are under covert surveillance; and what estimate he has made of the cost per day of such surveillance [143392]

  Paul Goggins
  Covert surveillance includes a range of monitoring activities which can vary greatly in scale and duration. No record of the number of surveillance 220W
  operations on Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) offenders is kept; and because of the broad range of this type of activity no generalised estimate of cost has been made.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of multi-agency public protection panels [145271]

  Paul Goggins
  Two pieces of research into the multi-agency public protection arrangements (the MAPPA) are being conducted and will report next autumn. One will evaluate the effectiveness of the statutory framework of the MAPPA; the other will analyse the offenders referred to the multi-agency public protection panels and will identify good practice.

  In addition, the publication of an annual report on the MAPPA by each area of England and Wales provides a regular review of this important area of work. My written statement to the House on 15 September 2003 announcing the publication of these reports, indicated that the MAPPA have made a significant contribution to improving public protection.

  There is a further requirement where the court is considering making a Detention and Training Order on an offender below the age of 15: the court must additionally be satisfied that the young person is a persistent offender. (The Detention and Training Order is the standard order for offenders under 18 who are sentenced to custody).

  National Offenders Management Service
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff employed by the 42 probation areas in England and Wales will be transferred to the National Offenders Management Service Regional Structure; and what their duties will be [147660]

  Paul Goggins
  In the short term probation staff will continue to be employed by their probation board. It is too early to say how many staff will be needed in the new structure.

  Individual probation areas will continue to function as they are for the moment. However, as the new organisation develops, offender managers from the National Offender Management Service will assume end to end responsibility for offenders and will contract with providers of services from the public, private and voluntary sector. We have not as yet finalised our view as to the future of the 42 boards within this framework. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has, therefore, specifically sought the views of key stakeholders.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps will be taken to ensure that there will not be an increase in the administrative demands on front-line staff following the creation of the National Offenders Management Service; and if he will make a statement. [148165]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]1: The Government are committed to the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, particularly in regard to demands on front-line staff. The National Offender

  221W
  Management Service implementation team will seek to reduce the administrative demands on front-line staff wherever possible.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention that local probation areas will become an integral arm of the National Offenders Management Service and retain operational freedom; and if he will make a statement. [148166]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Individual probation areas will continue to function as they are for the moment. As the new organisation develops, offender managers from the National Offender Management Service will assume end-to-end responsibility for offenders and will contract with providers of services from the public, private and voluntary sector. We have not as yet finalised our view as to the future of the 42 boards within this framework. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, therefore, specifically sought the views of key stakeholders.

  National Probation Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many posts are vacant in the National Probation Service; for how long these posts have been vacant; what the average length of time taken to fill vacant posts was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [145287]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows:

  The total number of vacant posts within the National Probation Service as at 30 June 2003 was 1,059.9 full time equivalent, which equates to 5.61 per cent. of the total workforce and is based on agreed funded establishments as at the 1 April 2003.

  The National Probation Directorate (NPD) does not collect information on the length of time for which posts remain vacant nor on the average length of time taken to fill vacant posts. The management of the recruitment process is the responsibility of each individual area and as such, will be influenced by area service-delivery priorities and external forces such as the local labour market.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the probation areas in England and Wales will receive less in real terms under the financial settlement for 2004–05, after central recharging and performance-linked penalties are taken into account. [141802]

  Paul Goggins
  A final decision about the budget for the National Probation Service has not yet been made. The gross domestic product (GDP) deflator set by the Treasury is 2.5 per cent. for 200–5. It is not expected that any probation areas will have an increase in their main resource allocation of less than the GDP deflator, after central recharging (outside the control of the local area) and performance-linked penalties are taken into account.

  Official Receptions
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the serving of beer at official receptions. [145778]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  A mixture of both soft and alcoholic drinks are served at official functions as appropriate.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 2 December 2003,Official Report, column 43W, on written answers, how many of the parliamentary questions tabled prior to the last four days available for tabling have now been answered; and if he will list in respect of those not yet answered (a) the date of tabling and (b) the reason for the delay. [145053]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]All parliamentary questions tabled prior to the last four days of tabling have now been answered with the exception of ten which still await a full reply. Of these five were tabled either at the end of October or in early November. The majority of these have been delayed because the detailed information requested is being compiled.

  Passports (Vivien and Ambrose Cofie)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Passport Office will return to Vivien and Ambrose Cofie their passports. [144102]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2004.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-natural deaths have occurred in prisons in England and Wales during the last five years for which figures are available. [148607]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Number of self-inflicted deaths1

  Number of homicides2

  Other non-natural causes of deaths3

  1999

  91

  0

  0

  2000

  81

  3

  1

  2001

  73

  0

  0

  2002

  95

  0

  2

  2003

  94

  1

  1

  1 The Prison Service employs the term "self-inflicted death" which includes all those deaths where it appears the person may have acted specifically to take his/her own life.

  2 Includes alleged homicides

  3 Includes accidents

  Reducing the number of self-inflicted deaths and instances of self-harm in prison establishments is a ministerial and Prison Service priority. A proactive three-year programme to develop policies and practices to reduce prisoner suicide and manage self- harm began in April 2001. The programme has included:

  223W
  The training of suicide prevention coordinators, now operating in the majority of prisons
  The increased provision of prisoner peer support through schemes such as 'Insiders' and Samaritan-led 'Listeners'
  An investment of £21 million in six 'safer local' prisons: Feltham, Leeds, Wandsworth, Winchester, Eastwood Park and Birmingham
  Projects to develop safer prison design. including safer cells

  Over recent months a wide-ranging review of this programme has taken place in consultation with partner agencies such as the Youth Justice Board and outside organisations such as Samaritans, taking into account the evaluations of pilot projects and emerging research findings. This review will inform future suicide prevention strategy beyond April 2004.

  The Prison Service is also developing a violence reduction strategy that re-addresses problems of inter-prisoner violence and bullying by providing a national framework of protective mechanisms and positive behaviour management. A new national cell-sharing risk assessment tool was introduced in June 2002 to enable staff at reception to identify those who may be high-risk prisoners, to prevent cell sharing that may generate prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, and to take the necessary steps to minimise potential harm to others. This procedure is currently being revised in the light of the alleged homicide in 2003.

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disturbances there were at prisons in England and Wales in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; at which establishment the disturbances took place; and what the cost to the Prison Service was of the damage caused by each disturbance. [143292]

  Paul Goggins
  The incident classification system used by the Prison Service does not include 'disturbance'. Incident types most often associated with disturbances are concerted indiscipline, hostage taking, at height incidents (including rooftop protests), barricades and combinations of these. The information given in the following table records the numbers and location of incidents that were serious enough to warrant the opening of the Gold Command suite at Prison Service Headquarters. The Prison Service does not maintain a record of the cost of damage arising from incidents and such information could only be gathered at disproportionate cost.

  Number of incidents for which Gold Command suite was opened in 2001

  Establishment

  Total

  Ashfield

  1

  Aylesbury

  1

  Belmarsh

  2

  Bullingdon

  1

  Canterbury

  1

  Castington

  3

  Deerbolt

  1

  Dovegate

  1

  Dover

  3

  Full Button

  1

  Guys Marsh

  2

  Haslar

  1

  High Down

  1

  224W

  Number of incidents for which Gold Command suite was opened in 2001

  Establishment

  Total

  Hull

  1

  Leicester

  1

  Lindholme

  1

  Littlehey

  1

  Manchester

  1

  Moorland

  4

  Norwich

  1

  Onley

  3

  Parkhurst

  2

  Pentonville

  1

  Ranby

  1

  Reading

  1

  Rochester

  1

  Rye Hill

  1

  Swaleside

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  Total

  41

  Number of incidents for which Gold Command suite was opened in 2002

  Establishment

  Total

  Altcourse

  1

  Ashfield

  3

  Belmarsh

  2

  Blakenhurst

  2

  Bristol

  1

  Brixton

  1

  Castington

  3

  Dartmoor

  1

  Deerbolt

  1

  Doncaster

  3

  Dorchester

  1

  Durham

  2

  Elmley

  1

  Everthorpe

  1

  Exeter

  1

  Forest Bank

  1

  Glen Parva

  3

  Gloucester

  2

  Guys Marsh

  1

  Haslar

  1

  High Down

  1

  Highpoint North

  1

  Hull

  1

  Lincoln

  3

  Lindholme

  1

  Littlehey

  2

  Liverpool

  2

  Long Lartin

  2

  Moorland

  4

  Norwich

  2

  Nottingham

  1

  Onley

  2

  Parkhurst

  5

  Pentonville

  1

  Ranby

  3

  Stoke Heath

  1

  Swaleside

  1

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  Total

  68

  225W

  Number of incidents for which Gold Command suite was opened in 2003 to 9 December

  Establishment

  Total

  Ashfield

  1

  Brixton

  1

  Dartmoor

  1

  Exeter

  1

  Forest Bank

  1

  Full Button

  1

  Haverigg

  1

  High Down

  1

  Hindley

  1

  Huntercombe

  2

  Leicester

  1

  Lindholme

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  Moorland

  2

  Northallerton

  1

  Ranby

  2

  Stoke Heath

  1

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  Weare

  1

  Wealstun

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  Total

  24

  Prison Population
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the probable accuracy of each of the different forecast average prison populations set out in scenarios A-D in the Home Office Prison Population Brief, England and Wales: March 2003 (27/10/03). [143838]

  Paul Goggins
  The prison projections model has been shown to be accurate in predicting the prison population given the correct assumptions about sentencing. It is not possible to be certain about the direction of future trends in sentencing because trends observed over a number of years cannot be assumed to continue. It is for this reason that the projections cover a range of different scenarios and are regularly updated to take account of changing trends and new policies affecting the prison population. The central projections were updated in the summer and published in the April Prison Population Brief in September. The actual prison population was 116 below the projection used for planning purposes on 12 December 2003.

  The projections take into account known changes in policy and legislation where the relevant legislation has been passed and a timetable agreed for implementation. The impacts of the new Criminal Justice Act are therefore yet to be included.

  Prison Suicides
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) juveniles have committed suicide while held by the Prison Service in each of the last five years for which records exist. [146751]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is provided in the following table
  226W

  Calendar year

  Number of male self-inflicted deaths (not including juveniles)

  Number of female self-inflicted deaths (not including juveniles)

  Number of juvenile self-inflicted deaths (aged 15–17)1

  1999

  84

  5

  2

  2000

  70

  8

  3

  2001

  64

  6

  3

  2002

  84

  9

  2

  2003

  80

  14

  0

  1 These 10 self-inflicted deaths all involved male juveniles. The Prison Service employs the term 'self-inflicted death' rather than 'suicide.' This includes all those deaths where it appears the person may have acted specifically to take his/her own life.

  Reducing the number of self-inflicted deaths and instances of self-harm in prison establishments is a ministerial and Prison Service priority. A proactive three-year programme to develop policies and practices to reduce prisoner suicide and manage self-harm began in April 2001. The programme has included:
  The training of suicide prevention coordinators, now operating in the majority of prisons.
  The increased provision of prisoner peer support through schemes such as 'Insiders' and Samaritan-led 'Listeners'.
  An investment of £21 million in six 'Safer Local' prisons: Feltham, Leeds, Wandsworth, Winchester, Eastwood Park and Birmingham.
  Projects to develop safer prison design, including safer cells.

  Over recent months a wide-ranging review of this programme has taken place in consultation with partner agencies such as the Youth Justice Board and outside organisations such as Samaritans, taking
  into account the evaluations of pilot projects and emerging research findings. This review will inform future suicide prevention strategy beyond April 2004.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the time it takes to transfer(a) male and (b) female remand prisoners to prison from court. [149526]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]Private sector contractors are responsible for carrying out the movement of prisoners from courts to prisons. Remand and convicted prisoners, including male and female prisoners, can travel in the same vehicle. No central record of journey times is kept, nor is it possible to identify any differences in journey times between remand and convicted, male and female prisoners.

  Contractors are required to deliver prisoners to courts before 9.30 am and back to prisons before their receptions close. Contract managers are robust in monitoring their performance and there are financial remedies built into the present contracts for failure to deliver prisoners to prisons on time.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been transferred between prisons due to population pressures in the last year. [143293]

  Paul Goggins
  There are around 100,000 prisoner moves between prisons each year. These moves may be for a number of reasons, such as security, discipline or as a result of normal sentence planning. In addition,
  227W
  prisoners may be moved to ensure full and effective use of places within the prison estate. The reasons for prisoner moves are not recorded centrally.

  Prisoners on Release
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the monetary grant made available to prisoners on release from gaol is different if a prisoner provides no fixed abode as their address. [149518]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]A higher rate of discharge grant (£94.40) is paid to prisoners on release only if there is a need to seek, obtain and pay for accommodation. It is only paid to prisoners with no accommodation arranged in advance if this arises through no fault of the prisoner. Otherwise the standard rates of discharge grant paid are £46.75 (for prisoners aged 25 and older) or £37 (for prisoners aged 18 to 24).

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were released from gaol in the most recent year for which figures are available. [149521]

  Establishment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Acklington

  8,909,492

  10,023,027

  11,335,355

  12,276,018

  12,306,951

  13,054,221

  Albany

  8,749,528

  8,697,711

  8,909,118

  9,585,057

  9,638,824

  10,214,992

  Aldington

  2,411,489

  2,434,701

  886,808

  7,833,229

  7,977,359

  8,886,442

  Ashwell

  6,697,763

  7,408,379

  7,680,868

  2,697,533

  2,802,068

  3,010,142

  Askham Grange

  2,331,594

  2,401,007

  2,676,889

  10,192,227

  10,900,371

  11,665,889

  Aylesbury

  7,650,509

  9,077,007

  10,040,984

  8,139,154

  8,449,674

  9,496,198

  Bedford

  7,018,414

  7,248,760

  7,563,315

  28,994,092

  30,948,620

  31,517,399

  Belmarsh

  25,315,234

  26,527,865

  27,314,961

  16,420,359

  16,696,491

  18,407,049

  Birmingham

  15,326,661

  15,028,320

  15,967,037

  2,523,343

  6,024,690

  12,205,742

  Blantyre House

  2,196,754

  2,188,236

  2,396,923

  9,927,491

  2,490,332

  2,610,224

  Blundeston

  8,425,017

  8,810,746

  9,012,0861

  11,396,515

  9,982,610

  10,665,341

  Brinsford

  8,791,953

  9,061,958

  9,961,549

  16,439,320

  12,097,691

  13,067,320

  Bristol

  15,146,051

  15,744,783

  16,272,600

  19,402,789

  17,134,205

  17,726,084

  Brixton

  17,174,388

  17,897,7001

  18,166,073

  5,241,812

  19,503,711

  19,738,370

  Brockhill

  4,051,940

  4,763,808

  4,963,904

  4,653,131

  5,644,934

  6,545,910

  Bullingdon

  12,031,519

  12,864,241

  13,384,846

  14,695,594

  6,696,946

  8,002,424

  Bullwood Hall

  4,106,028

  4,172,806

  4,657,885

  5,270,554

  15,178,114

  16,450,925

  Camp Hill

  8,517,792

  8,650,009

  9,072,291

  9,625,242

  5,629,475

  6,735,862

  Canterbury

  6,521,811

  6,654,628

  8,217,174

  9,557,146

  10,096,506

  10,773,950

  Cardiff

  11,229,725

  11,629,233

  12,000,937

  12,531,994

  6,268,130

  6,718,209

  Castington

  5,997,825

  7,118,033

  9,525,575

  10,763,724

  13,370,996

  14,263,886

  Channings Wood

  9,502,293

  9,941,726

  10,729,531

  11,218,525

  11,197,427

  12,033,756

  Chelmsford

  8,734,815

  8,949,156

  9,663,883

  10,629,047

  11,238,889

  12,381,004

  Colchester

  74,527

  6,704,661

  7,504,736

  7,506,834

  11,573,580

  12,872,923

  Coldingley

  6,714,472

  3,227,938

  3,304,663

  3,385,424

  7,909,234

  8,151,903

  Cookham Wood

  3,126,929

  13,593,186

  13,503,044

  14,982,068

  3,576.878

  3,973,515

  Dartmoor

  12,835,557

  8,132,314

  8,821,695

  9,561,925

  14,631,698

  14,952,729

  Deerbolt

  7,620,113

  4,662,999

  4,929,515

  5,455,195

  9,711,053

  10,672,540

  Dorchester

  4,445,551

  6,014,723

  6,365,773

  6,620,509

  5,726,272

  6,397,176

  Dover

  5,633,165

  6,392,905

  6,668,344

  6,491,510

  6,728,429

  7,531,999

  Downview

  6,199,171

  4,255,108

  4,625,943

  4,711,306

  7,158,940

  8,572,194

  Drake Hall

  4,056,811

  19,708,046

  20,409,679

  21,911,360

  5,694,213

  6,516,051

  Durham

  18,607,149

  1,793,731

  1,887,069

  2,002,554

  22,550,479

  23,777,700

  East Sutton Park

  1,773,122

  5,870,662

  6,848,512

  7,131,671

  2,198,632

  2,663,045

  Eastwood Park

  4,607,587

  14,200,527

  14,523,519

  15,212,300

  7,352,500

  8,042,491

  Elmley

  12,632,506

  5,690,464

  6,074,310

  6,392,089

  15,151,353

  16,103,052

  Erlestoke

  5,610,877

  7,879,992

  8,142,013

  8,193,360

  6,191,130

  6,908,722

  Everthorpe

  7,597,540

  9,041,398

  9,854,666

  9,811,721

  7,959,428

  8,302,402

  Exeter

  8,459,288

  11,180,260

  11,297,289

  11,717,517

  10,282,669

  11,607,391

  Featherstone

  10,686,762

  17,065,612

  19,331,692

  24,010,372

  12,549,693

  13,097,562

  Feltham

  16,214,569

  6,106,107

  6,007,952

  6,371,063

  24,409,616

  30,914,848

  Ford

  5,977,876

  4,120,051

  4,456,984

  4,950,895

  6,271,678

  7.235,485

  Foston Hall

  3,158,492

  20,685,706

  23,178,174

  24,079,724

  5,299,241

  6,645,225

  Frankland

  17,174,531

  21,743,468

  22,664,102

  23,505,345

  24,550,210

  26,165,447

  228W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]91,100 sentenced prisoners were discharged from prisons in England and Wales in 2002.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Bromsfield prison will be ready to receive prisoners. [147371]

  Paul Goggins
  Construction of Her Majesty's Prison Bromsfield is progressing to schedule and the prison will be ready to open on 17 June 2004, the date specified in the contract.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) annual cost and (b) original budget figure for running each prison was in each year since 1997. [147418]

  Paul Goggins
  The table sets out the expenditure, net of any receipts from other Government Departments (Department for Education and Skills, Department of Health and Youth Justice Board), for the public sector prisons for the financial years 199–8 to 200–3.

  It would incur disproportionate cost to provide details of the original budget allocations to establishments.
  229W

  Establishment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Full Sutton

  20,454,411

  11,862,882

  12,200,677

  12,876,755

  23,541,026

  24,773,246

  Garth

  11,464,277

  8,522,977

  8,918,173

  9,217,605

  12,879,054

  13.576,683

  Gartree

  8,352,713

  14,266,498

  15,462,663

  15,968,177

  8,886,522

  8,907,622

  Glen Parva

  13,386,394

  6,271,350

  6,563,470

  6,922,287

  16,615,880

  17,838,628

  Gloucester

  6,209,360

  9,658,212

  10,507,804

  11,295,755

  7,417,888

  7,925,897

  Grendon

  9,211,347

  7,295,626

  8,132,646

  8,358,283

  11,293,398

  11,834,438

  Guys Marsh

  6,230,232

  2,700,663

  2,875,447

  2,948,844

  8,103,303

  8,984,586

  Haslar

  2,390,006

  3,153,390

  3,107,653

  4,400,554

  2,847.598

  3,430,226

  Hatfield

  4,008,611

  9,223,118

  9,012,125

  9,291,388

  4,116,132

  merge with moorland

  Haverigg

  9,551,875

  2,560,980

  2,650,196

  2,777,519

  9,638,719

  9,846,313

  Hewell Grange

  2,641,559

  16,295,901

  16,499,110

  17,423,192

  3,018,642

  3,073,260

  High Down

  14,750,866

  13,250,074

  14,677,886

  15,485,655

  17,266,744

  18,620,299

  Highpoint

  11,694,637

  10,801,497

  11,287,011

  11,883,438

  16,860,131

  18,628,779

  Hindley

  10,569,836

  9,512,609

  10,632,555

  11,699,929

  13,429,476

  17,104,335

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  10,762,342

  18,388,002

  19,004,311

  19,759,757

  12,710.164

  14,900,729

  Holloway

  17,843,585

  14,779,354

  15,400,969

  16,697,115

  20,210,798

  24,950,875

  HolmeHouse

  14,409,492

  12,209,399

  12,872,717

  13,376,716

  16,789,328

  18,220,248

  Hull

  11,720,848

  7,268,697

  8,249,263

  8,905,472

  13,824,391

  17,551,047

  Huntercombe

  5,253,859

  4,238,987

  4,518,246

  4,945,046

  10,066,596

  12,126,323

  Kingston

  3,951,883

  9,877,289

  9,927,441

  9,671,523

  4,748,471

  5,133,177

  Kirkharn

  9,759,154

  2,355,686

  2,665,271

  2,745,209

  10.642.725

  11,292,357

  Kirklevington range

  2,439,348

  4,797,324

  5,062,966

  5,293,531

  2,806,220

  3,088,564

  Lancaster Castle

  4,638,957

  9,833,263

  10,461,778

  11,808,158

  5,718,902

  6,137,630

  Lancaster Farms

  9,661,162

  2,451,116

  2,786,779

  2,838,862

  11,726,248

  13,087,839

  Latchmere House

  2,496,035

  20,059,553

  21,338,015

  23,720,772

  3,052,466

  3,419,175

  Leeds

  18,394,596

  7,864,959

  7,886,714

  8,294,295

  23,291,510

  24,161,348

  Leicester

  7,927,419

  9,304,629

  9,951,118

  9,929,541

  8,204,348

  81462,450

  Lewes

  9,234,680

  7,708,880

  8,008,974

  8,298,615

  9,985,425

  10,262,873

  Leyhill

  7,173,428

  10,775,537

  11,163,759

  11,436,103

  8,585,073

  9,761,621

  Lincoln

  10,822,223

  13,758,543

  14,237,522

  15,677,113

  11,655,841

  13,468,973

  Lindholme

  12,241,535

  9,087,894

  9,454,701

  10,094,258

  15,386,512

  16,782,005

  Littlehey

  8,960,232

  23,977,904

  25,072,336

  26,382,433

  10,376,197

  10,532,341

  Liverpool

  23,391,485

  17,348,401

  19,035,891

  19,767,607

  25,565,332

  26,779,122

  Long Lartin

  15,764,682

  6,159,671

  6,744,065

  7,037,553

  20,122,537

  20,297,349

  Low Newton

  5,770,762

  10,657,161

  10,804,102

  11,464,235

  7,547,572

  8,027,668

  Maidstone

  9,817,528

  25,904,732

  26,780,910

  28,052,557

  10,405,357

  11,094,821

  Manchester

  23,679,485

  13,222,451

  13,684,732

  14,421,919

  26,037,371

  25,453,776

  Moorland

  12,184,621

  2,592,947

  2,673,555

  3,277,930

  15,006,469

  20,902,463

  Morton Hall

  2,536,317

  8,787,099

  10,079,426

  11,397,462

  4,821,307

  6,514,375

  Mount (The)

  8,296,716

  7,514,987

  8,014,446

  8,733,767

  11,565,509

  12,808,539

  New Hall

  6,982,789

  3,220,748

  3,310,007

  3,742,731

  10,413,876

  11,888,471

  North Sea Camp

  3,315,222

  4,733,976

  4,867,453

  5,485,692

  3,738,139

  4,446,814

  Northallerton

  4,727,462

  12,264,199

  13,246,302

  13,817,885

  5,080,145

  5,273,815

  Norwich

  11,865,139

  8,633,539

  9,771,270

  10,207,330

  14,164,851

  15,229,088

  Nottingham

  8,140,323

  10,546,373

  12,044,121

  12,673,587

  10,413,672

  11,178,582

  Onley

  9,232,294

  11,014,381

  11,848,896

  12,216,694

  13,566,358

  14.770,000

  Parkhurst

  10,806,067

  19,311,606

  20,079,586

  20,816,593

  12,434,863

  13,259,482

  Pentonville

  17,276,316

  9,259,219

  9,703,555

  10,719,880

  22,239,323

  25,047,521

  Portland

  8,844,909

  12,048,350

  12,473,587

  12,699,382

  11,333,924

  11,106,772

  Preston

  12,567,260

  10,875,729

  11,901,688

  12,902,004

  13,192,099

  14,005,563

  Ranby

  9,256,035

  5,501,540

  5,884,279

  6,417,856

  12,851,506

  14,269,727

  Reading

  5,045,213

  15,983,571

  15,450,926

  15,920,099

  6,761,178

  7,080,270

  Risley

  15,895,377

  8,230,782

  8,805,058

  9,335,373

  16,393,281

  18,221,821

  Rochester

  8,035,427

  3,531,672

  4,155,955

  4,535,019

  8,790,555

  8,601,059

  Send

  3,291,301

  4,205,992

  4,673,206

  4,915,667

  4,609,307

  4,973,567

  Shepton Mallet

  3,938,431

  5,880,953

  6,352,381

  6,640,281

  4,833,094

  4,990,999

  Shrewsbury

  5,493,907

  9,824,844

  10,484,861

  10,924,138

  6,518,034

  7,340,719

  Stafford

  9,451,888

  6,305,489

  6,373,876

  6,648,876

  10,624,651

  12,305,294

  Standford Hill

  6,269,281

  8,297,202

  8,910,829

  9,334,943

  7,308,028

  8,107,638

  Stocken

  7,220,581

  9,840,541

  11,109,509

  12,861,620

  9,454,466

  10,199,203

  Stoke Heath

  8,374,468

  8,701,379

  10,340,864

  10,453,733

  13,631,592

  15,705,333

  Styal

  6,462,026

  7,002,129

  7,248,636

  7,446,036

  10,894,273

  11,529.555

  Sudbury

  6,914,035

  11,175,124

  12,643,399

  13,300,578

  7,606,310

  7,700.779

  Swaleside

  10,858,272

  6,789,513

  7,007,193

  7,235,116

  13,493,143

  13,776.388

  Swansea

  6,524,813

  6,646,469

  7,035,146

  7,138,237

  7,511,933

  8,219,128

  Swinfen Hall

  5,193,891

  6,322,349

  6,637,515

  6,875,677

  7,445,594

  7,860,939

  Thorn Cross

  6,140,617

  5,423,030

  5,978,839

  6,415,420

  7,369,808

  7,370,209

  Usk/HMYOI Prescoed

  5,221,149

  8,624,297

  8,775,236

  9,026,083

  6,805,526

  7,171,809

  Verne (The)

  8,493,944

  18,687,468

  18,979,626

  20,327,832

  9,534,353

  10,002,290

  Wakefield

  17,706,563

  21,530,155

  23,135,281

  24,660,699

  19,914,099

  20,955,508

  Wandsworth

  20,228,522

  9,035,066

  9,678,517

  9,965,816

  25,450,136

  27,936,164

  Wayland

  8,788,315

  9,579,654

  10,346,156

  10,778,946

  9,928,885

  10,818,403

  Wealstun

  9,534,969

  7,019,536

  6,835,969

  7,126,526

  10,870,434

  11,659,314

  230W 231W

  Establishment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Weare (The)

  6,062,308

  6,777,199

  8,662,259

  9,059,926

  7,340,016

  7–920,458

  Wellingborough

  6,024,330

  4,593,312

  4,673,381

  5,001,314

  9,133,034

  9,306,369

  Werrington

  3,600,342

  6,813,413

  7,510,166

  8,165,532

  5,105,326

  5,820,567

  Wetherby

  6,096,628

  4,303,089

  4,588,726

  4,784,995

  8,645,080

  10,161,472

  Whatton

  4,033,449

  20,326,350

  20,794,066

  22,226,567

  4.877,528

  5,783,699

  Whitemoor

  19,743,783

  10,989,602

  11,191,441

  11,468,743

  22,611,769

  24,138,779

  Winchester

  11,532,770

  18,838,067

  19,316,507

  21,582,330

  11,907,739

  13,206,337

  Woodhill

  17,230,414

  20,861,114

  21,159,767

  22,736,149

  22,103.665

  23,631,597

  Wormwood Scrubs

  20,654,121

  13,310,312

  14,274,322

  15,150,405

  23,256,552

  24,691,189

  Wymott

  13,519,807

  —

  —

  —

  14,929,816

  15,501,820

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the smaller prisons that are being considered for closure to redirect resources into community punishments. [147431]

  (2)if he will list the sites that are being considered to erect the new generation of larger prisons. [147432]

  (3)if he will publish the detailed investment case that the Department is making to the Treasury to close smaller prisons and erect larger prisons. [147433]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office is working on a value for money case for a replacement programme to create a new generation of larger prisons with the facilities needed to deliver effective programmes designed to reduce re-offending. New large prisons could also provide economies of scale, which would allow us to close some smaller prisons and redirect resources to community punishments. This case will be subject of discussion in the forthcoming Spending Review the outcome of which will be published. We will not publish the case we make to the Treasury on which decisions are taken.

  There is an established procedure for the announcement of decisions to change the role of or close prisons. Once Ministers take a decision to change the role of or close a prison, staff and local MP's affected by the change or closure are briefed before the formal announcement.

  A survey has been commissioned to identify suitable sites for new, large prisons although no sites have yet been purchased or other commitments made. To be effective in delivering regimes that aid rehabilitation and reduce re-offending new sites need to be close to, or have good transport links with, large conurbations. The search is concentrating on sites available in London and the south east, the west Midlands, the north west and Wales. These are the regions that have the greatest need for additional prison capacity at this stage.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of mandatory drug testing in prisons. [143382]

  (2) when he will publish the findings of the research into the effectiveness of mandatory drug testing in prisons. [144261]

  Paul Goggins
  A research study on the impact of the Mandatory Drug Testing programme in prisons is being undertaken by the Office for National Statistics and National Addiction Centre. Their report is now expected to be available in the Spring of 2004.
  232W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of seasonal variations in the seizure of illegal drugs(a) within prisons and (b) from individuals visiting prisons. [143402]

  (2) what assessment he has made of seasonal variations in the rate of positive mandatory drug tests in prisons. [144269]

  Paul Goggins
  Available data on seizures of drugs in prisons and on visitors involved in suspicious incidents do not show any seasonal trends. Random mandatory drug test (MDT) rates in prisons fluctuate quite widely on a monthly basis. However, there is some evidence nationally of a pattern of slight increases in drug misuse in the months of July, August and December.

  Probation Boards
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of establishing and running probation boards was in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [147627]

  Paul Goggins
  The cost of running the local probation boards in the three years in question is:

  £ million

  2000–01 (Estimated)

  529 5

  2001–02

  580.1

  2001–03

  626.8

  The estimated transition costs incurred to set up the new board arrangements was £2 million, excluding the costs of amalgamating some of the boards. Prior to April 2001, there were 54 probation committees. These were largely autonomous organisations, and produced their own accounts under local authority rules and guidelines. The accounts were not consolidated by the Home Office. The accounts for 2000–01 also included the cost of the Family Court Welfare Service, which transferred out of the Probation Service on 1 April 2001 and is therefore not included in the costs for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Rape/Sexual Offences Helpline
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the national helpline for victims of rape and sexual offences will be operational. [146769]

  Paul Goggins
  Plans for the national rape helpline are currently being developed and this matter is under consideration.

  Sex Offender Orders
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders are subject to sex offender orders; and how many sex offender orders have been granted in each year since 1999. [143388]

  Paul Goggins
  Sex Offenders Orders (SOOs) came into force on 1 December 1998 under the Crime and Disorder Act and were subsequently amended by the Police Reform Act 2002. There is no centrally held record of the number of offenders currently the subject of a SOO. However, a SOO has effect for a period not less than five years and can only be discharged before the end of this period with the consent of the police and the defendant. In addition, an individual may only be subject to one SOO at any one time. Therefore the number of SOOs granted by the courts may be used as an estimate to the number of offenders currently subject to such orders.

  Since 2001, statistics on the number of SOOs have been collated under the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). On 15 September this year, I made a Written Statement to the House announcing the publication of the 2002–03 MAPPA Annual Reports, copies of which I placed in the Library.

  Statistics in MAPPA annual reports show that in the period 2002–03, 91 orders were granted. In the period 2001–02, 81 orders were granted.

  Between 1 December 1998 and 31 March 2001, it is estimated that a total of 92 SOOs were made

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure that all relevant Inspectorates implement Recommendation 2.15 of the Joint Chief Inspectors' report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children. [146289]

  Paul Goggins
  The three relevant Home Office Inspectorates are Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation. I am not able to comment on action by other Inspectorates.

  Inspection activity is currently being undertaken by the Home Office Inspectorates in respect of relevant aspects of recommendation 2.15 of the joint Chief Inspectors' report, as follows:

  (a) In relation to young offender institutions, inspection of child protection arrangements is a central part of each inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons of Young Offender Institutions and Immigration Removal Centres holding children and young people aged under 18 years. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons also advises Her Majesty's Prison Service on children's safeguarding matters, for example supporting a recent review of safeguarding arrangements in all Young Offender Institutions holding children. The inspectorate also undertakes joint inspection of Secure Training Centres with the Social Service Inspectorate.

  (b) In relation to the impact of domestic violence on children:
  234W
  Police issues: Domestic violence is an area of police activity specifically considered by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) during scheduled Inspections of police forces undertaken during a year. In addition, during 2003, a joint inspection of domestic violence was undertaken by HMIC and the Crown Prosecution Services Inspectorate, which included specific consideration of children's safeguarding issues. The report is due to be published early in 2004. A major HMIC Thematic Inspection on Child Protection is also planned for 2004, to address one of the recommendations made by Lord Laming following the Climbie Inquiry.
  Probation issues: A thematic element on domestic violence, with a clear focus on children, has been included in the main inspection programme of probation areas by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation—the Effective Supervision Inspection programme. The report on this element is due to be published in summer 2004. The Effective Supervision Inspection programme also includes general consideration of child protection issues in all probation areas.

  (c) In relation to the work of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), a joint inspection programme of YOTs is under way, led by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation with involvement from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (along with four other inspectorates). The methodology has been designed to ensure that children's safeguarding issues are covered specifically from early in 2004.

  More generally, alongside the specific work above, the Government have put in place arrangements to commission from the Chief Inspectors of services involved with children a joint report on children's safeguards every three years. The next report is due in 2005, A Steering Group involving nine Inspectorates or other regulatory bodies and led by the Social Services Inspectorate has been established to prepare for this.

  It is intended that the aim of the report will be:
  To review the arrangements across agencies to safeguard children, giving particular attention to children's views and experiences, progress since the last report and the areas identified within the first review as requiring more attention. The review will result in a report to Government making recommendations as necessary

  The themes and subject areas identified have been chosen to ensure that each of the issues highlighted in recommendation 2.15 of the last report is covered. Much of the inspection work will relate to cross-cutting issues between agencies.

  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the effectiveness of the guidance on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. [146290]

  Paul Goggins
  Comprehensive guidance about vulnerable or intimidated witnesses (VIWs) was issued to practitioners in January 2002. There are no current plans to review this guidance.

  Rules of Court relating to Special Measures Directions under the 1999 Act came into force on 24 July 2002. These rules are now being reviewed to improve their effectiveness and it is expected that amending rules will be issued in the spring.
  235W
  Individual issues of effectiveness are considered as they arise by the national VIW steering group which meets regularly.

  Sexual Assault Referral Centres
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether it is his policy that sexual assault referral centres should be at hospitals; [146765]

  (2)what allocations have been made from the Home Office funds for sexual assault referral centres in 2003; and to whom; [146773]

  (3)what plans he has to increase the numbers of sexual assault referral centres; when he intends further such centres to be in operation; and where they will be located; [146774]

  (4)whether it is his policy that health trusts should be involved in the (a) establishment and (b) running of sexual assault referral centres in co-operation with the police; [146766]

  (5) when the results of the evaluation of the sexual assault referral centres (a) Star, (b) Reach anda1 (c) St. Mary's will be published; [146775]

  (6) what the current estimate is of (a) the cost of establishing a sexual assault referral centre if a new build is necessary and (b) the annual cost of running a sexual assault referral centre; [146770]

  (7) what directive has been issued to police forces on the role they ought to play in establishing sexual assault referral centres in areas where there are none; [146771]

  (8) how he intends that further sexual assault referral centres should be financed for (a) capital and (b) revenue costs; [146772]

  (9) when he expects to publish the evaluation of the Forensic Nurse project at St. Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre. [146777]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government are currently considering ways in which further support may be provided to victims of sexual crime. This objective may be achieved through the use of Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs); rape crisis and other counselling and support services; national or local telephone helplines; or some combination of these. We are looking at all the options as part of the work being undertaken to implement the national strategy for victims and witnesses, which was published in July 2003.

  An Inter Departmental Ministerial Group (IDMG) on Sexual Offending has been set up. It comprises representation from the Home Office, Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Law Officers' Department, Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The group will focus on: prevention, protection, and support; taking forward the implementation of the Sexual Offences Act; and promoting an effective, joined up approach to tackling sexual offending. The Inter Departmental Ministerial Group will consider provisions for victims of sexual offences, including issues around the development and funding of SARCs throughout England and Wales.
  236W
  The Home Office has funded research into three existing SARCs: St. Mary's, Reach and Star. The interventions, which were funded from July 2000 to the end of March 2003, included: training a forensic nurse to conduct forensic examinations; an intervention to help reduce attrition; and an intervention to support young victims of sexual violence. An independent evaluation of these interventions and of the overall services of the three SARCs has now been completed and the findings are due to be published in late spring 2004.

  No directive has been issued to the police or health trusts on the role that they ought to play in the establishment of SARCs. The research findings and the Inter Departmental Ministerial Group will inform future policy on the development and funding of SARCs, including the development of good practice guidance. This will draw on the experience of existing SARC managers and victims.

  Many existing SARCs are based at hospitals and the police have worked closely with health trusts in their establishment. However, different models of SARC will be best suited to different areas and the needs of the local community. Funding of existing SARCs has been negotiated and agreed locally, in most cases between the police and local health authority. The cost of establishing and running a SARC will vary according to the model.

  The Home Office recently made funds available to support the development of SARCs. In September all police authorities were invited to bid for this funding. Grant offers are being finalised and an announcement will follow shortly.

  Sexual Offenders
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which steps are being taken to avoid offenders on the sexual offenders register(a) absconding and (b) changing their names without informing the police; [149680]

  (2) how frequently offenders on the sexual offenders register who are resident in (a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon receive visits by the Cambridgeshire Constabulary. [149683]

  Paul Goggins
  The requirement for sex offenders to notify the police of their name and address was introduced in the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and has proved an invaluable tool in helping the police to monitor convicted sex offenders within their area. An offender who is subject to the notification requirements must inform the police within 14 days of using a new name or moving to a new address. A failure to comply with the requirements is a criminal offence, with the maximum punishment set at five years imprisonment. We estimate that compliance with the requirements is currently around 97 per cent.

  We are improving the notification requirements through the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Once the Act comes into force, relevant offenders will have to go to their local police station at least once every 12 months to confirm that the details held by the police are correct. They will also have to provide the police with their

  237W
  national insurance number and notify any change to their name or address within three days, rather than the current 14 days.

  The Sexual Offences Act also includes a new power which will enable the information notified by registered sex offenders to be regularly checked against information held by the Department of Work and Pensions, the UK Passport Service and the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency. The purpose of this is to verify that the information notified by relevant offenders is correct and this will help to identify more quickly those cases where an offender assumes a new name or address without telling the police or where an offender absconds.

  Sex offenders who are subject to the notification requirements will also:

  (a) continue to be visited by police officers as part of the routine management of sex offenders living in the community;

  (b) be subject to the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements which provide an increasingly effective way of enhancing public protection through better joint-agency working, including intelligence on where an offender is living and any other homes they may use;

  (c) have their details recorded on the new Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) database which will hold additional information and improve the sharing of intelligence between law enforcement agencies

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders on the sexual offenders register resident in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon are classed by the police to be low risk; [149682]

  (2) how many sexual offenders resident in (a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon were on the register for sexual offences on 1 January. [149684]

  Paul Goggins
  On 15 September 2003 I made a Written Statement to the House announcing the publication of the 2002–03 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Annual Reports, copies of which I placed in the Library of the House. Each of the 42 Areas of England and Wales publish a MAPPA Annual Report and this year's contain a more detailed breakdown of the number of sexual and violent offenders in each area and some of the outcomes of multi-agency public protection work. Cambridgeshire's

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speeding and traffic light offences detected by cameras1,2,3 1 in the Metropolitan Police District (including city of London), 1997–2001

  Fixed Penalties

  Court Proceedings

  Offence and year

  Number of tickets

  Estimated revenue (£)

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average fine (£)

  Speeding offences2

  1997

  15,300

  612,900

  2,500

  259,600

  102

  1998

  14,200

  566,200

  2,900

  356,800

  125

  1999

  13,000

  521,920

  2,600

  288,400

  111

  2000

  44,100

  1,910,700

  2,200

  256,700

  115

  2001

  52,100

  3,128,600

  4,500

  513,700

  114

  Traffic light offences3

  1997

  10,800

  433,900

  1,300

  94,200

  75

  1998

  9,700

  386,700

  1,200

  95,500

  78

  1999

  12,100

  483,200

  2,000

  178,300

  88

  238W
  MAPPA report stated that there were 282 registered offenders in the area on 31 March 2003. Statistics are not available for each town in the county.

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary has informed me that 42 per cent. of registered sex offenders in the county are classed as "low risk". In line with other police areas, the offenders classed as "very high risk" are visited at least once a month; those classed as "high risk", at least once every two months; those classed as "medium risk", at least once every six months and those classed as "low risk", at least once every 12 months.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department uses a database of individual small businesses for consultation purposes. [142476]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Yes, the Home Office has used the small firms database supplied by the Small Business Service twice

  Speeding
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much revenue the Metropolitan Police received from the operation of(a) speed and (b) red light cameras in 2002; and how much was (i) imposed and (ii) collected in fines resulting from (A) speed and (B) red light cameras in London in each of the last five years. [149795]

  Caroline Flint
  The amount of revenue which the Metropolitan Police received from the operation of safety (speed and red light) cameras in 2002 is not yet known. Police forces receive income from safety camera fixed penalties under the provisions of the national safety camera netting-off scheme. The London Safety Camera Partnership, of which the Metropolitan Police are a member, joined the scheme in July 2002. Partnership performance and revenue received, from this time up to March 2003, will be detailed in the next report on the progress of the national safety camera scheme. The Department for Transport, which manages the scheme, expect to publish this report in March 2004.

  Before 2002, the Metropolitan Police received no income from safety the number of speeding and red-light offences detected by cameras in the Metropolitan and City of London Police areas and the estimated revenue for the five years up to 2001 is shown in the table. Information for 2002 will be available in the next few months.
  239W

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speeding and traffic light offences detected by cameras1,2,3 in the Metropolitan Police District (including city of London), 1997–2001

  Fixed Penalties

  Court Proceedings

  Offence and year

  Number of tickets

  Estimated revenue(£)

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine(£)

  Average fine (£)

  2000

  22,200

  961,400

  5,900

  525,900

  88

  2001

  10,800

  646,900

  6,600

  478,800

  73

  1 Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types from 1999.

  2 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  3 Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.

  Note:

  1. Paid i.e. no further action.

  2. Estimate based on £40 fixed penalty charge to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to £60.

  3. Estimates were made to cover the loss of fixed penalty data by the Metropolitan Police for October 1999.

  4. Excludes City of London

  Widows and Widowers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) widows and (b) widowers have been widowed in such a way that an inquest has been required in each of the years 1997 to 2002. [145978]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not collected centrally.

  The number of inquests held in each year from 1997 to 2002 is contained in Table 3 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Deaths reported to coroners, England and Wales, 2002", a copy of which is in the Library. It is not possible to deduce from this table the proportion of deceased persons represented by those inquests who would have left a widow or widower.

  Women Prisoners
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of women held on remand. [142892]

  Paul Goggins
  The significant increase in the female prison population, and the wider consequences of this in terms of disruption to their families, particularly their children, underlines the importance of using custody as a last resort.

  The Women's Offending Reduction Programme (WORP) is a three-year programme that aims to promote a more focused and joined-up response to the range of factors that have an impact on why women offend.

  A long-term aim of the WORP is to reduce the number of women in custody. We are particularly concerned about the 58 per cent. of women held on remand who do not go on to receive a custodial sentence. This is why the WORP focuses on the need to maximise the opportunities for diversion at the pre-sentence stage.

  Gender specific training and guidance for sentencers, court report writers and bail information staff will be supported by the development of more appropriate community interventions that are better tailored to meet the needs of women, particularly those with mental health and substance misuse problems. Ensuring appropriate housing or bail hostel provision for women will also be key to reducing the use of remand. The
  240W
  potential for diversion is likely to be increased by improving the court's confidence in available community provision.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made by youth offending teams to escort juvenile prisoners home on release from prison. [144367]

  Paul Goggins
  Arrangements for escorting juveniles home on release are made on a case-by-case basis, usually at the final review meeting at the end of the period in custody. The preferred arrangement is for a parent, relation or other carer to meet the young person and take him or her home. Where this is not possible—for example, where alternative accommodation has been arranged—a youth offending team worker will usually accompany the young person.

  In reaching decisions the age and assessed vulnerability of the young person is always taken into account.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to provide drug treatment for young offenders addicted to drugs in(a) the north west and (b) Lancashire. [149965]

  Caroline Flint
  To ensure that effective treatment is available when it is needed, we have made significant investments in the youth justice system and drug treatment sector throughout the United Kingdom with the north west and Lancashire among those areas benefiting.

  Sustained investment in young peoples drug treatment, means that by March 2004 95 per cent. of all drug action teams (DATs) will provide a minimum of six different types of treatment interventions, which meet a tough set of young peoples focused quality standards. The interventions include restricted and Tier 3 services.

  In addition, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is providing £8.5million funding each year to give all 155 youth offending teams across England and Wales access to an allocated named drugs worker. The drugs worker is able to assess the needs of young people and ensure that they receive appropriate treatment or other interventions. This project is currently being evaluated by the Home Office.
  241W
  An arrest referral scheme for young people is currently being piloted, to get young offenders into treatment or other appropriate interventions as early as possible. £6 million is being invested to pilot arrest referral for young people in 10 high crime areas across England including Liverpool and Manchester. Trained staff in the police custody suites identify if young people have a substance misuse issue and refer them to appropriate treatment or intervention.

  Youth Justice System
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of deprivation of liberty in the youth justice system. [145172]

  Paul Goggins
  Young offenders should be deprived of their liberty only as a last resort. Courts considering a custodial sentence must be satisfied that the offending behaviour is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified or, in the case of a violent or sexual offence, that such a sentence is needed to protect the public from serious harm. The only other situation where custody can be given is where the young offender refuses to co-operate with the requirements of a supervision order or a drug treatment and testing order. The court must also explain in open court its reasons for giving custody.

  There is a further requirement where the court is considering making a Detention and Training Order on an offender below the age of 15: the court must additionally be satisfied that the young person is a persistent offender. (The Detention and Training Order is the standard order for offenders under 18 who are sentenced to custody).

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination is fully implemented within the youth justice system. [145174]

  Paul Goggins
  In 2004–05, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales will have a new diversity target. The precise form of words is still to be agreed but the aim will be to ensure that local outh offending 242W
  teams in England and Wales have measures in place to tackle differential outcomes for different ethnic groups within the youth justice system.

  To support this target, the YJB are working with the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders to help youth offending teams to produce action plans. This work will be informed by research commissioned by the YJB from Oxford University looking at the experiences of young black people in the youth justice system. This research is due to be published early in 2004.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) secure children's home places and (b) places for children in prison were available in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003; and if he will make a statement. [145213]

  Paul Goggins
  In April 2000, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) assumed responsibility for commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation for juveniles from the prison service, private sector, and local authority secure children's homes, and for setting and monitoring standards. Before then, there was no separate juvenile secure estate.

  Information is available on places in secure children's homes (see table) though not all would be used for young people in the criminal justice system. There were no designated places in 1997 for juveniles in prison service accommodation. For 2003–04, 3,066 places have been designated as being available for 15 to 17-year-olds in Young Offender Institutions-Young people below the age of 15 are not held in prison service accommodation.

  In 2003, in addition to the above, 194 places in England and Wales are available in Secure Training Centres (STCs). No STCs were in operation in 1997.

  Places approved at local authority secure children's homes in 1997 and 2003 were as follows:

  As at 31 March

  1997

  2003

  England

  330

  425

  Wales

  20

  20

  England and Wales

  350

  445

HEALTH

  Direct Payments
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  The Government are committed to see an increase in the take-up of direct payments, as they are an excellent way for individuals using social services to gain control and independence over their own lives. Direct payments are cash payments made in lieu of social service provisions to individuals who have been assessed as needing services. I understand that some councils are expressing some confusion about the ability of individuals using their direct payments to pay a spouse or other close relative.

  Direct payments cannot be used routinely by individuals to pay spouses, or close relatives who live in the same household. The regulations were changed in April 2003 to give local councils some discretion in this matter. They can allow payments to be made in this way, but only where they are satisfied that securing the service from the relative is necessary to meet satisfactorily that individual's need for that service.

  Regulations have never specified that close relatives living outside the household could not be paid using a direct payment and there is no legal restriction on individuals using their direct payment in this way. Councils are however able to make conditions about who can be employed in individual circumstances. There are often legitimate reasons for doing so but a decision should be taken according to the merits of each individual case.

  Hepatitis C Compensation Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Health(Dr. John Reid)
  The Department announced in August of last year the setting up of an ex-gratia payment scheme for people infected with Hepatitis C from National Health Service blood or blood products. Since that announcement, work has progressed on the detail of the scheme.

  The UK scheme will award eligible claimants with initial lump sum payments of £20,000 to all those who now have Hepatitis C from blood or blood products, with a further £25,000 being awarded when people reach a more advanced stage of illness.

  We feel that these are fair and reasonable payments and hope that they will help alleviate some of the problems people who have been affected in this way are experiencing.

  Work is ongoing to set up the independent body that will administer the scheme and to introduce the necessary legislation so that people will not lose their social security benefits as a result.
  2WS
  In the course of negotiations we have been able to define a further level of detail on eligibility and scheme administration which will be advantageous to claimants. In particular, bureaucracy will be minimised for people making a claim, in recognition that it will be difficult for some people to gather evidence from twenty years ago.

  The scope of the scheme has also been extended to include people who have cleared the virus as a result of treatment and to those infected as a result of the virus being transmitted from someone who was infected from blood or blood products. The scheme will also consider people who were infected with HIV as well as Hepatitis C in the same way as those only infected with the Hepatitis C virus.

  Work is progressing on finalising the application process for awards and setting up the independent body that will administer the scheme. Organisations such as the Haemophilia Society and Hepatitis C Trust will be fully involved in that work to help ensure the procedures are as user friendly as possible.

  We will work with the relevant organisations to ensure claimants know what to do to make an application.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Post-Primary Education
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Jane Kennedy)
  The Government are today publishing the report from the working group, chaired by Mr. Steve Costello, which was asked to provide advice about new post-primary arrangements in Northern Ireland. Copies of the report are being placed in the Library. As part of its remit, the working group was asked to take account of the responses to the extensive consultation on the Burns report, including the diversity of views on academic selection.

  The working group's advice has been carefully considered. The review of post-primary education has been ongoing for over 5 years. The uncertainty about the shape of post-primary education must be ended. The Government believe that the advice provides a sound basis for moving forward and has accepted the recommendations in full.

  Many Northern Ireland schools enjoy a high reputation, but the current transfer and post-primary arrangements have significant weaknesses. They do well for some pupils but not for others, and there are inequalities of access. These issues must be addressed.

  The key concept of the new arrangements is an entitlement framework to guarantee access for all pupils to a wide range of academic and vocational course options. This will directly address the current disparity of access to courses and, for the first time, secure a proportion of provision as being vocational. It will complement the revised statutory curriculum being proposed by CCEA and will provide increasing choice and flexibility as pupils mature. Extensive collaboration among schools and with FE colleges will be required in order to secure the full range of provision in each locality.
  3WS
  The working group advised that any alternative selection arrangements would be no less problematical than the current arrangements; that it is educationally unsound to select pupils at age eleven; that eleven is too early to commit pupils to particular pathways; and that it is unsound to believe that the more able should follow only academic courses. Academic selection will end and new transfer arrangements will be based on informed parental and pupil choice. An academic route will remain available, but pupils and parents will choose this pathway rather than being selected for it.

  Ending the transfer tests immediately would create a huge demand for places in popular schools and it will be necessary to create the conditions for new arrangements to work. The entitlement framework and the associated collaboration arrangements will need to be in place. The pupil profile, being developed by CCEA, will also need to be in place to give parents the information to help make informed decisions, and new admissions criteria will be required to determine admissions where schools are oversubscribed. The group recommended that further work is required to determine those criteria and Government will be taking this forward immediately.

  To provide the time to create the conditions to end the tests, the working group recommended that the last tests should be held in Autumn 2008. The Government have accepted this advice.

  The Government are not specifying what types of schools will exist under future arrangements. Any school offering access to the entitlement framework has a place in the new arrangements. These could include new school types such as specialist schools able to respond to local opportunities and needs. Schools where the curricular emphasis is on academic courses will continue to exist provided they meet the entitlement framework, including access to a range of vocational courses as well as academic courses.

  Implementation will involve schools and FE colleges working together to develop arrangements for their area. Support will be provided to help them through this process and to facilitate local discussion and decision-making. Officials will be taking forward consideration of related policy issues such as school transport, open enrolment and the arrangements for school funding. This work, and the work on admissions criteria, will provide opportunities for consultation with education partners and others on the detailed aspects of the proposals.

  The Government believe the working group has charted a way forward which deserves the widest support. It is a new and bold approach to guarantee access to an educational entitlement for every pupil irrespective of their background or circumstances, where they live, or the school they attend. It will impact on all schools and the Government will be working in partnership with the education sector to tailor the post-primary arrangements to meet the specific needs of Northern Ireland.

  Pupils need to be prepared for life and work in a modern technological world and a global economic market where the pace of change is accelerating. The Government's decisions today create the conditions to take this forward, to raise standards for all pupils and provide the world-class education they rightly deserve.
  4WS

  Northern Ireland Prison Service
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Jane Kennedy)
  The Director General of the Northern Ireland Prison Service acts as accounting officer for the resources allocated to the prison service in accordance with the financial arrangements set out in the framework document.

  To reflect current business needs, I have approved the following increases to this delegated authority.

  Amount and Conditions

  1. Capital

  New works

  £3 million plus VAT for any one project (previously £2 million plus VAT)

  Purchase of land

  £1 million for any one project(previously £150,000 plus VAT

  2. Losses

  Write off losses coming under Section 36 of "Government Accounting"

  £50,000 (previously £10,000)

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agricultural Merchants and Saddlers
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  With the consent of the Treasury, the schedule of fees for registration, retention and restoration of Agricultural Merchants and Saddlers with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain effective from January 2004 has been determined. This is given in the attached table:

  Fees

  Applications is respect of each premises

  Previous fee£

  New fee £

  Agricultural Merchants

  For registration under Article 5

  232

  232

  For retention of registration under Article 5

  153

  161

  For restoration of registration under Article 5

  197

  197

  Saddlers

  For registration under Article 5

  127

  127

  For retention of registration under Article 5

  83

  85

  For restoration of registration under Article 5

  107

  107

DEFENCE

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  I am pleased to report to the House the latest developments in our plans to provide the Royal Air Force with a modern replacement air refuelling capability. The future strategic tanker aircraft (FSTA) programme is planned to replace the RAF's ageing fleet
  5WS
  of VC10 and TriStar aircraft around the end of the decade. We have been considering for some time whether the FSTA capability can be provided through a service-based contract with industry under the private finance initiative (PFI). I can now report that, following a detailed assessment process, a bid from AirTanker Ltd has been judged to offer the best prospective value for money PFI solution to the FSTA requirement. This decision marks a key milestone on this vital project.

  Under a PFI contract, industry would own and maintain the aircraft and provide training services, infrastructure and some personnel, whilst the RAF would undertake military operations. A PFI contract has the potential to offer considerable scope for innovation, not least because the contractor will be able to use aircraft not required by the RAF in peacetime to generate revenue, through commercial usage. Industry is also best placed to manage the through life risks of owning a fleet of modern jet airline aircraft. Two PFI consortiums submitted bids last year. AirTanker Ltd, which comprises Rolls Royce, EADS, Cobham and Thales, proposed a service using Airbus A330 aircraft, while the Tanker Transport Services Company (TTSC), which comprises BAE Systems, Boeing, Serco and Spectrum Capital, proposed a service using Boeing 767 aircraft. The competition was keenly fought. However, our judgment is that AirTanker's proposal offers the best prospective solution for the armed forces, the taxpayer and UK industry.

  We will now take forward single bidder negotiations with AirTanker Ltd, aimed at concluding a PFI contract as soon as possible. I should stress however, this remains a complex and challenging PFI programme. A number of detailed issues remain to be resolved and we look to AirTanker to work with us over the coming months to resolve the outstanding issues. A final decision on whether or not to proceed with a PFI contract will not be taken until these negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded. I will of course ensure that the House is kept fully in touch with significant developments.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education Funding
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills(Mr. Charles Clarke)
  In my statement to the House on 8 January I set out measures to improve the student support arrangements that would operate alongside the introduction of variable tuition fees in higher education from autumn 2006. I said we would establish an independent review, working with the Office for Fair Access, to report to the House, on all aspects of the new arrangements based on the first three years' operation of the policy. I can now give more details on the draft remit 6WS
  of the review. During the passage of the Bill I would welcome comments and suggestions for amendments to this remit.

  The review, which will be conducted by a commission, will work on the basis of evidence from the first three years' operation of the variable fee arrangements. It will report to Parliament and will cover three main areas.

  The impact of the new arrangements on higher education institutions (HEIs):
  Charging policies, and how far HEIs have varied their fees.
  The additional income HEIs have raised and how they have used it.
  The provision of bursaries and other financial support.
  Any effect on the range, mix and take-up of subjects and qualifications offered, including any effect on foundation degrees, courses lasting longer than three years and the regional composition of HEI provision.
  A financial assessment of the relative impact on different parts of the higher education sector, and an analysis of future funding pressures.

  The impact of the new arrangements on students and prospective students
  Overall level of application and participation in higher education.
  Student support arrangements, including those for those from the poorest backgrounds as well as those above the threshold for Government support.
  Choice of institution and course, mode of study (full time/ part time)
  Quality of teaching received, attainment, and likelihood of completing a course.
  Levels of debt; students' assessment of the value of HE, and rates of return from gaining a degree.
  Patterns in subsequent employment—particularly recruitment to the public services—or decisions to go on to further study.
  Any differential effect on particular groups; for example, lower socio economic groups; men and women; different ethnic groups; people with disabilities; people from different regions.

  Future policy
  Whether any improvements should be made to the graduate contribution scheme and the upper limit for tuition fees.
  What changes should be made to the arrangements for student support in order to ensure that students from the poorest family backgrounds on the most expensive courses receive support at a level equivalent to the maximum level of fees.

  I would expect the commission to work with the Office for Fair Access, as well as seeking views from a range of other interests. The Government will consider any report before submitting any recommendation to the House on raising the upper limit of the tuition fee.

  Work to establish baseline data for the review will begin in the 2004–05 academic year.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bishop of Manchester.

Government Investment and Planning
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve the way that United Kingdom industry and research contribute to the future policies, investments and operations of government departments and agencies, especially those involving advanced technology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government believe that, in order to get the best value for money, they must act as intelligent customers. The recently issued Innovation Report and the report of the Office of Government Commerce to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Increasing Competition and Long-Term Capacity Planning in the Government Market Place, put forward proposals on how government departments should procure goods and services in such a way as to encourage innovation and competitive advantage in their suppliers.
The proposals are being taken forward by the implementation plan of the OGC's report and by a cross-departmental ministerial group chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Government's
2
policies, which I support, now meet the concerns, expressed by this House's Science and Technology Select Committee and the CBI, that investment and future planning decisions that should involve high technology are being taken by government departments and agencies without considering at an early stage how UK industry and research could contribute? Would that not be the best way of encouraging the high-tech entrepreneurship advocated today by the Chancellor? Should not the job descriptions of most agency chief executives now include an explicit duty to collaborate with UK industry? I declare an interest as a former chief executive and director.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is exactly what we are trying to achieve by encouraging government departments and agencies to act as intelligent customers. As we take forward that agenda, we will make certain that there is nothing in their job descriptions that inhibits either civil servants or chief executives of agencies doing so.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on how successful the Office of Science and Technology has been in promoting knowledge transfer across the universities, research organisations and businesses throughout Britain?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in the past five years the Office of Science and Technology has undertaken much work in the area of knowledge transfer through three schemes: University Challenge, science enterprise centres and the Higher Education Innovation Fund. That has been a huge success. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of spin-off companies and the number of patents and licences, which are of a higher order of magnitude—showing that there has been a real cultural change in our universities.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that departments can do that job

3
better if their budgets are increasing, rather than decreasing? Have not the R&D budgets of most government departments fallen dramatically over the past 20 years? In particular, would he comment on the budget of Defra, which, despite climate change and the many challenges facing the industry, has been falling extremely quickly?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is clearly easier to do the job better when budgets are increasing rather than decreasing. That is true of many activities in life. In fact, the R&D budgets of government departments, having fallen sharply, are now, as a whole, flat or increasing. We wish to see that trend continuing, which is why we are putting so much emphasis on having properly costed science and innovation strategies for each government department.

Public Appointments
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the publication of Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2003, they are satisfied with each government department's reported progress towards their 2005 targets as specified in the Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies: Opening up Public Appointments 2002–2005.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, diversity is increasing. For example, women now hold 35.7 per cent of public appointments compared with 32 per cent in 1997. The Government want boards of public bodies both to be appointed on merit, having the necessary skills and experience, and to be more representative of society as a whole. Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2003 outlines what each central government department is doing to increase diversity on the boards of its public bodies and includes individual departmental action plans and targets. Progress has been made but there is still much more to do.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and partly encouraging reply. However, can he give a firmer guarantee that all those targets, particularly the 45 to 50 per cent target for women, will be achieved by 2006? Will the Minister focus for a moment on appointments to senior positions? Will he give an undertaking to make public annually the percentages of women and other groups who hold positions of chairmen and deputy chairmen and give the comparison between the percentage of the same groups that hold remunerated rather than non-remunerated positions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be impossible for me to commit the Government
4
absolutely to meeting all of those targets in the time-frame that the noble Baroness has outlined, not least because only around 10 per cent of public appointments come up annually. Hitting those targets is a somewhat imprecise science. I am aware that in the past the noble Baroness has asked questions about senior appointments. My understanding is that, from responses given in Written Answers, those data are publicly available and can be published regularly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister say whether times have changed since I sat on a women's committee, trying desperately to achieve more women appointments and we were given "the old run-around"? When we applied to the departments they said, "No, you need to go onto the general list". When we applied to the general list we were told that each department holds its own. Has that changed and is there any more direct way for women to get there now?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would hate to think that the noble Baroness was given the "run-around". That is an appalling prospect which I could not support at all. Since the Government came into office in 1997 the percentage of women appointed to public bodies has increased. With the setting of targets—and the meeting of them by many departments—we are achieving much more than was achieved in the past. I am sure that all noble Lords would support that.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister able to answer the second part of the Question asked by my noble friend Lady Howe: is it possible to publish the proportions of paid and unpaid senior appointments?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall certainly undertake to see whether we can achieve that, as it is highly desirable.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend share my disappointment that it is only women asking all these supplementary questions?
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, that is because the women are jumping in earlier than the men.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Am I disappointed, my Lords? Yes, I suppose that I am.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, perhaps I may make a comment—or pose a question. A very firm letter should be sent to government executives along the lines of those that I received when I was at the Met Office, which transformed the numbers of women and ethnic minorities on our board. Are the Government really pressing the matter? The difference between departments is extraordinary. Some have very few numbers; others are doing very well. Why is there such a big difference?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it does vary; I am sure that there are explanations. One is that the rate at which public appointments come up is much slower in some departments by comparison with others. Some problems will be inherited; for example, having smaller numbers of people with the right technical expertise for more technical appointments. But the noble Lord is right; we must do everything that we can to encourage meeting and matching the targets that the Government have rightly set.
Lord McNally: My Lords—
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords—
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason that the ladies got in first is that the age of gallantry has not passed on the Liberal Democrat Benches? I have ruined my point slightly, but I did not give way to the noble Baroness because she was always thought of as one of the chaps in the Foreign Office.
Is the Minister aware that this is a wholly welcome initiative, but that women often tend to be more self-censoring than men on their fitness for public office? How much effort are the Government putting into mentoring and getting publicity to women outside the usual circles to inform them that jobs are available, and that they are qualified and will be given help to do the job?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord was moving into rather dangerous territory; I shall not dig any further. He made a very serious point in the end. As part of the programme of opening up public appointments, the Government have concentrated on giving support and encouragement to more women to come forward, with the holding of seminars, open days and so on, so that there is positive encouragement to take up positions in public bodies. From the feedback and research undertaken, that seems to be having a very positive effect on appointments.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, will the Minister kindly undertake to ensure that the Government publish, department by department, notice of the appointments coming up? There have been cases where women who were interested found out far too late. It is not always easy, from the publications so far printed, for women to find out when appointments are coming up. We can help women to apply for public appointments only if there is knowledge.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that we were improving how public appointments are advertised, but the noble Baroness makes an important point. I will speak to officials and see whether we can do more to promote the opening up of those appointments and to ensure that there is greater knowledge and awareness of them.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that only the Department of Health has met its
6
appointment targets for ethnic minorities? If that is the case, why do other departments not seem to meet their targets for ethnic minorities; for example, in the appointment of justices of the peace?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the simple answer regarding the Department of Health is that there is a far larger volume of appointments; therefore, there is much more scope for that department to hit its targets. Useful progress has been made in the Home Office. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is now responsible for nearly all appointments, particularly those of magistrates and so on. The appointment of ethnic minorities to public bodies is at 5.3 per cent, an increase from 3.6 per cent in 1997. Useful progress has been made across the board.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Minister said in his Answer that there had been an increase from 32 to 35 per cent since 1997. Does he agree with me that the very significant increase took place between 1992 and 1997, from 26 to 32 per cent, and that that was a cause for celebration?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is obviously a cause for celebration that there has been an increase year on year in the number of women appointed to public bodies. The noble Baroness says that 28 per cent were appointed in 1992; I think that that figure was for 1993, but it rose to 32 per cent by 1997 and to 35.7 per cent by 2003.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister referred to the varying levels of achievement based on historic trends and so on. Why are the targets so variable? Those for some of the biggest departments, the Department of Health and the DTI, are 45 to 55 per cent, but for the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—both areas of great interest to women, on which they might have a lot of knowledge, one would have thought—the targets for the coming year are only 35 per cent and 27 per cent of the numbers respectively.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, departments must be looked at separately to see where they are starting from. Obviously, some departments start from a lot further back. As I explained at the outset, the rate of turnover affects their ability to meet and match those targets. It is all very well setting a higher level or a higher target, but it is somewhat unrealistic to do so if the number of appointments coming up is low. It varies from department to department, and it will depend on the starting point from which they come.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend see any connection between the gender mix of the selection committee, or the people who are recruiting, and how many women are taken on? If it is an all-male committee, is there not a likelihood that it will appoint mostly men as opposed to women?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that may well have been an influence in the past. One would like to be optimistic and suggest that it is not an influence and will not be in the future. We must have targets in place, so there is an obligation on each and every department to meet that target and improve the levels of female representation, ethnic minority representation and representation of people with a disability.

EU Treaties and Institutions
2.51 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they propose to do to help the European Union to uphold the integrity of its treaties and institutions in the light of the breach by France and Germany of the stability and growth pact and the fact that the Court of Auditors has not approved the Commission's accounts for nine consecutive years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, we continue to support a prudent interpretation of the stability pact that takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment. With regard to the Commission's legal challenge of the November ECOFIN decisions, it would be inappropriate to comment on the possible, or likely, outcomes of the case. On the European Court of Auditors, the UK has been working closely with the Commission on radical reform of the EU's financial management, which the European Court of Auditors itself describes as ambitious and fundamental.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that when Mr Prodi became head of the Commission, he talked in his early days of zero tolerance of fraud? The language of the reply that he has given is comparable with language that has been given over the failure of the Commission to produce accurate accounts for nine years. Given the historically high levels of mistrust of the institutions of the EU, not just in this country but across Europe, would it not be more prudent of the Government to do more than utter sentiments? In particular with regard to the action commenced by the Commission as a result of the failure of France and Germany to comply with the stability and growth pact, would it not be the right thing for Her Majesty's Government to back the Commission? If I may—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I will leave it at that. I must leave it at that, but the fact is that the Government have not unequivocally backed the Commission in this action. Why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, got away—I do not
8
quite know how—with asking two different questions in his Question on the Order Paper. One is about the stability and growth pact, and the other is about the Court of Auditors. He has managed in his supplementary questions to mix the two up in a way that I did not think was possible.
I will answer as best I can about the Court of Auditors, because the noble Lord will know that the Chancellor has been ferocious in attacking both red tape and inefficiency in the European Commission. At the same time, without defending it, it should be recognised that the Court of Auditors has approved the income and expenditure accounts, and the administration and pre-accession aid accounts. The problem has been with the assets and liability statements.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the double-headed Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is really about the quality of compliance that exists in the EU. Does the Minister agree that non-compliance is a serious issue? France in particular does not comply, and does not introduce EU laws. What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on finding a link between the two heads of the original Question. Unfortunately, in doing so she has raised an issue of compliance with European legislation, which does not relate to either of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Marsh: My Lords, my question is in relation to the accounts, which are part of the Question. The Government have good friends in the Commission and good relationships with them. Would the Minister like to comment on the role of Mr Kinnock over the past nine years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I certainly would not—"over the past nine years", indeed. It is generally recognised that—did I say, "would not"? I meant that I would. I beg your pardon, that was a slip of the tongue, and I apologise. I would never resist an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to comment. Mr Kinnock is generally recognised to have done an excellent job in the reform of the procedures of the European Union.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am not giving way again. I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I gave way twice—I did not think that I should do so for a third time.
Is it not absurd that the Commission should be able, through the stability and growth pact, to threaten this country with legal action, bearing in mind that our

9
economy is thriving while the economy of the euro-zone is stagnating? In Germany, the unemployment rate is 10 per cent. In France it is 9 per cent. In this country it is only 5.2 per cent. In Germany the growth rate is 0.9 per cent. Even in this country at its lowest rate it was 2 per cent last year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not in a position to dispute the noble Lord's figures. I will have to read them carefully and see whether they can be confirmed. His basic question was on what basis would the European Commission be threatening the United Kingdom. It is not threatening the United Kingdom, and if there were any threat it has been resolved by the statement of Commissioner Solbes, which was reported in today's papers.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister has been moving around the central question with his usual skill. What is our attitude to the law-breaking by the French and German Governments in relation to the stability and growth pact? Is it true, as all the newspapers report, that we have backed them? Have we backed France, by far the biggest lawbreaker in the Union? If so, we have done so to the fury of the smaller countries. Is this part of a unfortunate policy—which I hope that we change—of constantly being with the big boys against the smaller and newer members of the Community and thus damaging the Community, instead of taking the kind of lead that we should with the smaller countries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, is referring to the ECOFIN decision of 25 November last. In answer to a Question last week, I said that we supported the general statement that ECOFIN made at the end of its communiqué. I point out that the decision about whether to proceed to the next step under Article 104 is taken only by those members of ECOFIN who are members of the euro-zone. Therefore, we did not take part in the vote on that decision.

Prisons: Mental Health Services
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the comments by the Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales on 20 January that new mental health units need to be built so that prisons can care for the people who ought to be there.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government of course take very seriously the comments and recommendations of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. We are investing in schemes to divert mentally ill people away from custody, and in better mental health services in prisons. We are also improving the
10
way in which we use secure mental health services, so that this specialist treatment is available to those who need it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she share the concern that, on average, two prisoners a week kill themselves in our overcrowded prisons? Will she accept that new arrivals, drug users and mentally ill offenders are at most risk of self-harm and suicide in our prison institutions? Why, when the overall crime rate is falling, are we incarcerating more people than ever?
Could we make a start by treating people with mental health problems in specialist units, as recommended by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Director-General of the Prison Service? While considering that proposal, will the Minister also consider how the court diversion scheme promoted by the Prison Reform Trust could help? Surely the state has a responsibility to ensure that those in its care are adequately protected.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in highlighting the fact that it is a deep worry to us all that the average suicide rate seems to have increased. Mental health provision is extremely important. Prisoners who need in-patient treatment for mental disorders may, as the noble Lord will know, be transferred to hospital by direction of the Home Secretary, under the Mental Health Act 1983. The number of prisoners so transferred has risen from under 200 a year in the late 1980s to between 600 and 700 now.
Your Lordships will know that, through the Carter review and the changes that we are making to the Prison Service and the Probation Service, we hope to be able to give a more holistic response to those in the community and in our prison estate. There is a scheme now in place that will help us to manage our mentally ill prisoners more easily.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are in danger of expecting far too much of the Prison Service? It is right to place a priority on security, training and education, but to expect the service, in addition, to be in the forefront of drug treatment and the treatment of people with serious mental health problems, is to expect too much. Is it not time that the Prison Service was able to focus on its main tasks, without being responsible for the care of mentally ill people?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we certainly think that it is possible to marry a service that provides for security and for the needs of prisoners generally. One of those needs is mental health treatment.
The noble Lord will know that, by the end of March, National Health Service mental health inreach teams will be in place in the 90 prisons in which the need for such services is greatest. Delivered as part of the NHS Plan, the teams will involve more than 300 additional staff and provide specialist community-type mental health services to more than 5,000 prisoners. The

11
important thing is not to separate the prison estate from the community but to do that which will enable there to be a smooth transition, so that individuals receive the care that they need.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the target of moving seriously mentally ill prisoners into NHS care within three months? Will she say whether that target is adequate? What progress has been made towards meeting it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I must say that it is, of course, important that the targets are addressed. There has been huge investment in the National Health Service mental health services in prisons. It will double to £20 million in 2005–06. In the next two years, it will be available in every prison in England and Wales. The extra investment will also help existing inreach teams. That will mean, we hope, that we will be able to manage more easily those in the prison population who have mental health difficulties and within the targets that we have set ourselves.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in her annual report, the Chief Inspector of Prisons drew attention to the high incidence of mental health disturbance among women prisoners? Will the Government pay particular attention to that and to the need to provide the necessary facilities for women prisoners?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are giving that issue serious consideration. I assure my noble friend that everything is being done to address the needs of women and others who suffer from mental difficulties. With regard to the figures in the report, I remind noble Lords that a broad spectrum is included in the definition of mental disorder.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the depressing thing about the Chief Inspector's comments is that she is echoing the evidence that was given by her predecessor to the Select Committee on Home Affairs three years ago. Does the noble Baroness recall that, at that time, the Chief Inspector's medical adviser said that there was a shortage of 500 places in special hospitals for which prisoners ought to have been eligible? The Chief Inspector's medical adviser said that that was still the figure two years later. Is the Minister satisfied that adequate provision is being made for special hospitals for this category of mentally ill prisoner?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is also important to remember that the Chief Inspector acknowledged that there had been material improvements in the way in which we are addressing the mental health issues. The noble Lord will know that the Government's approach to mental health in prisons has three strands. The first is to help to ensure that people with mental health problems do not go to prison inappropriately. The second is to improve mental health services in prisons significantly. The
12
third is to ensure that individuals who are assessed as too ill to remain in prison can be transferred to a hospital setting under the Mental Health Act 1983.
All three of those strands need to be worked on simultaneously, if we are to make sure that individuals get the right treatment at the right time in the most appropriate environment. I accept that we have a way to go, but we believe that we have a system in place that will help us better to deliver what we would like to see.

Business
3.6 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, in a moment, make a Statement on judicial aspects of constitutional reform. The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is in his place, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to hear what he has to say. As Leader of the House, I have been asked whether—exceptionally—we can allow him to speak at greater length than the brief comments and questions permitted by the Companion, without taking time from other Back-Benchers.
It is, of course, a matter for the House. I have consulted the usual channels, and I have their agreement to propose that, unless any noble Lord objects, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, be heard for up to 10 minutes, after the 20 minutes of Front-Bench exchanges. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and there will then be a full 20 minutes for other Back-Bench exchanges. As I said, it is proposed as an exceptional procedure for an exceptional case.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House could tell us what subsequent arrangements are being made for a debate on a matter of the highest constitutional importance. Of course, we would all be delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for 10 minutes; that is not a problem. However, we ought to be told in advance that there are satisfactory arrangements for debating such extremely important constitutional issues.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the concern about the need to debate the matter in the House. A provisional date has been agreed for a debate just prior to the Recess.

Constitutional Reform
3.8 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the judiciary-related functions of the office of Lord Chancellor.

13
On 14 July, I published consultation papers on the establishment of a new way of appointing judges, the creation of a new Supreme Court and the future of Silk. In September, I published a paper on the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. We are grateful to those who responded to our consultation process. The Government are today publishing summaries of those responses.
As set out in the gracious Speech, we intend to bring forward legislation to enact these changes. It is for Parliament to consider that legislation, and my proposals today are conditional upon parliamentary approval. Today, I wish to set out our proposals for the future handling of those functions of the office of Lord Chancellor which relate to the judiciary.
I have had detailed discussions with the Lord Chief Justice, who has been speaking on behalf of the judges on these issues. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the terms of today's Statement have been agreed with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice's agreement is, of course, conditional on Parliament's approval of our proposals. I think it is right that Parliament should be told first of the results of those discussions.
In making changes, we must secure embedded, enduring judicial independence; good working relationships between the judiciary and the executive; high quality judges; and high public confidence in the judiciary. I believe that, taken together, our reforms and the proposals in this Statement will help to secure those aims.
The reforms seek to clarify and embed in statute the principle of judicial independence. Judges must enforce, impartially, the law made by Parliament. The executive must continue to guarantee security of judicial tenure and remuneration, and ensure that the judiciary is supported by an efficient and effective system of court administration.
We propose that there should be a general statutory duty on the Government, all those involved in the administration of justice and all those involved in the appointment of judges to respect and maintain judicial independence. In addition, there should be a separate specific duty falling on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to defend and uphold the continuing independence of the judiciary.
But the judiciary does not operate in a vacuum. It is part of a constitutional framework in which Parliament is the supreme law-making body. The Government, through Parliament, must ensure that the needs of the public are fully served by our legal system. Parliament must be able to hold the Government to account for the operation of the justice system and the resources provided for it.
That clearly requires a partnership; the Lord Chief Justice and I are determined that the successful partnership between my department and the judiciary should he sustained and entrenched for future generations. But to maintain this partnership without blurring the boundaries of responsibility requires clarity and transparency. To that end, we intend to define in the forthcoming Bill the respective
14
responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and those of the Lord Chief Justice, as the most senior judge in England and Wales.
The Bill will make it clear that the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of the courts; that he is accountable to Parliament for the efficiency and effectiveness of the court system; and that he is responsible for supporting the judiciary in enabling it to fulfil its functions.
The Lord Chief Justice will lead the judges, with the authority that comes from being appointed as chief judge. He will be responsible for ensuring that the views of the judiciary are effectively represented; he will be responsible for the education and training of judges; and he will be responsible for the decisions on deployment of individual members of the judiciary.
The Lord Chief Justice should therefore be given the additional title of "President of the Courts in England and Wales". He should also no longer be the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. That should become a new post in its own right.
As regards deployment, we propose that responsibility for setting the overall framework for the organisation of the court system should be exercised by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. When it comes to the posting of individual members of the judiciary within that framework, however, responsibility should fall to the Lord Chief Justice.
I announced in July the Government's proposals for a judicial appointments commission and consulted over the summer on the detail. Central to the appointments process will be a new, clearly independent, judicial appointments commission. The commission will have full responsibility for the process of advertising vacancies and evaluating candidates for judicial appointment. No candidate will be appointed to the judicial posts for which the commission will be responsible unless recommended by the commission. The sole criterion for the commission in making its recommendations will remain that the appointments must be made on merit.
To ensure proper accountability to Parliament, the final decision on whom to appoint—or whom to recommend to the Queen for appointment—should remain with the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State's discretion must be severely circumscribed. He should be able to appoint only candidates recommended by the commission and should have strictly limited powers to challenge those recommendations. It is not right that a political appointee (albeit one always acting in good faith) should be able to cut across the system to appoint who he or she thinks is right.
Magistrates are a very important part of the judicial family and we propose that equivalent arrangements apply to the magistrates' appointments. On the advice of the local advisory committees, the judicial appointments commission will make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who will have the same limited powers to reject as he does in relation to the professional judiciary. For administrative reasons, the commission will not be able

15
to begin dealing with the appointment of professional judges and magistrates at the same time. We propose, therefore, that for an interim period the Lord Chief Justice will fulfil the role of the commission for magistrates' appointments.
It is vital that the commission itself should incorporate the expertise of the judiciary and the legal professions, but also the demonstrable impartiality and wider experience of those who are not from the legal world. We propose, therefore, that the chair of the commission should be neither a lawyer nor a judge, and that the largest single group on the commission should be members who are neither lawyers nor full-time judges. The commission will include members of each level of the judicial hierarchy, up to the Court of Appeal, and will be required to consult the Lord Chief Justice during the recruitment process. The Lord Chief Justice will be able to engage judicial colleagues. That will ensure the commission is able to benefit from the views of the judges about potential candidates, and about any particular requirements for a vacancy.
In order to ensure that the system is as open and accountable as it can be, and that it is independent of government, we propose that the commission should be fully responsible for the appointments process itself. It should recruit its own staff and submit an annual report detailing its activities over the year. To provide a further guarantee of the impartiality of the system, the commission should establish a system for handling complaints from candidates who are unhappy with the way that their application has been handled. We will provide for an ombudsman to deal with those instances where a candidate remains dissatisfied.
I want to make it clear that appointments will continue to be strictly on merit. But our proposals will greatly improve the transparency, openness and fairness of the appointments system. By doing so, they will help to ensure that the judiciary of the future fully reflects the diversity of the community that it serves—a goal that both the Government and the judiciary seek.
I am also pleased to announce that Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, has agreed to chair the appointing panel for the commissioners. The Lord Chief Justice will also sit on the panel, as will one other member (who will be neither a member of the Government nor a civil servant) to be nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Once appointed, the chair will be on the panel for the appointment of the other commissioners.
The education and training of the judiciary is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, which is chaired by a senior member of the judiciary and, although staffed by members of my department, is under the control of the judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice will be responsible for the provision and sponsorship of judicial training, within the resources provided by the Secretary of State, with a continuing role for the Judicial Studies Board. We will further propose that the Lord Chief Justice should in future
16
appoint both the chair and members of the Judicial Studies Board, after consultation with the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice will both continue to have a role to play in relation to judicial discipline and conduct. That partnership reflects the importance of respecting the independence of the judiciary, of providing assurance to the public that complaints about judges are subject to proper scrutiny, and of providing accountability to Parliament for the complaints system.
In the most serious cases, in which it falls to be considered whether a judge should be removed from office for incapacity or misbehaviour, removal will be by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. It will not be possible unless they both agree. For the higher judiciary, removal will continue to be by Her Majesty the Queen on an address from both Houses of Parliament. Such cases will be first investigated by a judge of appropriate seniority and will be able to be referred to a review body.
In less serious cases, the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State will need to agree on any penalties short of dismissal to be applied to a judge. They will be supported in this work by a complaints secretariat, and they will both be consulted about all complaints of any substance, as well as receiving regular reports about all other complaints dealt with. For all cases involving magistrates, local input will continue. The Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for the efficient and effective operation of the complaints system as a whole and will continue to deal with correspondence from Peers and Members of Parliament on the subject.
To provide greater certainty and transparency about the process of handling such complaints, the Bill will provide for a complaints procedure to be agreed by the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State that will be set out in secondary legislation. As a further guarantee of the openness and fairness of the new complaints process, we propose that the complainant or the judge concerned should be able to refer the handling of the complaint to the ombudsman.
There are a number of posts, such as the senior presiding judge and the presiding judges, that do not involve formal promotion to a more senior judicial level. Those roles, which are held for a relatively short term by different judges in succession, entail a degree of judicial leadership and a range of administrative functions. We propose that in the future such appointments should be made by the Lord Chief Justice, either in consultation with, or with the concurrence of, the Secretary of State.
The making of rules of court is a key means of giving effect to policy decisions approved by Parliament. Responsibility for the making of rules will remain with the relevant rule committee. The Secretary will allow or disallow rules. We propose, however, that the power to alter rules should be repealed. Instead, we will propose a new power allowing the Secretary of State to require a rule committee to make new rules, or to change existing rules, to achieve a particular desired

17
outcome. It would then be for the committee to consider how best to frame the rules to meet such a requirement. and to submit or resubmit them to the Secretary of State.
The policy that I have outlined today covers the position in respect of England and Wales. My responsibilities also extend to Northern Ireland. Consideration will be given to the future handling of my functions that relate to the Northern Ireland judiciary. That process, which is currently under way, will include consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and will be based on the same guiding principles as in England and Wales, taking into account any provision already made for Northern Ireland to give effect to the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review.
The Lord Chief Justice and I will listen carefully to views expressed today in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. Your Lordships will have a further opportunity to consider those issues in more detail when legislation is introduced. To assist in such consideration, we have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses an explanatory document setting out the proposals in more detail.
With parliamentary approval, the reforms that I have set out will guarantee that the independence of the judiciary is protected for future generations. The reforms will clarify the relationship between the executive and judicial arms of the state, improve each arm's accountability, and promote and strengthen partnership, so as to serve the public better.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice have been courtesy itself in keeping me informed of the progress of their negotiations and their conclusions on the agreement. They have also kindly let me have foresight of the relevant documents and, indeed, of their speeches in draft. I understand that the same privilege has been extended to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
I am delighted, as I am sure are all your Lordships, to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in his place. I understand that he has come down to your Lordships' House to explain the judiciary's approach to the agreement. Long may the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and his successors exercise their right to speak their mind about vital judicial matters in your Lordships' House. However, I understand it to be the intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that this will prove to be one of the last times we shall see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in your Lordships' House. Indeed, that privilege will also be denied to his successors.
In the context of today's Statement, I find that fact rather ironic. The philosophy behind the Statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to remove the judiciary from the legislature, so that the judiciary will in some way become decontaminated of
18
the influence of the law-making process. Yet, we have an agreement that has been carefully negotiated, albeit in secret, and which will end up as clauses in a Bill that will be placed before your Lordships; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is here to express his endorsement of that agreement, and those subsequent clauses, even though his right to do so is now threatened by the Government.
I hope that I am not alone in finding the Government's approach to those negotiations, and the welcome given to their conclusion by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, somewhat illogical. Perhaps some of your Lordships might even think it—dare I say—hypocritical.
The details of the proposals will be debated at length on 12 February. I wish today simply to place them in the broader context of what I understand to be the Government's legislative proposals. I shall do so, first, by looking at the manner in which the agreement was reached, and, secondly, at its scope.
As to the manner, I trust that I am not alone in thinking that matters of such importance as the independence of the judiciary and the selection of judges should not have been conducted in negotiations in confidence between the executive and the judiciary without any participation by either House of the legislature.
The conclusion that has been reached is rather strange. The party of government has been more enthusiastic than any other political party of this country about pre-legislative scrutiny. I can think of no better set of proposals to undergo that process than those that will be contained in the Bill. I recall when I was involved in the draft Financial Services Bill three or four years ago how successful the pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill turned out to be. Would not it have been helpful to your Lordships' House, for example, for the proposals in the agreement to be compared with the existing situation? Evidence from senior judges who have direct experience of judicial selection under the existing situation could have been taken. That could have been considered in the context of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said to your Lordships this afternoon.
To take another example, we understand that not only will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice depart from your Lordships' House, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will disappear altogether. Who will guarantee that Ministers will not criticise judges, following judgments that displease them? That already happens from time to time, but I am sure that the restraining hand of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor being in the Cabinet has meant that there are far fewer examples than there would otherwise have been.
It is not too late for the Government to hold a pre-legislative review. The agreement reached between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice could form the basis of such a review.

19
In saying all that, I am in no way criticising the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for what he has done. The noble and learned Lord was not given the option of a pre-legislative public review. He had to do the best he could in the circumstances in which he was placed. There can be no criticism of him whatever.
As to the scope of the agreement, it is vital to emphasise that, in the context of the whole Bill, it is fairly narrow. First, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it does not bind the legislature. Secondly, there is nothing in the agreement about the Supreme Court, which, of course, is not surprising. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is responsible for the judiciary in England and Wales. The scope of the Supreme Court runs much wider to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, there is nothing in the agreement about the preservation of the rule of law. In this respect, the role of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet is vital. The Lord Chancellor is invariably a member of the Cabinet of jurisprudential distinction and is, of course, the head of the judiciary. He is a man—it might be a woman—who has attained the pinnacle of his career. He has nothing more to hope and nothing more to fear. In British politics there is no better figure to ensure that the rule of law is not overrun by political expediency. Why does the Prime Minister want to remove such a figure from the Cabinet? Noble Lords may find that the answer to that question does not pose a severe test to the intellect.
What of the removal of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from your Lordships' House? I view this with alarm. The judiciary is one of the three great arms of the constitution. To deprive noble and learned Lords of their intimate involvement in the legislative process will be to isolate the judiciary in this country and to turn it into a mere political pressure group. Moreover, it is wholly illogical to remove the judiciary from the legislature without giving the same treatment to the executive.
As a party in opposition we are not against change, but it must be change which harmonises with our past. The present arrangements have existed for over 400 years. They have been tested by every generation and not found wanting. As I said in the debate on the gracious Speech, what is so special about 2004?
3.31 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I start by repeating the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for the opportunity given to myself as well as to the noble Lord to see in advance the draft documents which have been released today. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I propose to say something about the terms of the agreement. The noble Lord's speech left me and, I suspect, every other Member of the House, absolutely in the dark about the views of the Conservative Party on the substance of the matter under debate.
20
Members on these Benches warmly welcome the Statement. We have long believed that it was wholly improper for judges to be appointed by a Cabinet Minister. Of course recent Lord Chancellors have been unquestionably impartial in making their appointments, but in the future there is a real and increasing risk that the appointments process will be politicised if things are left as they are.
We do not agree with all the proposals put forward by the Government. We are concerned, for example, about the make-up of the proposed judicial appointments commission. It may be that too high a proportion of the members are holders of judicial office; it will be seven out of 15 if we include the representatives of the lay magistracy and tribunal members. We shall raise that and other issues during our discussions in debate on the Bill.
However, we recognise the enormous constitutional importance of the concordat now arrived at between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary, represented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. That concordat will get the new system off to a far better start than if the Government were seeking to force a new system on an unwilling judiciary. Therefore we shall not seek to unravel the agreement reached in the concordat.
This is not the time to go into the detail of the terms of the concordat, but we very much welcome the specific statutory duty on the Secretary of State to defend the independence of the judiciary. However, I have to say that that does not go far enough because the independence of the judiciary is useless if its powers are excluded or improperly restricted. A plain example of that is Clause 10 of the Asylum Bill now before the House of Commons which excludes judicial review of decisions in asylum cases. That is a constitutional abomination. Clause 10 is a threat to the integrity of the legal system. It is not just a question of the rights of asylum seekers; it is one of the powers of the High Court to review the decisions of inferior tribunals. That is a fundamental principle of our constitution. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should have insisted that judicial review should be retained. I do not know whether he failed to object to Clause 10 or whether he objected and was overruled. Either way, the present system has failed. To make future failures less likely, the statutory duty of the Secretary of State must be extended to include not only the defence of the independence of the judiciary, but also the defence of the integrity of the legal system.
We must preserve not only the independence of the judiciary, but the independence of the legal profession. That means that if appointments to Queen's Counsel or an equivalent rank under another name are to continue, those appointments must also be independent of government. I should add that Schedule 5 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 gives the Lord Chancellor considerable powers over the rules of professional bodies. Those powers should either be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice or require his concurrence.

21
Let me finish by mentioning briefly two matters that need to be looked at in the longer term. First, the forthcoming Bill will be of the utmost constitutional importance. It will determine the relationship between the executive and the judiciary, but it is to be contained in an ordinary Act of Parliament which could be repealed by any other Act. In the past we have prided ourselves on our unwritten constitution, but that constitution is no longer unwritten; bits and pieces are scattered in various statutes, of which the constitutional reform Act will be one. They need to be brought together into a single, written constitution.
Secondly, it is time that we created a proper ministry of justice and brought responsibility for our substantive criminal law into the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and out of the Home Office.
This is the beginning of a long debate which will resume at much greater length on 12 February and again in March when we have the Second Reading of the constitutional reform Bill. I have not yet seen the detailed proposals for the creation of the Supreme Court, so I cannot comment on them, but I believe that the concordat represents an important step forward towards what is a vital constitutional reform.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their thanks. It was right to keep them informed throughout the process. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was correct to point out that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, unfortunately we have no idea what the Conservative Party thinks about these proposals, so I shall not comment on that.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is in his place this afternoon and I am glad that he will take the opportunity to set out in this House what he thinks of these proposals. There has been no element of secret negotiations here. The moment that an understanding was reached between us, we came straight to the House and explained the purpose. I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, had in mind. Should we have detailed on the website precisely where we were in our correspondence? I do not think that even the noble Lord would suggest that.
I turn to the remainder of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. At the heart of the understanding between myself and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is the proposition that the Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales should become, in effect, the acknowledged leader of the judges. I can think of no other process that would more strongly embed the rule of law and ensure that the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has welcomed these proposals. He is right to say that they are of very considerable constitutional significance and, as my noble friend Lady Amos has said, there will be a chance to debate them before we reach the Bill itself. Turning to his remarks about a written
22
constitution, our constitution has always been based on the supremacy of Parliament. If a written constitution is set above Parliament then in effect that supremacy is lost. Of course some things should be set out in statute hut, like all other statutes, they should be subject to the will of Parliament. As regards Clause 10, I think that that should be debated on another day.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I am most grateful to the House for allowing me extra time to respond on behalf of the judiciary to the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor. Before making my statement I consulted the Judges' Council, and the judiciary of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It is therefore with their agreement that I welcome the Lord Chancellor's Statement and make these remarks.
After the Government announced on 12 June last that they were proposing to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor, the judiciary regarded it as of the greatest importance that if this were to happen there should be a new constitutional settlement, reflected in legislation, that would protect the administration of justice in England and Wales for the future.
A settlement responding to the proposed new situation would have to ensure: first, that the judges retain the confidence of the public; secondly, that the independence of the judiciary is maintained: thirdly, that the quality of the judiciary continues to be outstanding; fourthly, that there is an appropriate and harmonious relationship between the judiciary, Parliament and the Government; fifthly, that the resources essential to an effective and efficient court system are provided.
The arrangements just announced by the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor are the result of detailed discussions between the noble and learned Lord and myself. If they are accepted by Parliament, their implementation will have my firm support.
If you compare what is announced with the response of the Judges' Council to the Government's consultation papers on constitutional reforms, you will find significant differences. However, the judiciary recognises that there is more than one way in which its objectives can be achieved. During the course of our discussions, the Lord Chancellor and I have been willing to accommodate the views of the other as long as they do not involve impinging upon the important principles that we each believe have to be secured by an agreement that safeguards the interests of the public.
I emphasise that what is announced is a package of proposals and I make it clear that the judiciary's endorsement is conditional on the proposals being implemented as a whole.
I shall explain shortly why the judiciary considers that the package of proposals is acceptable. Before I do so, it is important that I make clear that these proposals do not deal with all the issues which will have to be determined as a result of the proposed changes announced by the Government last year. The package of proposals about which I speak today deals

23
with the issues that arise as a consequence of the Lord Chancellor ceasing to be the head of the judiciary. Once there is no longer a Lord Chancellor who is head of the judiciary, it is vitally important to the administration of justice that there are provisions in the legislation which protect the judiciary in its task of providing justice for those who come before the courts. This, in the judgment of the judiciary, is what the present proposals achieve.
This package of proposals does not deal with other issues which have not, as yet, been the subject of discussion between myself and the noble and learned Lord—that is, the question of the creation of a new Supreme Court and the question of whether senior judges should continue to sit in this House, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred. Nor does it cover the future of the silk system.
On a similar note, I should make clear that, in engaging in these discussions with the noble and learned Lord, I have not sought to address the question of whether the office of Lord Chancellor should indeed be abolished. It seems to the judiciary that that is a matter for Parliament.
Subject to these qualifications, I can say that the proposals are satisfactory because, first, the appointments commission will be wholly independent of the executive and appointed by a body that is equally independent. The commission will be qualified to appoint and promote our judiciary in the future. It will not be a commission dominated by the judiciary but there will be sufficient members who sit, full time, as judges to ensure that the commission benefits from their experience as to the qualities that judges must have. The sole criterion for making appointments will be merit, and it will be an important part of the commission's role to work out ways of increasing the diversity of those who apply for judicial appointments so that there will be a wider range of applicants from which to choose. A lay chair will be able to devote the time to this role that such an important post deserves. For appointments of a specialist nature, those who have the requisite expertise will be able to contribute to the selection process.
Secondly, the Secretary of State is to be involved in the appointments process to an extent necessary to meet his responsibilities to Parliament and the public, but his involvement is suitably restricted. He can ask for a proposed appointment to be reconsidered or for a different name to be submitted, but he cannot propose a candidate for appointment and he will have to identify why he considers that a particular candidate is not acceptable. I have accepted that it is not practical for the appointments commission to take on its responsibilities for the appointment of magistrates from its inception. Having discussed the matter with the Magistrates' Association, I have agreed that until the appointments commission is ready to do so, recommendations received from the existing advisory committees will be passed to me and that I will submit an approved list to the Secretary of State under a procedure mirroring that which will apply to the appointments commission.
24
Thirdly, the security of tenure of the judiciary is preserved. However, an important aspect of its independence is that members of the judiciary fulfil their responsibilities in a way that does not adversely affect the public's confidence in the judiciary. There must therefore be an appropriate system for dealing with complaints and discipline, and this the proposals contain. Again, the Secretary of State has a part to play in the system proposed and, again, his role is carefully limited so as to protect the independence of the judiciary. He will be answerable for the complaints system to Parliament; he can require a judicial investigation or review; but no judge can be removed or any other sanction imposed without the agreement of both the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice of the day. Together they will consider the findings of the investigating judge or review body and agree whether the recommendations should be implemented. In addition, the administrative support for the disciplinary and complaint process will be provided by a separate section of the staff of the department working to an independent chief executive.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State, unlike the Lord Chancellor, will not be head of the judiciary. The previous position of the Lord Chancellor as president of the existing Supreme Court will pass to the Lord Chief Justice of the day, but the Lord Chief Justice will assume the new title of President of the Courts of England and Wales. The Lord Chief Justice will have the statutory responsibility and therefore the authority to speak on behalf of the judiciary on matters that concern the judiciary. The Secretary of State is, however, to continue to have a clear statutory responsibility to provide administrative support for the judiciary and the resources to enable it to perform its duties. This includes providing the Lord Chief Justice with a properly resourced staff and office.
Fifthly, the Judicial Studies Board is to continue to be independent of the executive.
Sixthly, as to resources, the judiciary is to have, for the first time, non-executive membership of the boards of both the department and the Unified Courts Administration. This should lead to a closer involvement of the judiciary in the decision-making process.
Seventhly, in addition to the proposed specific duty on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to defend and uphold the continuing independence of the judiciary, there will be a general statutory duty on the Government, all those involved in the administration of justice and all those involved in the appointment of judges to respect and maintain judicial independence.
In agreeing the proposals, the judiciary has regarded as its primary responsibility, not the protection of its own interests but the protection of the independence of the justice system for the benefit of the public. I urge your Lordships to study the proposals, the details of which have been placed in the Library. If you do, I hope that you will agree with the judiciary that this is a package which will contribute to achieving the new

25
constitutional settlement that the abolition of the Lord Chancellor requires. If you agree, I am sure that you will endorse the judiciary's view.
In lending my support to the proposals as a whole, I acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord has been commendably prepared to listen and respond to the proper concerns of the judiciary. An important consequence is that the close working relationship—or, as it is sometimes described, the partnership—between his department, the Court Service and the judiciary is more likely to be preserved. That close working relationship is a special quality of our justice system, which, in the interests of the public, it is important to preserve. I thank your Lordships.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for his endorsement of the proposals. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done in the discussions he has had with me and for the leadership he has provided to the judges. I thoroughly agree with his statement that, during the course of the discussions, both the noble and learned Lord and I have accommodated each other's views in many areas, because both of us believe that the proposals provide an enduring basis for a high quality, independent judiciary and a proper partnership between the executive and the judiciary.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have two questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The first relates to the paper dealing with appointments. The Government suggested in their paper that they should,
"retain the policy relating to the appointment of the judiciary".
Is it now accepted that that was wrong? It would amount to the government of the day having the ability to dictate to the new commission how it performed its role.
My second question relates to deployment. It is suggested that only the deployment of individual judges is left to the judiciary. I submit to your Lordships that that is wrong. Deployment is part of the process that supports the independence of the judiciary. There was a recent suggestion from the executive that Hampshire should be removed from part of the western circuit. There was correspondence in the Times, to which I was party. Ultimately a settlement was reached. The Lord Chancellor agreed to consider the matter several years hence.
If one looks at a long judgment by the Chief Justice of Canada considering what is comprised in the independence of the judiciary, deployment was very much one of the points that he emphasised. For the Secretary of State to be in a position to say that a particular judge who perhaps has not pleased him should be sent off some part of the country that he would not wish to be in would clearly be wrong. Why is general deployment not accepted as the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the first question about criteria for appointment, it is made clear in the document—and indeed in my remarks—
26
that the sole criterion for the appointment of judges will be merit. That does not mean that there are not other factors we would like to see promoted, for example, in relation to diversity, but there is no dilution of the principle. It will be enshrined in statute that merit is the principle.
The second question was about deployment. I thoroughly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that there should not be any question of a government Minister or official being able to say to or about an individual judge that he or she should sit there rather than here. But there are plainly issues for the executive in relation to wider issues of administration; for example, how many judges should be present during crime or family trials. Equally, there are significant issues for the executive in relation to how regional areas of court administration should be broken up.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord about individual deployment, but I do not accept that there is not a role for the executive in the wider issue.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I welcome the broad thrust of the Lord Chancellor's Statement and that of the Lord Chief Justice in entrenching the judiciary's independence and the independent machinery for its appointment. I am grateful to both noble and learned Lords for their careful explanation of their position.
I declare an interest as a member or chairman of three of the Lord Chancellor's county advisory committees on the appointment of justices. Will the Lord Chancellor state that there is no diminution in the role of the advisory committees, which are essentially the best judges of local needs? In no way are they to be regarded as agents of a government department, whatever its name.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his welcome of the proposals. I accept what he says about advisory committees: there is no intention of diluting their importance in the appointment of magistrates. Equally, I fully accept that the local knowledge they provide is vital and that it is in no way acting as the agent of central government that they do so.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps I may express a more anxious response, contrary to the fact that, as the Lord Chancellor knows, I have been prepared to look with favour on some aspects of what is in prospect. How far can we be sure that this increasingly complex future will achieve with as much confidence the guaranteed independence of the judiciary to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, paid tribute, in relation to the conduct of Lord Chancellors in recent generations?
Does not that independence depend on, more than anything else, a network of conventions that have been built up and observed with increasing good faith over the years? Is not the keystone of that arch of conventions the existence and presence of the Lord Chancellor? Do not all the changes that we have yet to

27
consider in detail flow, as has been said already many times, from the need to substitute for the existing structure of the constitution that has served us so well in so many respects?
Of course it needs some reform, but the Lord Chancellor speaks of the proposals giving us openness and transparency. As I listen to the chronicle of clauses and subsections of the agreements sketched out, with the utmost good faith, I am sure, of the Lord Chief Justice, I worry that it may achieve exactly the opposite. How many clauses in how long a Bill will this produce? How many sets of statutory instruments will this produce? How many additional public servants in the network of the Department for Constitutional Affairs will be produced? How will they reproduce the good faith identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, in those who serve the existing advisory committees?
Is there not a great fear that the attempts to reproduce the simplicity and transparency of the old system will land us in a network of complexity and obscurity that will fail to achieve the purpose that we all share?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I respect the noble and learned Lord's views, but I believe that he is wrong. In relation to many of the matters described in the Statement I made today and the Statement by the Lord Chief Justice, we reflect what is in effect already happening. For example, in relation to judicial discipline, there are already arrangements in existence between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Lord Chief Justice that effectively ensure that no significant disciplining will take place without the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice.
It is right that those arrangements now become much more open. It is also right that the leader of the judiciary should be the person appointed as the head of the judiciary in England and Wales and carries that respect. In the long term, I am sure that making these arrangements open and giving the Lord Chief Justice the title that he genuinely deserves will make the position stronger rather than weaker.
4 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although I am not a member of the legal fraternity, I certainly understand what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has delivered to the House today. However, I have a question about the extension of the independence between the judiciary and the legislative process—the executive. I understand that currently, when the law is not implicit or is not clear, judges make judgments about what they believe Parliament intends. If the independence is to be extended, will that role continue?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of course, my Lords. It is for judges to interpret the law in accordance with the law and none of these proposals affects that one jot. It is intended that there will be no executive interference
28
at all in judges making decisions about what the law is. That frequently occurs and if a law is not spelt out, it is for judges to interpret in accordance with the law.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that it all amounts to this: following the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor, a Bill will be introduced to guarantee the independence of the judiciary which, until the decision to abolish that post, was never thought to be in doubt?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the independence of the judiciary was never thought to be in doubt in this country because, whether from the point of view of judges or the Government, it is a fully accepted part of our constitution. The abolition of the Lord Chancellor makes it possible for the head of the judiciary to become the Lord Chief Justice and for the Lord Chancellor, in his ministerial functions, to concentrate on being a Minister. There is no doubt that the proposals that we have advanced today ensure and embed judicial independence.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed the vital qualification made in the Statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that he and his judicial colleagues accept the Statement on the basis of an assumption that the office of Lord Chancellor will be abolished. Rightly and properly however, they have taken no view about whether that office should be abolished. That reminded me and no doubt many of your Lordships of the debate a couple of weeks ago on the Speakership, which was also based on an assumption in the report by the Select Committee that we needed to elect a Speaker because the office of Lord Chancellor would be abolished. Again, it was an assumption.
When I listened to the lengthy part of the Statement today by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, it occurred to me that the detail about how judicial appointments should be made in future—by an independent judicial appointments committee taking an important role—is an evolutionary development of the advisory commission that his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, initiated some years ago. I welcome that detail and the changes from the White Paper, including that the Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department will not be the chairman of the panel making the appointments but that it will be Dame Rennie Fritchie.
Could not all of these beneficial changes to ensure improvements in the appointments procedure be done without the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor? We should bear in mind that we must note the disadvantages of having a Minister in the Cabinet—the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—who may not in future be a lawyer, with a much lower order of precedence compared with that of the Lord Chancellor in the past. That is the disadvantage and deficiency compared with the positive points that have

29
been made. The detail could well have been attached to the Lord Chancellor's office rather than abolishing that office.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord raises the political question in a nutshell. Do we think that the arrangements are stronger if the Lord Chancellor's ministerial functions are performed by a Minister and the head of the judiciary is what most people in England and Wales already regard as the head of the judiciary—the Lord Chief Justice? Or, should they be one person? We believe that a separation should occur because it would enhance the role of the Minister and place the Lord Chief Justice in the position that he should be in as far as the judiciary of England and Wales is concerned.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I recognise and support the direction of the reforms and, in most of the detail, acknowledge the force of the case. I also noticed, as other noble Lords may have, that the Lord Chancellor spoke about the expectation that this would be a stable package, "embedded in statute", with respect to the retention of judicial independence and the entrenchment of the relationship between the department and the judiciary. However, in answer to my noble friend Lord Goodhart, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that that could happen only as long as it followed the will of Parliament. In other words, there is no constitutional underpinning for these proposals at all that is in any way different from other statutory legislation.
In those circumstances, is it not appropriate now to consider whether that basic fundament of the English constitution is not due for update? The evidence has been before us in this Parliament—my noble friend spoke about the asylum Bill, but there are other examples of fundamental rights having been swept away by the will of Parliament. Should we not consider that there are certain constitutional issues of such vital importance. including the independence of the judiciary, that we need to entrench them by other constitutional means, such as requiring a higher majority than for ordinary legislation or popular backing through a referendum?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord said that these are matters of great constitutional importance. I agree. He said that the independence of the judiciary is a fundament of our constitution—I entirely agree. Another fundament of our constitution is the supremacy of Parliament. In effect, he proposes that some provisions that Parliament passes cannot be changed unless special additional measures are gone through. I believe in the supremacy of Parliament without procedurally entrenched provisions. That is the right way forward, so I do not agree that we should change that part of our constitutional settlement. I do not believe for one moment that things such as the independence of the judiciary would ever be threatened by our Parliament.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I join in the wholehearted welcome that has been given to this concordat and I congratulate both the noble and learned Lord who speaks for the Government and the other noble and learned Lord who speaks for the judiciary on the efforts that they have made. However, I take up the point implicitly dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and expressly dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—about protection for the rule of law. The Lord Chancellor, when he referred to Clause 10 of the asylum Bill, said, "That is for another day". I respectfully disagree. It is something that all of your Lordships should have a look at now, although the legislation is still in the House of Commons. It provides that there should be no supervisory jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal by any court in the land.
If that were not sufficient, the Bill goes on to provide that, in particular, there should be no basis of complaint against the tribunal if it exceeds its jurisdiction, or, even more breathtaking, if it acts contrary to natural justice. That is in the Bill. If we are going down that road, it seems very relevant to the concordat, or to legislation connected with the concordat, that there should be some entrenchment.
I cannot help drawing attention to the fact that more than 100 Members of this House and of the Commons, of all political persuasions, have recently supported an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, supporting claims that that court should assert the supremacy of the civil courts over the military tribunal that exists in Guantanamo Bay. What exactly is the difference in principle between that and the situation where we have a new special tribunal and no other court whatever can look at its activities? We do not want a Guantanamo Bay in this country. I think. with respect, that the noble and learned Lord ought to address not Clause 10 itself, but the philosophy that lies behind it, and address it now.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for welcoming the package. As he knows, Clause 10 allows decisions of the Home Office to be looked at by a single appeal tribunal. That appeal tribunal would be presided over—not in every case, but administratively—by a High Court judge. If people object to the conclusion of that tribunal, they can apply again to the tribunal and a judge, properly appointed, will consider it. I believe that that is sufficient judicial consideration of the rightness or wrongness of the view.
The noble and learned Lord is shaking his head. However, Parliament, and in particular this House, will get an opportunity to consider it in detail.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is time to move to the next business.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to bring forward this Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, which continues to make further progress in the modernisation of the statute book. The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have a statutory responsibility to promote the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary laws. Over the past 35 years, 17 reports on statute law revision, with draft Bills attached, have been presented to Parliament. The 16 previous reports have resulted in repeals of more than 4,300 enactments, including nearly 2,000 whole Acts. The present Bill proposes the repeal of 68 whole Acts and the removal of redundant provisions from more than 400 others.
The repeals in this Bill are set out in Schedule 1. They are in 17 parts. They range from the administration of justice, ecclesiastical law and education to obsolete enactments concerning aviation, finance and road traffic. A number of local Acts in Scotland, which have no continuing practical utility, are also being repealed.
As always, the work of the Law Commissions has uncovered areas of some historical interest and antiquity. For example, one repeal proposal relates to Queen Anne's Bounty, an institution dating back to 1704. Other proposals relate to the obsolete provisions in the London Hackney Carriages Acts of the Victorian era. But such has been the pace of social, economic and political change in more recent times that many of the proposals in the Bill relate to statutes enacted since the Second World War. This is particularly true in the area of agriculture where many changes have come about over the past half century because of new farming methods and our membership of the European Union.
Your Lordships will wish to know that there has been full consultation with interested bodies on all the proposed repeals. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in paying tribute to the two Law Commissions for their thorough and painstaking efforts in this important work of modernising the statute book. I should also thank those who have been consulted by the commissions for their contributions.
If your Lordships are content to give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have been campaigning for many years for the repeal to the Preamble to the Clergy Ordination Act 1804. I am delighted to see that my campaign has at last succeeded.
I rise only to repeat very briefly the thanks expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Law Commissions, which, as ever, have done an
32
extremely valuable job in pruning some of the dead wood that the great forest of our statute law has accumulated over recent years. We are very happy to support the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it is good to experience a sensation of total harmony with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I wholly endorse everything that they have both said about the work of the Law Commissions.
Inevitably, measures such as a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill take some of us down memory lane. In my case, it recalls, pleasingly, Lady Hylton-Foster. I note that her Annuity Act of 1965 is being repealed. It was to settle and secure an annuity on her in consideration of the eminent services of her late husband, Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, who was Speaker of the House of Commons. It reminds us pleasurably of Lady Hylton-Foster. As I sit down, I am experiencing the same pleasurable feeling about this particular piece of legislation.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Patents Bill [H.L.]
4.16 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The future strength of the UK economy will increasingly be dependent on how effectively it can exploit its knowledge resources to answer the challenges of rapidly changing global-scale markets. In mature economies such as ours, generating new business will depend on being able to add unique value to solve business problems, whether through the application of new ideas or the innovative application of existing ideas or both. Such economies cannot compete in terms of the costs of labour or of production with the emerging economies in the Far East. For example, in China, wages are less than 5 per cent of those in the UK, and in South Korea, which has almost the same proportion of graduates in its workforce as the UK, the wage costs are half of ours. The future success of the UK economy will be dependent on adding knowledge value, for example by making effective use of research and development to develop new business.
Patents, along with other intellectual property rights, play an important role in helping an individual person or company to protect what is often their most important asset: the unique value added when developing new products or processes. It is therefore timely that we should be looking at a Bill that updates patent law when it comes so soon after the publication of the Government's Innovation Review. Appropriate and fair protection for the results of UK business's investment in innovative activity can encourage only more innovation for the benefit of us all.

33
Patents are, unfortunately, not well understood by many businesses. The Innovation Review has recognised the need to increase awareness about all intellectual property and this is something that we are pursuing in parallel to this Bill. Patents provide the holder, who may he the inventor or the company for whom the inventor works, with the statutory right to prevent someone else using the invention without his permission. The practical effect of this is that the patent holder has the exclusive right, for up to a maximum period of 20 years, subject to the payment of an annual renewal fee, to recover the investment he has made in the invention that he has patented. This recovery may take a number of forms. For example, the patent holder may license the right to exploit the invention to a third party and receive a licence fee for doing so. Alternatively, he may decide to work the invention himself and so manufacture the product, or carry out the process, protected by the patent.
UK businesses operate in national, regional and global markets and thus will want to ensure that they can protect their valuable intellectual property assets in all types of markets. The Patents Act 1977 has served us well in this respect. It had two key objectives: first, to reform and modernise UK domestic patent law and, secondly, to permit the UK to ratify a number of international patent agreements and thus ensure that UK businesses could obtain similar patent protection for their inventions regionally, in other countries in Europe, and globally.
The most important of these international patent agreements was the European Patent Convention of 1973 which allows a UK applicant to obtain, using a single application and granting procedure, a patent which will be effective in any of up to 27 European countries, including the UK as well as all our EU partners. This European patent is in effect a bundle of national patents that all become effective in the country in question upon payment of a fee and filing a translation of the patent in the official language of that country.
In November 2000. at an intergovernmental meeting in Munich, a large number of changes to the 1973 European Patent Convention were discussed and agreed by representatives from all the contracting states which had ratified this convention. All the states which attended this conference undertook to implement the agreed changes as soon as possible.
The first objective of the Bill is therefore to amend the Patents Act 1977 to implement, in UK law, the changes to the 1973 European Patent Convention that were agreed in 2000. Failure to ratify the revised version of the European Patent Convention would result in the UK having to leave the European Patent Organisation, the body set up under the convention to carry out all the tasks involved in the granting of European patents. The consequences for UK business would be significant.
By bringing UK patent law into line with these revisions to an international treaty, we will ensure that UK businesses can continue to use the single application and granting procedure to obtain
34
European patents valid in the UK. In 2002, UK businesses were the third largest user of the European patent system after Germany and France, both in terms of patents applied for and patents granted. Were we to leave the European Patent Organisation, UK businesses would experience increases in red tape and the costs of obtaining patent protection. They would have to file separate applications and pay separate fees for patent protection in the UK and in other European countries under the European Patent Convention.
Moreover, as one of the original signatories to the convention, it is important that the UK maintains the active role it has played in the development of the European patent system since its beginning. It is only by meeting our obligations under the revised European Patent Convention that we can continue to be a contracting party to it, and so influence future developments for the benefit of all UK interests. The Bill is therefore crucial if the UK is to remain a key player at the centre of the European patent system.
Clauses 1 to 5 make the necessary changes to the 1977 Act to take account of the changes agreed to the European Patent Convention in 2000. Clause 1 achieves two things. First, it makes it much clearer that any method of medical treatment—for example, a new surgical technique—cannot be patented. Secondly, it provides a much less complicated way of obtaining patent protection when a new use is found for a medically active substance which already has a known use or uses.
Clauses 2 to 4 cover various issues arising from the new limitation procedure provided by the revised version of the European Patent Convention. Clause 2 ensures that when the courts, or the comptroller of the Patent Office, exercise their discretion on whether or not to allow an amendment of a patent—such as a limitation—they will do so having regard to any relevant principles under the European Patent Convention. In the situation where a European patent in force in the UK is found to be partially invalid during infringement or revocation proceedings here in the UK, Clauses 3 and 4 ensure that the new central limitation procedure will be available to the patent holder as a remedy. He will be able to limit—that is, reduce—the scope of his European patent in one step at the European Patent Office and this will have effect in all the countries in which this European patent is in force, including the UK.
Clause 5 introduces Schedule 1 which deals with the remaining amendments to the Patents Act 1977 required to fulfil our international obligations. While the majority of these changes flow from the streamlining of the European Patent Convention in 2000, this schedule also makes some minor changes in respect of the relationship between the Patent Co-operation Treaty and UK domestic patent law. This treaty permits a single application for patent protection in up to 123 countries worldwide. It provides an alternative route for UK businesses requiring protection at a global level.
This brings me to the second part of the Bill which is concerned with other amendments to the Patents Act 1977—which will make improvements to the current

35
arrangements for handling disputes over patents, including the creation of a new opinion procedure to provide an early and rapid assessment of issues relevant to validity or infringement of a patent; and make the UK patent system more responsive to the needs of customers.
The Patent Office can hear a wide range of disputes over patents on questions such as should a certain patent have been granted; in other words, is the patent a valid one? Does a certain act fall within the scope of a patent: in other words, is the patent infringed by this act? Has an employee who made the invention received just compensation from his employer who owns the patent? Are all those listed as applicants for the patent entitled to be so?
The Patent Office has built up considerable experience over many years in addressing the issues that could arise in disputes, but we do not believe that this experience is fully utilised. Moreover, we have recognised the changing needs of users of the patent system in the UK and a growing concern in some quarters with regard to the enforcement of patent rights. Much of this concern currently focuses on the cost of patent litigation. For example, a recent case at the Patents Court concerning infringement of a patent reportedly involved costs of £850,000 for a four-day hearing. The result of this is that for many companies, especially those in the small and medium enterprise sectors, enforcement of their patent rights may involve costs, but also time pressures, that are difficult to bear.
The Government have therefore taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to make a number of improvements relating to the handling of disputes and utilising the expertise in the Patent Office. In an effort to help patent holders and others determine as early as possible what is the likelihood of success when considering or facing possible litigation, Clause 12 of the Bill would provide a new procedure under which the Patent Office would issue, on request, an opinion on certain matters that might be relevant to a patent dispute.
Opinions would be possible on whether or not a specific act is an infringing one with respect to a particular patent, or whether some new evidence—for example, a published article not previously considered—brings into question the validity of a specific patent. Although the opinion will not be binding on any party, it will provide a rapid and affordable assessment of the particular issue of validity or infringement in question, based on a consideration of both sides of the argument. Such a timely and affordable assessment will, we believe, be extremely helpful to any party, but perhaps particularly so to a small or medium-sized enterprise trying to decide how best to enforce its patent rights.
Clause 12 sets out certain substantive issues relating to the new non-binding opinions on validity or infringement, including a mechanism to review such opinions where appropriate. However, many of the details of the opinion procedure and review will be laid
36
down in secondary legislation after further comprehensive consultation with stakeholders on how best to implement this new procedure.
Further improvements in the area of infringement disputes are provided for in Clauses 10 and 11. Clause 11 would make it easier for a patent holder who is genuinely interested in settling a dispute to make an approach to those who are believed to be the source of the infringement, such as those making or importing an allegedly infringing product. In situations where such a person is not easy to identify, this clause would also permit a retailer to be approached to find out who, exactly, is the source of the suspected infringing matter at issue. As long as this approach is made in an appropriate way, the patent holder will not be subject to an action from the retailer for making a groundless threat to launch infringement proceedings. Thus, it will make it easier for the patent holder to find out the true source of the alleged infringing matter and hence encourage settlement of the dispute with that person.
Clause 10 makes it simpler for a patent holder to enforce an award for damages following successful infringement proceedings before the Patent Office.
I should like now to consider the improvements in the Bill which relate to patent litigation on issues other than infringement and validity. The Patents Act 1977 recognised for the first time that an employee should have certain statutory rights in relation to inventions made by him, but being exploited by his employer. A wide-ranging review of the effectiveness of these rights under the 1977 Act was conducted as part of the public consultation which preceded the Bill. The conclusion from this exercise was that these provisions of the 1977 Act have provided a strong incentive to companies to make their own corporate arrangements for the effective reward of employees who make important contributions to the business. Despite suggesting a number of options for reform, there was sufficient support for change on only one issue.
Clause 9 will allow an employee to include benefits that flow from the invention itself, and not only benefits flowing specifically from the patent, when required to show that a patented invention is. in the words of Section 40, of "outstanding benefit" to the employer. This will allow the employee a limited increase in the scope of what can count towards meeting the high evidential threshold of outstanding benefit, without upsetting the careful balance that must be maintained between the rights of the employer on the one hand, and those of the employee on the other.
Clause 6 makes an adjustment to the handling of disputes over who is rightfully entitled to be named as the applicant for a patent. It prevents the unsuccessful party in such a dispute from being able to reduce the patent protection available to the successful party.
The final improvement in this area is made in Clause 13, which concerns the circumstances in which a party is required to provide a security for any costs that it may be ordered to pay at the end of proceedings before the Patent Office. The change will bring the law on

37
patents into agreement with the law on trade marks, and will enable the rules to be aligned with those governing civil procedure in the courts.
As I have already mentioned, the second part of the Bill also makes a number of changes to the 1977 Act to ensure that the UK patent system continues to be responsive to the practical needs of users. Clause 7 would permit the date by which renewal fees must be paid in order to keep a patent in force to be altered to the end of the month. This will make it simpler for UK businesses to manage their patent portfolios and has the added advantage that it brings us into line with practice in other European countries.
The second improvement in this area is that in Clause 8. This makes clear the relationship between co-owners of a patent in certain situations where they may not have made any agreement between themselves on how to act.
Schedule 2 contains a number of more modest changes which would also permit an improvement in the Patent Office's responsiveness to its customers. Measures included here will make it easier for the Patent Office to vary its hours of business, and to alter the layout and content of its application forms in response to customer feedback. The remaining measures in Schedule 2 deal with minor and consequential amendments to the Patents Act 1977.
This is a small but important Bill, which is essential if we are to meet our international obligations under the European Patent Convention. Furthermore, in doing so, we will ensure that the UK maintains the role in the development of the European patent system commensurate with the important position of UK industry as its third largest user. At the same time, by improving the mechanisms for resolving disputes in this Bill, we will assist all who obtain patents to gain the fullest benefit possible from their most important asset—their intellectual and knowledge resources. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill he now read a second time.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
4.33 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, your Lordships may wonder why I put my name down to speak on this somewhat esoteric Bill. The Minister will appreciate that 27 years ago—I think to the day—I was sitting exactly where my noble friend Lord Attlee is sitting, with my noble friend Lord Belstead. We started debating the Second Reading of the 1977 Patents Bill, as it then was. I seem to recall that the Bill finally passed through all the stages in your Lordships' House on 15 July of that year. In spite of the fact that the Minister referred to the Bill as relatively simple, I commend and admire him for covering all aspects of the Bill, together with other aspects relevant to it, in 16 minutes. I hope that I shall he much briefer.
I worked on that Bill with my noble friend Lord Belstead and with Lord Elwyn-Jones, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey and Lord Horam, together with two other patent barristers on the Back Benches and the late
38
Lord Halsbury. We discussed various aspects of that particularly important Bill late into the night. That led me to admire inventions and industry such as that referred to by the Minister. It also led me to make contacts that I have maintained to this day, and to have great admiration for one of the leading industries that I know is admired by the Minister—the pharmaceutical industry.
In 1977 we had lengthy discussions and obtained some valuable amendments concerning the licences of right. This was non-controversial and the Government gave us considerable assistance. On this occasion, we have had some briefing, including the Department of Trade and Industry brief, and some helpful words from the Minister about "need to know" and above all how invention and novelty are of particular importance.
Will the Minister or his assistants be able at some stage to advise me on Clause 2? That clause adds some slight amendments to three sections of the 1977 Act—Section 58, concerning references of disputes as to Crown use, Section 62, concerning restrictions on recovery of damages for infringement and Section 63, which concerns relief for the infringement of partially valid patents. Clause 2 makes minor amendments to all those sections about relief being sought "in good faith". Will the Minister be able to advise me as to whether there has been a difficulty over the years or recently in this area? I understand that we have plenty time before we come to further stages of debate on the Bill and that we may take a relaxed attitude. However, if at some stage the Minister or his team could give me some advice on that I would be grateful.
I come to three more clauses in the Bill on which I hope the Minister will be able to give me some advice during the coming weeks—I hope that it will not be months. Clause 9 deals with Section 40 of the 1977 Act. It inserts into that section a new subsection (1)(b), which includes the phrase:
"having regard among other things to the size and nature of the employer's undertaking".
The provision goes on to refer to "outstanding benefit". I hope that I am not as much of a cynical so-and-so as a chartered accountant, but I wonder whether there is any limit to that term.
If I may I shall digress briefly to speak about a Swiss company that is now part of a large group—Novartis. About 10 years ago, as I recall—I shall get confirmation of this information and I apologise for not having it for the Minister this afternoon—the chairman of the company allowed two or three research projects to go ahead even after they had passed their sell-by date. In one case, the researchers discovered a product called Sandimmun—the company was called Sandoz and they added something else on. That product had a particular and more than outstanding benefit in terms of that company's profits for three successive years. I would certainly have more information on this matter if we were able to discuss it in Committee. It was of particular interest. I do not know whether there are

39
other, similar examples in British industry, let alone in the pharmaceutical sector. I wish to know how this quality of outstanding benefit is to be defined.
Such a discovery, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, is due not to one employee, but to a team or group. There may be a team leader, but three, four or more people will be involved and, as a result of their collective endeavours, a particularly valuable invention or process may be identified, which could be patented. The advice that I have received relates to what to my mind is a dreadful word—competition—but which is very much approved of by the Minister. Any company that does not adequately reward a team—let alone an employee, as drafted in the Bill—will soon find that that team, invention and knowledge goes elsewhere. I should be very grateful if—over the next week or so, if not today—the Minister could advise me how "outstanding benefit" will be defined.
Clause 11(4) is about the use of "best endeavours". Is the Minister able to give me a steer on how that can be defined? Has there been a difficulty over the 27 years?
The noble Lord tried to be persuasive—and probably was quite persuasive—about Clause 12 and the opinions of the Patent Office. He suggested that there should be simplicity for small and medium-sized firms. I much admired the Patent Office in 1977 and much admire it now. However, giving opinions can be perilous or even dangerous, and certainly somewhat difficult. The Minister drew attention to the fact that Clause 12 states that:
"An opinion under this section shall not be binding for any purposes".
I look forward to that provision being used if anything comes before the courts. No doubt it was written with good intention, so perhaps the Minister will be able to assist me further in the days to come.
A percentage of GNP is for business research and development in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord pointed out, in those terms the United Kingdom is about average for the European Union, but it is well below the United States, let alone Finland, France and Germany. However, the average could be rather crude. I understand that the pharmaceutical industry—I hope that I am not basking in its glory or buttering it up overmuch—is virtually second to none so far as concerns Europe and, I believe, on the world stage. Therefore, I suspect that the figures for that industry and other sectors may well be much more flattering and encouraging.
I apologise for taking half the time that it took the Minister to talk about the Bill, but it is important. It is particularly important to one special and very successful industry in the United Kingdom that employs lots of young, competent and very intelligent scientists. I approve of all that the Minister said and wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House. I hope that the Minister can clear up some of the matters raised today and that we will have plenty of time at the next stage. I thank him for his comments.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said that the Bill was extremely esoteric, which it clearly is politically, considering the sparse attendance in the House this afternoon. He also ended up saying something with which I absolutely concur; namely, that the Bill is important for large sectors of British industry.
It is apparent to those of us who have studied the background to the Bill that an extensive consultation exercise has been undertaken on possible changes to the Patents Act 1977. However, one problem—it touches on the problems that the Minister often seems to have with Department of Trade and Industry Bills—is that large numbers of very worthwhile suggestions have come forward in the consultation procedure that either his department or his lords and masters who control the legislative programme have felt inappropriate to put into the Bill. Because of the esoteric nature of the subject and the exigencies of the legislative programme, I suspect that we will not have an opportunity to look at a number of those issues for some time.
I understand that the consultation exercise indicated quite considerable support for a new designs Act, the jurisdiction of the Patents County Court being widened to cover trademark matters, a number of parts of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 being amended, and taxation laws in relation to damages and costs in legal proceedings being amended. That is a big mouthful for the Minister to chew on, let alone swallow. However, it is regrettable, with the pressures of legislative time and the government programme these days, that when an opportunity has been taken for such extensive consultation the legislation that comes forward is limited.
I want to raise a number of questions for the Minister. I suspect that he will not necessarily answer them when he responds, but as we move into Committee we on these Benches will look for answers to them. In the consultation exercise, answers came in on a number of issues and the Government took a whole series of policy decisions that did not necessarily meet the views of a number of the parties consulted. I shall highlight those and, either today or when we go through the issues in Committee, I hope that the Minister will satisfy us that the correct policy decisions have been taken.
A number of the people consulted believe that we should bring the UK into line with the European Patent Convention, which allows an inventor, if he or she is not the applicant, to have his or her name and address kept confidential. The Government have not seen fit in their proposals to agree to that. Either today or in Committee, the Government need to justify that decision.
There were considerable cross-currents of views in the consultation process in relation to employee-inventor compensation for inventions of outstanding benefit. The Minister indicated that the Government proposed to make no change to the existing

41
procedures. He will be aware that Section 40 of the existing Act has never been used, because either employers have generally chosen to settle anything but the most hopeless of cases rather than face litigation, or the balance between the interests of the employee and the employer is weighted too heavily in favour of the employer. When we get to look at the Bill in detail, Her Majesty's Government need to justify whether and why they think no change is necessary to Section 40.
The next point that caused some controversy was in relation to discretion being removed from post-grant amendment. The general view was that the Government's policy was correct. However, some justification is necessary from the Government about whether, if discretion is removed from post-grant amendment so that the conduct of the proprietor is no longer a factor, the facility to oppose amendments should also be removed.
There is a brief and technical point regarding licences of right and Section 46(3)(c). In the consultation process, the Patent Office suggested,
"extending the concession that no injunction and only limited damages will be available as remedies in infringement proceedings, provided the defendant agrees to take a licence of right. This concession is currently only available to those who import into the UK from within the European Economic Area".
Following the consultation process, the Government do not propose to extend that concession, but they need to justify that.
Next, and probably my main point, is that in the original consultation it was proposed that,
"section 61 be amended to remove the existing requirement that if infringement proceedings are to be brought before the comptroller both parties must consent to this happening".
There was considerable consultation on that because, if the requirement that both parties must consent was withdrawn, a considerably cheaper alternative to litigation would be available, taking into account the expertise of the Comptroller. Could the Government explain why, following the consultation, they have chosen not to remove that existing requirement?
Finally, there is the thorny issue of threats; it is an issue which took up a large amount of the consultation process, with considerable disagreement among those who were consulted. First, the Government asked whether the provisions on threats needed improving generally to facilitate genuine attempts to settle infringement disputes prior to litigation—which would be in the spirit of the reforms of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
Secondly, the Government proposed a specific change to Section 70(4), so that where someone was alleged to be a primary infringer, and a threat was made that included an allegation of secondary infringement, proceedings for unjustified threats would no longer be able to be brought by the alleged infringer. The Government are proceeding with that specific change, but have not chosen to deal with the general improvement of provisions which would facilitate attempts to settle threats disputes. It is also an area where we will seek further explanation. A number of respondents suggested going further than
42
the Government propose by allowing a patentee to be free to notify a potential infringer of a patent, identify alleged infringing products and the relevant claims and provide reasoning that repeated assertions should give rise to possible threat actions. The Government have not seen fit to go that far.
Thirdly, the Government have not seen fit to introduce an equivalent provision to Section 132 of the Australian Patents Act to protect legal representatives and patent agents from threats of litigation in proceedings. Will the Government also justify why they have not chosen to take that step?
In conclusion, these Benches welcome the Bill. We will not be difficult over ensuring its passage. Most of the provisions are technical and essential. It is a pity that the Government have not taken the opportunity to amend Section 61 to allow the Comptroller to offer an informal and cost effective alternative to litigation. It is also a pity that the opportunity has not been taken for a wider review of the whole area.
4.53 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his Bill. He said that patents were not well understood by business. I have the same problem, but I am learning. The Bill is non-controversial, highly technical and important, as all noble Lords agree. However, it appears that the Bill's importance is inversely proportional to the size of the list of speakers. That makes me all the more grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for his contribution. In his press release of 16 January, the Minister said:
"The Government is committed to improving the environment necessary to support and encourage innovation. Effective, flexible and up-to-date patent law is essential to help businesses turn bright ideas into successful products and processes."
I could not have put that better myself.
The 1977 Act, now well over 20 years old, has stood the test of time well, as the Minister observed. It has obviously had much benefit from the attentions of my noble friend Lord Lyell. As the Minister explained, the Bill implements EPC 2000. I have little problem there and I strongly support the assertion that there should be no discernible difference between EPC 2000 and UK domestic law. There will no doubt be some minor matters to be clarified during later stages of the Bill.
As a complete Euro-sceptic, I hope that the Minster has a long-term aspiration that we should have a single European patent convention covering all EPC states. It is clearly a single market issue. The cost of translation of patents is stupendous and we need to have one language for them all. There is an obvious difficulty for the Minister when negotiating with other European states. English is the technical language of the world—85 per cent of patents are published in English and nearly all of them are initially published in English. I am confident that the Minister is on the job. Can he give us a progress report when he replies?
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, raised a number of points about the consultation. I expect that we shall sing off the same song sheet more often than not. The Bill introduces new measures to assist the enforcement

43
of patent rights and to help resolve patent disputes. Clause 9 extends compensation to employees to inventions and not just patents, as the Minister explained. Like my noble friend Lord Lyell, who expressed some caution, I am worried about that. Is the new provision too wide or too general? We will have to look closely at that in Committee.
Clause 11 concerns the issue of threats under Section 70 of the 1977 Act. The new provisions may be helpful, but we detect concerns from larger organisations. We will have to balance the needs of large organisations with the needs of small ones or even individuals. I suspect that a difficulty that all noble Lords will have with the Bill will be the need to avoid the perils of regulation and bureaucracy.
Clause 12 provides for the Patents Office to give an opinion on validity and any infringement of a patent. I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Lyell about the clause. I can see the mischief regarding the extremely high cost of litigation—one reason for that is that patent lawyers need to be technocrats as well. I can understand how the Patent Office, because of its wide experience, can give an opinion on the validity of a patent, but infringement will be a new area of activity for the Patent Office. The new procedure is designed to save the costs of litigation and I have been told that it might cost in the order of £150 to £300. But one would be lucky to have an hour of the services of a good patent lawyer for that much money, so I am not quite convinced that the new procedure will help. Will the Minister give some idea of the costs and the time scale involved in the Patent Office giving an opinion? That opinion may be useful as a sanity check to parties in a dispute, but the Minister will have to convince the House that there is further utility in the clause.
Regarding intellectual property rights in respect of computer software—another highly complex area—we certainly do not want to follow the American route of being able to patent a business plan. What is the Government's position on computer software?
Finally, I turn to the thorny issue of exemplary damages in the event of a flagrant breach of a patent. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, thought that the thorny issue was threats, but I think that it is exemplary damages. A Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place in 2002 by Mr Liddell-Grainger under the 10-minute rule procedure. Currently the only remedy available in cases of infringement is an injunction over the royalties lost. That might not be a significant deterrent to a large organisation to prevent it abusing its position. Triple damages are available in the US. But there is a difficulty with the Liddell-Grainger Bill: it contains no definition of "flagrant". Without tight drafting of the Liddell-Grainger provision on exemplary damages, every claim for infringement could also incur a claim for exemplary damages, which is not desirable. Perhaps something could be inserted into Section 70, for example. The jury is out on exemplary damages at present. I would be very interested to hear the Minister's views, and I hope that we can carry out a careful examination in Committee.
44
We welcome the Bill, although there may be room for improvement. I hope that the Minister can reassure us, where we have concerns, but I do not think that he need lose any sleep over the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, ever since James I introduced the Statute of Monopolies in 1623, the law relating to patents has not been the most straightforward legislation. That is partly because the law must go to some lengths to maintain a careful balance. It awards exclusive rights to those who create genuinely innovative products and processes, but the system must encourage the exercise of those rights in a manner that is beneficial for all and must provide ways for others to challenge those rights.
Furthermore, patent law is not straightforward, because it combines difficult legal issues with complex matters of science and engineering. Fortunately, this House has expertise in both legal and technical fields. I look forward to the Bill being subject to further analysis and detailed scrutiny.
I shall now reply briefly to the main points made. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, raised the question of outstanding benefit and how it is defined. I can only offer the following comment from the leading court case on the issue: the word "outstanding" denotes something special and requires the benefit to be more than substantial or good. It would be unwise to try to define the word "outstanding" in more detail. Courts will recognise an outstanding benefit whenever it occurs. That is probably the wisest approach rather than trying to define it in detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also raised the question of good faith. There is an issue concerning whether a patent-holder who knowingly maintains an invalid patent claim can later amend his patent. When a court or the Comptroller is deciding whether to allow or refuse an amendment of a patent, Clause 2 would retain their discretion to take account of such covetous behaviour, but only if it is consistent with the relevant principles under the European Patent Convention. If it is considered that the principles under the EPC clearly rule out covetous behaviour from being taken into account, the Comptroller or the court would not be able to take such behaviour into account either. However, Clause 2 would prevent a covetous patent-holder from winning damages for any infringement committed when the patent claim was restricted by amendment to its proper scope. The provision would therefore protect the public from the action of covetous patent-holders, but differently from the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that more changes should have been made to the Bill on employee invention. We looked at the matter in great detail. The argument put forward is that it is difficult to show that an employer has gained outstanding benefit from the employee's invention. However, the vast majority of respondents to the consultation on the proposed changes to the provisions agree that the threshold should remain at its current level. It was considered more appropriate to allow the employee to

45
include more material that might demonstrate outstanding benefit rather than to reduce the threshold. Hence respondents were prepared to accept that the best approach was to allow benefits arising from the invention itself to be included, in addition to the benefits arising from the patents. So we enabled the inventor to produce more evidence but did not change the threshold.
The following question will arise in further debates: if you have outstanding benefit from a patented invention, will that create difficulties as regards the contribution made to it by others in the company? If you can establish what was due to the quality of the patent and the invention and what was due to the quality of the others involved, such as marketing and production staff, it will ring clear. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that competition between companies will mean that they reward employees properly for invention, but it seems right to have that as back-up.
The noble Lord also asked about the R&D position. He is right that on average our R&D is roughly the same as the EU's. Two startling contradictions to that are the pharmaceutical industry and the aerospace industry. The pharmaceutical industry has an extraordinary record on R&D in this country; it is way above the international average, which is undoubtedly why it is so successful. Without the pharmaceutical industry's input to our figures, they would not even look average. We should not be too sanguine about the fact that our position is average.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked why the Bill would not allow inventors to remain anonymous when a patent application was published. We consulted on whether inventors should be allowed to remain anonymous. The majority of respondents to our consultation were against it, for a variety of reasons. We are aware of concerns that scientists who develop controversial technologies are sometimes targeted by activists. However, on patent applications, employees have always had, and will retain, the option of giving their employer's address rather than their own if they fear for their personal safety. Moreover, we intend to change the patent rules to prevent an inventor who is not the patent applicant keeping his address confidential. Thus it is not necessary or appropriate to include anything in the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the Patent Office's opinions on validity or infringement. I think that the matter will be debated in Committee. It will help to speed up negotiations, but of course participation is entirely voluntary. It will be useful only if it is seen as a way whereby people who genuinely wish to negotiate can take things forward at a lower cost than otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the threats provision. Genuine attempts at pre-litigation settlement of a patent infringement may have been hampered in the past by the existing provisions on threats in Section 70 of the 1977 Act. Clause 11 makes several changes intended to address that. The change to Section 70(4)
46
is one of those. However, that is now subject to the second change made by Clause 11, which was in response to concerns raised during the consultation. Under current provisions, a patent holder who, for example, has failed to find the manufacturer of an allegedly infringing product cannot risk contacting the retailer of the product to resolve the dispute for fear of a threats action against him.
Clause 11 would, therefore, allow the patent holder freely to approach an alleged secondary infringer, but only in the limited circumstances where he has unsuccessfully used his best endeavours to locate the alleged primary infringer first. Furthermore, it clarifies the way in which a patent-holder may contact an alleged secondary infringer as part of his best endeavours. I believe that it is therefore a modest adjustment to the balance between the rights of a patent holder to chase infringers and the need to provide alleged secondary infringers with protection from unjustified threats. It is an adjustment that should address concerns about the inability of patent holders to make genuine attempts to settle disputes.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised the question of the situation regarding the single European patent and the proposed language regime. I note what the noble Earl said about the single European patent. In order to avoid confusion with a European patent, which is a bundle of national patents and is currently granted under the European Patent Convention, it is more helpful to refer to a single European patent as a Community patent.
Negotiations are currently under way in Brussels on a European Community regulation to establish the Community patent. They are currently focused on the issue of a centralised Community jurisdiction for resolving disputes. The final form of the regulations has not been agreed, but a single language regime based on English, which is favoured by many—and which is the entirely rational way to do this because so many companies that want a patent will automatically transfer it to America—is not one that we have been able to get everyone to agree to. We will continue our efforts in these negotiations to obtain the best possible agreement for the UK.
In due course, we will elaborate on the costs and timescale of opinions issued by the Patent Office. However, we expect opinions to be delivered in a few months at most from the request being made. We expect costs to the requester to be a few hundred pounds at most. It will be important to make sure that both timescale and cost are commensurate with the fact that opinions are not full blown proceedings. Opinions can serve a useful purpose, as we have identified. Moreover, as has already been said, procedural details will have to be decided in the light of the views of the stakeholders and, in this respect, we will be consulting widely.
I am afraid that I have not dealt with all the issues that were raised. Most of the others can be taken in Committee in more detail. I hope that I have dealt with the more major issues. The current situation on computer software is that we are not changing the law,

47
we are merely seeking clarification of the current position. We have no desire to go in the direction that the American law has taken.
This Bill may be modest in size and technical in nature, but it nevertheless contains a number of important measures. It ensures that our law remains in line with international agreements, particularly the revised European Patent Convention, and so ensures that the United Kingdom can remain a major player at the heart of the European patent system. It tackles the difficult area of patent enforcement, by providing improvements to help parties to resolve disputes over patents without resorting to litigation. The Bill improves the patent system, so that it may be more flexible in response to the needs of its users.
I look forward with interest to the deliberations on these measures in Committee. I look forward to working with your Lordships to ensure that the patent system is responsive, flexible and accessible, so that it will meet the needs of tomorrow's innovators for the benefit of all.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

European Central Bank
5.13 p.m.
Lord Radice Lord Radice rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Is the European Central Bank Working? (42nd Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 170).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will no doubt remember that the Sub-Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs reported on the stability and growth pact in March last year. The House held a debate on that report last June. Our report on the European Central Bank, which was published at the end of last October, just before Jean-Claude Trichet took up his presidency, which we are debating today, is a companion volume to the one on the stability and growth pact.
A few months before the ECB was established on 1 June 1998, my committee conducted an inquiry into the feasibility of such a bank. Now, five years later, it is a good time to review the workings of the ECB. The report does not consider whether, or when, the UK should join the euro. My views on that subject are well known. Rather, it is an evaluation of the ECB as a central bank looked at from an overall European perspective. In our inquiry, we held eight public hearings and also received written evidence. I thank all our witnesses, our committee staff, especially our Clerk, and my distinguished colleagues for their participation and commitment.
The first point of the main conclusions of our report is that our overall assessment of the ECB's monetary policy is positive. Noble Lords will remember that the primary objective of the ECB is to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to that objective, the bank has an obligation to support the overall economic
48
policies of the EU, including a high level of employment and sustainable, non-inflationary growth. Our witnesses all agreed that the ECB had achieved its primary objective of delivering an inflation level of just above 2 per cent. In that sense, we can say that the ECB is working. It may be a young institution, but it has already built up a high level of credibility on the inflation front.
Does the EC Treaty give the ECB the right remit? Our witnesses pointed out that the EC Treaty objectives for the ECB are little different from the hierarchy of objectives set out in the Bank of England Act 1998, with primacy given to price stability. The Federal Reserve has a much wider remit. However, in practice, as Mr Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve between 1979 and 1989, said to us,
"the principal function of the Central Bank has to be concerned with stability".
It would be fair to say that whatever the differences in mandate between the ECB, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, all operate in a similar fashion. Our witnesses agreed that it was best for the ECB to retain a single objective—price stability—otherwise it creates an illusion of what monetary policy can achieve.
David Walton of Goldman Sachs said to us,
"monetary policy cannot increase the long-term growth of the economy and has no lasting effect on the equilibrium rate of employment".
In the real world, the ECB has paid attention to the secondary objectives of growth and employment. As Professor Buiter told us,
"the fact that inflation has been above target in the euro area for years now is not consistent with the view that monetary policy has been too tight".
Indeed, the UK Government suggested to us that monetary policy for the euro area has been a little bit looser than it would have been under the Bundesbank. In a way, that is part of the argument as far as the German case is concerned.
Sir Samuel Brittan was especially concerned that the ECB should not be made the scapegoat for the sluggish euro area growth rate, which he, like our other witnesses, believed was mostly related to structural problems in the European economy. The committee's conclusion was that it was right that price stability should continue to be the primary objective of the ECB, though without prejudice to that objective the ECB should also support growth and employment.
Despite the successes in delivering price stability, we believe that some useful reforms could greatly assist in the working of the ECB and make it more effective. The ECB has already shown itself to be flexible. Following a review of its monetary policy strategy, it announced that its commitment to hold inflation below 2 per cent did not mean that it intended to drive inflation ever lower; rather, its aim was to maintain inflation levels close to 2 per cent over the medium term. The bank did not intend to drive the European economy into deflation. The second change that it announced was that it was downgrading the second

49
monetary growth pillar of its monetary policy strategy—some might say, "Not before time"—as it had not proved to be a particularly effective indicator.
The committee's conclusion was that the ECB should go further and explicitly adopt an inflation target expressed as a symmetrical range around a central figure, on the lines of the British model. Although the committee accepts that, in practice, the ECB has pursued its price stability objective with flexibility, a symmetrical inflation target would be clearer, thus helping transparency, and would also address the criticism made by a number of people—as I have said, we believe it to be unfounded—that the bank does not take sufficient account of deflationary risks.
The Select Committee has another proposal to improve transparency and accountability. I should say that, from the evidence that was presented to us, it is clear that the ECB is much more transparent and accountable than is sometimes supposed. An academic survey of six central banks placed the ECB second only to the Bank of England in the ranking. The ECB is accountable to the European Parliament, and it submits an annual report to the Parliament, as well as to the Council and the Commission. The president and other members of the ECB can be asked to appear before the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. In practice, the president now appears four times a year before that committee. In addition, there are the ECB's monthly reports, which are extremely useful, and there is the president's press conference after meetings of the governing council of the ECB.
We think, however, that the ECB could go further. The records of deliberative meetings of the governing council should be published, though without attribution to individuals or voting records. That would help transparency and help the markets and the general public to understand some of the arguments without, at the same time, exposing individual members of the governing council to national pressures. It is important that that does not happen.
I turn to the governing structure of the European Central Bank. We are concerned that the reforms agreed last year to deal with enlargement, which are based on a complex rotating model, will, in the end, prove unworkable. I do not intend to describe them now, although I recommend a fiendishly clever diagram on page 40 of our report, which gives a good idea of what is intended. We recommend, instead of the proposal, that, in time, the ECB should have a small monetary policy council on the Bank of England model, composed of six members of the ECB executive and up to six independent experts. That small monetary policy council would operate under the auspices of a much larger governing council, on which all the member states' governors of central banks would sit. A monetary policy council on those lines would run monetary policy more effectively than the cumbersome and complex proposals that have been made to deal with enlargement.
50
The big appreciation of the euro against the dollar has thrown into sharp relief the question of exchange rate policy. As noble Lords will know, exchange rates fall within the competence of the Council, rather than the European Central Bank. It is obvious that movements in the exchange rate can affect monetary policy considerably, so it is essential that the ECB takes exchange rate movements into consideration, as indeed it does. The committee believes that it would be a mistake for the euro area to adopt an exchange rate target. It would almost certainly be ineffective and would probably lead to an almighty row with the United States. However, that should not rule out the ECB, Finance Ministers or both having views about the exchange rate and occasionally agreeing on interventions in the currency markets, in order to dampen down excessive swings.
That brings me to the issue of co-ordination between fiscal and monetary policy. Inside the EU, co-ordination of economic policy is complicated—indeed, it is very difficult. There is a single monetary authority, on the one hand, and multiple fiscal authorities, on the other. Yet, co-ordination is required to deal with tricky issues such as the exchange rate and with disputes over the stability and growth pact, as well as to ensure that more general and important issues such as monetary and fiscal policy complement each other. We propose that arrangements for the communication and exchange of information between the ECB and the fiscal authorities could be strengthened, if the role of the euro group were formalised, thus allowing its representative or chairman to communicate more effectively—probably on an informal basis—with the president of the ECB.
I have come to the end of what I wish to say. I believe that it is right that we continue to assess the development of the European Central Bank. Even while we stay out, the operations of the ECB affect our economy, given the fact that the euro area is our largest single market. If, as I hope, we decide to join, it is essential that the ECB works as effectively as possible. We are entitled to have views about what happens to the ECB. It is in that spirit that I present the report to the House. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. Their reply to us, although interesting, was somewhat opaque. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords on an institution that, whatever happens, will remain vital to the future of our country.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Is the European Central Bank Working? (42nd Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 170).—(Lord Radice.)
5.28 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Radice for his report and for his speech. There is not a lot in them to disagree with. My noble friend is, as always, modest and moderate in his views. When any chairman is presenting a report by a Select

51
Committee on the issue, it is difficult, if he wants a unanimous report, to have anything other than a modest and moderate one.
The Government's response is even more modest. They say that they welcome the report and say that it will be an important contribution to the debate. I am not so sure about that. It is difficult to get any kind of serious debate on Europe in this House, in the other place or in the press—or anywhere else, for that matter. It virtually is impossible. Indeed, in this debate, I am happy to see that I am likely to agree with most of the contributors. Those who disagree seem to have opted out for another day when they can have a debate on their own. That being the case, we who are pro-euro and pro-Europe should be able to be constructively critical of the parts of the European Union's policies that we see not working correctly. To some extent, that certainly applies to the European Central Bank.
I want to deal with a few points. First, I turn to paragraphs 241 and 242 of the report where the committee asks the Government for their views on "prudential supervision". The first line of the Government's response relates to the five economic tests. Most of us who are concerned and care about Europe and about the possibility of joining the euro-zone—it is to be hoped in the not too distant future—will know that the five economic tests are nonsense, which, I believe, most sensible people within government circles will know. So that certainly is not a serious response to the report.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he could tell us about the central test of sustainable convergence and how we will ever get it, and, therefore, how we will ever join the euro-zone, which I hope remains the objective of the Government. How they can ensure sustainability both on that issue and on almost any other, I should be delighted to hear, as I am sure would the House.
In their response to the report, the Government, under the heading of "Financial Stability and Prudential Supervision", answer paragraphs 241 and 242. They state:
"As stated in the EMU study Policy frameworks in the UK and EMU (paragraph 3.61): … a clearer assertion of the position on official support operations in the euro area would be helpful to ensure that the euro area avoids creating ambiguity".
I am always happy to support the removal of ambiguity, but I should be glad to hear from the Minister how he has in mind to do that.
My second point is, to me, the central point of the report and, indeed, the whole issue; that is, the primary objective of the European Central Bank. We are told that "price stability" is the primary objective, again stated in paragraph 243. Paragraph 244 states that the European Central Bank has to consider the second objective "without prejudice" to the first objective. That is similar to the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee, although the wording is slightly different. Under the Monetary Policy Committee, there are those famous three words, "Subject to that". In other words, subject to the first
52
stability question, only then must it consider growth and employment. I note that some of the witnesses, and many others, are not too concerned that recently, within the euro-zone and within Europe, the average growth rate has been so poor.
One is bound to wonder to what extent the European Central Bank considers the second objective of growth and employment, in the same way that I often wonder what weight the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee gives to the second objective of economic growth and employment. I am bound to say that, over the years, my impression of the extent to which the European Central Bank gives serious consideration to growth and employment is "not a lot". One is bound to conclude that the primary objective, judging from everything that has happened over the years, as with the Bank of England, almost completely supersedes its consideration of growth and employment.
The response from the Government states that, overall, the European Central Bank is pragmatic, but that it could do better. I certainly accept the pragmatic point. I certainly accept that it could do better. In my view, it could do very much better. But should we not be concerned—the report does not express this to the degree that I would have preferred—to what extent the European Central Bank really is acting, if at all, on that second objective? That must be of concern to all of us and, certainly, to those like me who want us to join the euro-zone as soon as possible. The committee states that economic success of the euro-zone is beyond the narrow definition of the stability of inflation, with which I very much agree.
I now briefly turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Radice on the stability and growth pact, referred to in paragraph 271. As my noble friend pointed out, it is a short paragraph because there have been previous occasions on which to debate the matter. Paragraph 271 states:
"The Stability and Growth Pact can help Member States".
It can; it can also do great damage and harm to them as well, as we have seen. That is what I mean when I refer to the report and my noble friend as being very moderate on these occasions. The plain fact is that the pact is almost as much nonsense as the five economic tests. The pact works only because it is not allowed to be strictly enforced. I make no bones about it; I do not want to see it strictly enforced. At a time like now, to see it strictly enforced would be mad. When we need more economic growth within Europe, strictly to enforce the terms, as originally envisaged, of the growth and stability pact would not be sensible.
Lord Radice: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. To be fair to the committee, the whole point of its previous report was that the pact should be interpreted flexibly, particularly at a time of depression or deflation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as a former chairman of that committee, I am delighted to recognise the point made by my noble friend. But, as I say, this would be the wrong time to cut debt within the euro-zone.

53
Again, the Government response is very interesting. We are told that they support,
"a prudent interpretation of the Pact".
We would all support prudent interpretations of almost anything. What exactly does that mean?
At the Economic Affairs Committee only last Wednesday, we had before us a very impressive group of senior Treasury officials. I particularly emphasise the impressiveness of the main Treasury official. I asked him for the Government's view on whether they would like to see the European Union implement the Chancellor's golden rules. The answer was very interesting. Again, I shall he interested to hear whether the Minister agrees. The answer was "yes". He added a "but". In fairness, it is worth saying why he added a "but". He said that it is more difficult, within 12 fiscal authorities, to have the kind of system that we have.
He went on to make a number of other points. The general point he made was that the growth and stability pact—he was involved in the negotiation of it in 1996–97 and lived with it and watched it evolve—had changed a tremendous amount; it had not changed overtly and there had been no big statements that it had changed in another way. But we know that it has changed. Of course it has changed and, sensibly, in its implementation.
He went on to show why he said "but" after his "yes" by saying:
"I would say it recognises the cycle a lot more than it did and whereas if you said 'cyclically adjusted deficit' in 1996 you were seen as a heretic, that is now accepted".
I should add that those quotations are from a report of a Select Committee that sat only last week, so it has not been corrected or published. I was there, and I doubt whether anyone would disagree with what I have read out.
That is a senior and impressive Treasury official's view of the Government's policy. Knowing Treasury officials as I do, I should be astonished if he said it without knowing what he was saying or being very careful in his choice of language. I certainly hope that my noble friend will confirm that that is indeed the Government's—and the Chancellor's—view; after all, it is his golden rule, so why should he not want to see the European Union, or the euro-zone, accept his own golden rule rather than the nonsensical growth and stability pact that will not work as it stands? I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Radice, and his colleagues, on an admirable report. I say so not because it is the convention to do so, but because it is an excellent analysis and makes excellent recommendations. Indeed, it is in line with a series of reports from committees of this House that led Jacques Delors to say to me informally that he thought such reports represented the most serious critique of European policy emanating from any legislature in the European Union.
54
Few people would disagree that it would he fair to characterise the economic situation in the euro-zone as one with a high degree of price stability but inadequate growth and inadequate structural reform. As price stability is the stated primary objective of the European Central Bank, it is not surprising that the report commends the European Central Bank for achieving its desired objective and rapidly building up a high level of credibility. It is worth pointing out that what the European Central Bank does is not significantly different from the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England. As the report says, it just does it a bit more slowly and cautiously.
I would add, quoting my brother, Samuel Brittan, that the European Central Bank is also to be commended for so successfully achieving the formidable administrative and technical task of introducing the euro and handling what could have been an awkward transitional phase. I would add to that its successful launch of notes and coins. I remind the House that many Euro-sceptics gleefully predicted that each and every one of those tasks would end in disaster, but that did not happen.
The report comes to other very important conclusions. The first, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Radice, is that it would be a mistake for the European Central Bank to have an exchange rate target. I wholly agree with that for two reasons. First, it would be extremely difficult to make that work in practice, without international co-operation. I do not know whether the results would be as draconian as suggested by the noble Lord, but one could say simply that it would fail because the United States Government, in their present policy, which is one that has been followed over many years, would be extremely unlikely to co-operate, or give the co-operation necessary to achieve any such objective.
Secondly, an exchange rate target would be a mistake because, as those of us who have been in the Treasury have readily observed, there cannot be two targets. There cannot be both an inflation target and an exchange rate target because they may clash. There must be only one, otherwise they may fall between the stools.
The second important point—here I differ slightly modestly from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—is that the report rejects the frequent complaint that greater prominence should be given to the secondary objective of supporting growth and employment, not because those objectives are not at least as important as price stability—they are possibly more important—but because of the severe limit on what monetary policy can do to achieve that.
I shall quote Mr Duisenberg, the former president of the ECB, who said:
"Theoretical and empirical evidence clearly confirm that there is no long-term trade off between price stability and economic growth. Trying to use monetary policy to fine-tune economic activity or to gear it above a sustainable level will, in the long run. simply lead to rising inflation—not to faster economic growth".

55
Professor Von Hagen, speaking about monetary policy, said:
"It can support full employment but to use monetary policy systematically to reach full employment will always undermine price stability".
Professor Buiter said:
"Monetary policy cannot increase the long-term growth of the economy and has no lasting effect on the equilibrium rate of employment. It has important effects at cyclical frequencies but that is it".
I would add that the same might be said about what short-term fiscal policy can do. In 1976, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, extremely vividly, that one could not inflate one's way into prosperity and sustainable growth. Successive governments would have been wise to retain that lesson.
As has been pointed out, it is not the case that the ECB has pursued the aim of price stability in a narrow way. The report states that inflation is actually slightly above what would be expected from the rigid pursuit of its stated policy. Indeed, as has been said, the policy of the ECB has been a bit looser than it would have been under the Bundesbank.
Taking that view of the situation, which I share with the Committee, it is natural that the recommendations made are not devastatingly radical, but they are still important, and I hope that they will be heeded. I shall not join in the criticisms of the Government for their modest response to the report, but shall focus on supporting it.
On the question of a symmetrical inflation target, witnesses showed that the ECB has gone a long way towards implementing it, at least by implication. That is evident from the clarifying statement issued by the bank on 8 May last year. It is not a revolution formally to adopt a symmetrical inflation target; it would be beneficial precisely for the reasons given in the report.
The proposal to publish the records of meetings, spelling out the arguments used but not attributed to individuals, is a sensible recommendation that should be followed. It is a moderate recommendation in the best sense of the word, because a more extreme one would be to publish the names of the individuals and their votes. I think that the European Central Bank is a different animal from the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England precisely because it accommodates so many different countries. To expose its members to national pressures—certainly at this stage of its devolution—would be a mistake. I think that the recommendation is balanced and sensible.
A recommendation has also been made to change the treaty so that decisions can be taken by a small monetary policy council. I believe that is desirable in principle and that it should happen at some point. If the Inter-Governmental Conference dealing with the proposed constitution of the European Union is fully reopened and all aspects of what Giscard d'Estaing has proposed are up for grabs, then certainly this should be considered and done. However, if there is any chance of a quick resolution to the impasse on voting rights so that the thing could be agreed leaving the rest
56
untouched, I would not favour stopping the constitution going through by embarking on the necessarily controversial negotiations needed to agree the treaty change to create a small monetary policy council.
I should like to draw one or two more vivid and immediate conclusions from the report. It is clear that the ECB does and will take account of the exchange rate in assessing the degree of inflationary pressure in the euro-zone and, if the exchange rate rises enough, that will indicate that inflationary pressure has eased and interest rates will be lowered. It is also clear that the decisions of the European Central Bank are materially affected by the fiscal policy pursued in member states. It is right that that fiscal policy cannot be effectively co-ordinated with the ECB and it has explained why that should not be attempted. But if member states pursue inappropriately lax fiscal policies, that too is something which the ECB is bound to take into account when assessing what needs to be done in determining monetary policy.
The important point that comes out in a low-key way, but which is repeated again and again in my reading of the report, is that the ECB cannot be expected to carry all the weight of pursuing an appropriate and complete economic policy for the euro-zone. There is a severe limit to what monetary policy alone can do. It is the responsibility of the member states and not the European Central Bank, first, to carry out structural reforms, the lack of which is the main cause of the weakness of the European economy today and, secondly, to pursue appropriate fiscal policies. That is why the report draws attention, admittedly in a low-key way, to the value and importance of the stability and growth pact.
I do not think any more than does the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the pact in its present form is perfect, but to the extent that it is not, it should be debated, discussed and reformed, not flagrantly flouted by France and Germany. Those are countries which regard themselves as high priests of European integration and the motors of future advance. Their shameless and, in the case of France, brazen defiance of what they themselves created has done more to discredit the European cause than any other single act of any European Union member state in the whole history of the Union.
If that seems an exaggerated claim, one has only to look at what happened in the Swedish referendum on joining the euro. It was clear that the flouting of the pact was one of the major causes of that vote going the way it did. Above all, what is so mischievous about flouting rather than amending the pact is that that gives the impression that there is one rule for the small countries and another for the large—or rather, no rule for the large countries. In doing that, immense damage has been done to the euro-zone and, beyond the question of the euro, to the European cause.
I believe it is now urgent and necessary to put that right. The issue of the stability pact must be dealt with in a proper and responsible way. But, like so many other things hovering around this debate, that too is

57
well beyond anything the European Central Bank itself can be expected to achieve, although it has rightly made very clear its views on this issue as well.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, since I agree with the remarks on the report made by the committee's distinguished chairman, I shall not repeat many of his points. The report makes sensible comments and proposes reasonable recommendations. That is not surprising because we had a very good chairman and, I would add, an exceptionally able Clerk.
I want to make three points, the first of which concerns the success of the European Central Bank. People have forgotten the problems it faced and that it is an easy target. Many financial journalists make cheap comments at the expense of the ECB, saying that the ECB is responsible for low growth in Europe because it has kept interest rates far too high. The noble Lord, Lord Radice, dealt with that in part by pointing out that the bank has not been obsessed with inflation, rather it has allowed inflation to rise slightly above its target. And when considering the history of the past decade or more, one cannot blame the high interest rates forced on Germany in a one-size-fits-all interest rate policy on the ECB when Germany has had historically low interest rates since the bank has been in charge. All our witnesses disagreed with the view that the ECB had failed in its task. They formed a distinguished group and they praised it. The bank established its credibility when that was not necessarily an easy thing to do.
My second point relates to what I think is one of our most important recommendations on the future governance of the ECB. Many of the other recommendations are sensible but are what I would regard as rather marginal, such as having a symmetrical inflation target. In practice, that is more or less what the ECB has been pursuing, certainly since it modified the explanation of what it meant by keeping inflation below 2 per cent. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Radice, show that in fact everyone agrees that the manner in which the ECB has carried out its tasks has been very similar to that of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in the United States.
However, the current proposals for the future governance of the ECB are worrying; that is, the voting system. They are likely to hamper effective decision-making. Questions about voting are extremely difficult, as we have seen in the IGC. I understand the proposals; they are simpler and far preferable to those put forward at Nice, and they are being strongly championed by France and Germany. However, I understand too the opposition of Poland and Spain, which are afraid to give two countries plus one other what would be, in effect, a power of veto. But I am rather disturbed by the attitude of the United Kingdom which was to say simply, "This is not our problem. We are not in the firing line. Our problems are not being discussed and so, hooray, we don't have to take part".
58
The trouble with present discussions in the European Union is that no one takes any view other than that of national self-interest. We have lost the sense of vision about Europe that used to prevail. If everyone rigidly pursues their own national self-interest, then the European Union will not work well. We have to face down chauvinist tendencies in the press and lift our eyes to a somewhat further horizon.
My third comment relates to the wider context of the report. As I have already indicated, the European Union is going through a bad patch. It has low economic growth, it suffers from a certain amount of sclerosis, it is failing to meet the Lisbon objectives, it has failed to produce structural reforms which are a major, but not sole, element in economic growth, and there is widespread disunity. In a sense I am rather relieved that we are not holding a referendum on Europe now because these are not favourable circumstances for it. Nothing much good can be said about the Union at this time.
But that has to be seen in context. We have had bad patches before. Looking back over the past 40 years, one can see an amazing see-saw in the relative success of the European Union and the United States. I remember that, in the 1960s, we had Le Défi Américain and everyone was asking how Europe could ever compete with the United States. It would be a terrible problem to compete with them.
Then, in the 1970s, the boot was on the other foot. There was a completely different picture. I remember Roy Jenkins making a speech in which he said, "Westward look, the land is bleak". It was the time of Nixon. The United States was facing a major crisis. One forgets that there was a long period when the Americans had lost their self-confidence, and thought that they would be swamped and completely overwhelmed by the Japanese. Now, in the past 10 years, the Americans have felt that they have the complete answer to all the problems of the world, and that the American business model is the only possible model for economic success.
Europe has great strengths. Despite the fast growth of productivity in the United States over the past decade, "productivity for all"—which in the end is the true test of productivity—is higher in France, Germany, the Netherlands and one or two other European states than it is in the United States. The only reason why GDP per head is higher in the United States is that Europe has a sensible and civilised approach, and does not believe that people should work and work only, work longer hours and have practically no holidays.
Thanks to the work of the ECB, European inflation looks stable for the foreseeable future. Can anyone say that with any confidence about the United States? I shall not predict the future, but it is possible that the United States will face a period of high inflation because of its high, multiple deficits. The first decade of this century may not be the decade of economic growth for the United States: it could, again, be the decade of Europe. It is certainly more likely to be the decade of Asia.

59
There is sclerosis of the European Union, but it also has strengths, one of which is that it takes a longer-term view than the American business model, which is obsessed with a short-term increase in shareholder value.
A pertinent comparison has been made between Airbus and Boeing. Boeing was a company that was primarily interested in making aeroplanes, and was not terribly interested in profits. It made profits, but that was a by-product. One of the executives was horrified when the 747 was produced, because the company had not done any calculation on the return on capital that was expected from the new aeroplane. It was an enormous success.
Boeing is now obsessed with creating shareholder value, and relative to Airbus, its value has gone down. The reason is that Airbus takes the long-term view: it is primarily interested in making aeroplanes. Profit is not unimportant, but the European business model—the social model of the Continent—takes various forms. It is different in the Netherlands, in France and in Germany. The European social model has certain strengths, and it leads to a greater degree of investment and a longer-term view.
In the long term, Europe may be going through a bad patch which is temporary. We have seen these bad patches before. The single market came as a complete surprise, and turned out to be a tremendous incentive for the expansion of Europe. It is not a good time now. That is the background against which we have to judge the operation of the European Central Bank. In those circumstances, its operation has been an astonishing success.
6.3 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, it has been a pleasure to serve under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Radice, with his vast experience from the other place. I would also like to thank our very able Clerk, Dr Richard McLean.
I was fortunate to have been part of the sub-committee in 1998, which examined how and whether the bank would work, but now, five years on, we are examining whether it is working. I endorse the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Radice, that the ECB has worked well so far, and that a lot of the criticism of the bank is unjustified. In drawing comparisons between the effectiveness of the ECB and the Bank of England, one tends to lose perspective of the fact that the UK has been a monetary union since 1707, whilst the ECB has only been effectively in existence since 1999. In that short time, it is noteworthy how quickly the bank has achieved not only credibility, but also its authority and effectiveness in delivering price stability.
As we recommend in the report, we hope and expect that the governing council will display greater transparency, particularly in the publication of regular records of its meetings, giving the reasoning and arguments behind its monetary policy decisions without being attributed. In this regard, I endorse the
60
recommendation that arrangements of communication between the ECB and Eurogroup need to be strengthened.
However, the challenge will become all the more apparent with enlargement, with the governing council of the bank likely to increase its membership from 18 to 33. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that the unwieldy size of the enlarged governing council will complicate the process of setting interest rates and could potentially lead to rifts between the large and smaller member countries.
I support the recommendation in paragraph 260, that the ECB should eventually have a small monetary policy council, composed of six members of the ECB executive board and up to six independent external experts. Clearly, there will be political impetus for there to be some national input into the running of the ECB, but it makes sense for the proposed smaller monetary policy council to operate under the oversight of the current governing council, where the central banks of all the member states of the euro-area are represented.
We face a radically different economic climate today from that which existed when we prepared the report in 1988. Whereas interest rates then were at 3 per cent across the euro-zone and concerns about inflationary pressures resulted in interest rates rising as high as 4.75 per cent in October 2000, now interest rates in the euro-zone are at 2 per cent, and there are some concerns of deflationary pressures, particularly in Germany.
Another concern I have about the ECB is that it appears to be too fixated with the threat of inflation, and not sufficiently cognisant of the need to boost growth. As several of our witnesses told us, reducing interest rates in the euro-zone below 2 per cent would not necessarily have the desired effect of promoting growth, as euro-zone countries have comparatively low debt levels.
The ECB does not have the same degree of control over demand in the euro-zone as the Bank of England has over demand in the UK. The UK is a far more interest rate-sensitive economy than the rest of Europe. A lot of the problems in Europe cannot be blamed on monetary policy, but are more due to structural problems and regulatory red tape and labour laws, which are the remit of national governments.
An issue that I took up with our witnesses was the lack of a lender of last resort in the euro-zone, particularly in the event of a massive financial crisis. Financial supervision remains the preserve of individual countries. While I support the recent establishment of a Financial Services Committee to advise ECOFIN, I do not believe that that is enough. I agree with the Financial Secretary, Ruth Kelly, that there needs to be more clarity in the arrangements as to who the lender of last resort in the euro-zone should be.
The ECB has a clear vested interest in effectively performing its mandate for there to be fiscal stability in the euro-zone. Since the collapse of the stability and

61
growth pact last year, which allowed Germany and France to run excessive deficits, it invariably will result in euro-zone members running looser fiscal policies. If one shares the view of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that will help to promote growth, but could risk the euro-zone's net debt position becoming unsustainable in the long term. It may be argued that the euro-zone is in danger of ending up in a bad policy mix, with monetary policy being too tight and fiscal policy being too loose.
When the stability and growth pact collapsed last year, the ECB came under some harsh criticism by several of the finance ministers of the euro-zone who claimed that the bank was acting ultra vires in its criticism of the breach of the pact and that the bank's remit was purely and simply to manage the currency and to maximise and preserve price stability.
During Questions today, the Minister was asked what action Her Majesty's Government are likely to take to ensure that member countries such as France and Germany—France was particularly mentioned today—play by the rules. Perhaps I may again press the Minister for a response on this issue when he replies to the debate.
I share the sentiments of businesses, politicians and bankers that much more needs to be done to ensure greater stability in the foreign exchange markets. After the collapse of the dollar by more than 20 per cent against the euro last year, I hope that this issue will be covered in next month's meeting of the group of seven industrialised nations. While the surging euro has reduced raw material prices and inflationary pressures, in many ways it has undermined Europe's economic recovery.
I find the comments of John Snow, the US Treasury Secretary, in support of a strong dollar hard to believe. With rising stock market prices in the US and falling long-term interest rates, the US Treasury appears to be doing little to halt the decline of its currency.
In conclusion, I obviously wholeheartedly support the report. I had hoped that the Government, in their formal response, would have been more specific in responding to the many recommendations outlined in the report.
I end on the same note with which I started. Is the ECB working? Yes. Is it fulfilling its mandate? Yes. Will the ECB continue to perform in a successful manner and could it be improved? Yes. European enlargement will be a major test for the ECB. I hope that our recommendations in the report will be seriously considered. I am a firm believer in the principle of KISS—"Keep it simple, stupid".
6.12 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the committee on its report and to the noble Lord, Lord Radice, who has for so long been an exemplar of good sense on Europe.
As has been stated already, the report's broad findings are positive. The ECB is one of the most influential financial institutions in the world. It is endowed with extraordinary independence, which is
62
hardly surprising as the Bundesbank was one of its midwives. It has performed well given its mandate and it has built up a high level of credibility by delivering on its prime objective of price stability.
However, it now faces the need to deal with the dangers of deflation and stagflation and the enlargement of the Union. The committee, as I understand it, broadly recommends three changes: adopting a symmetrical inflation target; and two steps which would bring the bank closer, without compromising its independence, to the real world—or at least the political world—that is, a small monetary council under the general council and enhanced dialogue between the ECB and the Eurogroup. All of this, of course, to sparkle with greater transparency. In other words, it should be a more proactive, more transparent ECB, with more political savvy, under the leadership of Jean-Claude Trichet.
It would seem that all this is welcomed by Her Majesty's Government in their broad but rather bland endorsement that this is,
"an important contribution to the debate".
However, the Government do not specify which debate and whether or not we are a part of it. I shall return to that point in a moment. Suffice to say that to some of us the debate on the euro, of which the ECB is a part, becomes more surreal with every passing year.
In that regard, perhaps I may briefly share an experience with your Lordships. Some months ago I caught a cab at Hyde Park and asked the cab driver to bring me to the Peers' entrance. That is always a dangerous beginning to any conversation, and indeed it proved to be the case. The taxi driver had on a radio programme dealing with the euro. He said to me, in slightly menacing terms, "Would you like to hear the programme or would you like my views on the euro?". I calculated that the journey would take about six minutes and that it was probably safer to hear his views. And I did. Britain joining the euro would of course be the introduction of the Fourth Reich; it would be the reversal of the Battle of Britain; it would lead to complete catastrophe and so on. The picture got gloomier and gloomier until, thank goodness, we arrived at the Peers' entrance. As I paid the cab driver, in sterling, I said to him, "Well, my friend, if it's really going to be as bad as you think, perhaps you should emigrate". He looked at me in some surprise and said, "Right, my Lord, I am. I'm off to Spain". It is a surreal debate in many ways.
The ECB and its role in the fortunes of the euro are not on everyone's lips—and, for the most part, they are not on those of the Government either. However, there are two key contextual developments which require some re-examination of the ECB, the euro-zone and our non-participation.
First, there is the continuing fall of inflation in the euro-zone. Core inflation—which excludes energy, food, alcohol and tobacco—is at approximately 1.6 and could fall to 1.5 by March this year. This is comfortably below the ECB's projected 1.8 for 2004. The main reason for this is the rise in the value of the euro. Secondly, this rise, on the hack of the dollar's

63
fall, is in itself an extraordinary phenomenon. The fall in euro-zone inflation and the linked rise in the euro therefore clearly call for some action.
Let us remind ourselves of the figures on the rise in the value of the euro. It was up 25 per cent against the dollar in 2003, last year, and up 40 per cent on 2002.
Incidentally, one of the reasons for this surreal dimension to so much of the debate on the euro and the ECB—certainly as seen from my side of the argument as one who would like us to join—is that when the euro was weak, it was derided for being so. Now that it is strong, that in itself is perceived as weakness. When it was established it was indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, said, expected to fail. Now that it has not failed, it is berated as the cause of the euro-zone's uncompetitiveness.
But my purpose today in the debate is not to argue for a fair hearing for the euro; it is to support the recommendations in the report and to raise one fundamental question for the Government. As I said, the fall in the euro-zone inflation rate and the linked rise in the value of the euro clearly call for more interest rate flexibility and, to some extent, the ECB has demonstrated its approach on that. In paragraph 251 the report rejects, interestingly and trenchantly, both the charge that the ECB is insufficiently focused on growth and unemployment and the charge that it is insufficiently vigilant in fighting deflation. It finds both charges unfounded.
In some ways this is a generous judgment. ECB inflexibility on rates has arguably contributed to Franco-German naughtiness on the growth and stability pact. I shall treasure for a long time the description of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, of the French aspect of naughtiness in this regard as being "brazen". Certainly, that inflexibility has been used as an excuse. Meanwhile, a symmetrical inflation target would signal, perhaps, that the ECB is as alert to the risks of deflation as to those of inflation.
Secondly, it will help if the ECB is closer to the political world through transparency, better communications and closer liaison between the Eurogroup and the bank. But in all the brouhaha about having a more proactive, politically sensitive and market sensitive ECB, let us not lose perspective. It is easy to misread and exaggerate the impact of the rise of the euro's value on economic performance within the euro-zone. The euro-zone is already a huge single currency internal market.
I read the other day figures relating to Germany's Engineering Federation, which has 3,000 members. Its success or failure literally turns on exports. Seventy per cent of all that it makes is exported. Now, well over half the total exports of German engineering companies go to and within the euro-zone. They are thus unaffected by the value of the rise in the euro except that there is a certain cost benefit to them in manufacturing and raw material terms from the high euro.
64
Thirdly, the high euro is of course the flip side of the weak dollar. Why is the dollar so weak? The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, commented the other day that the US economic recovery was the best one that money could buy. That seems an interesting way of putting it. The United States Government and authorities are doing nothing to halt the rise in the dollar. It is clear that in a presidential election year they are unlikely and reluctant to do so. But if pressure on the rise of the dollar is to be brought on the United States with any chance of success, it has to be brought collectively by the European Union. That is the lesson of the WTO and all the trade negotiations between the two sides of the Atlantic.
That brings me to my question to the Government. I was struck by two exchanges in the committee's examination of Ruth Kelly, a member of the other place and Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and indeed of other Treasury officials. I was not there, so I am dependent on the written report. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, according to the record, asked Ms Kelly how concerned she was that a closer dialogue between ECB and the Eurogroup—advocated by the Select Committee—would be,
"a dialogue from which we will be excluded".
Her reply was that she was not concerned, but her reasons for not being concerned—certainly from reading them—appear obscure.
Mr Woods from the Treasury then intervened. He added that such meetings are prepared in the Economic and Financial Committee, in which the UK is represented. He concluded,
"we are party to those discussions".
Yes, my Lords, party, but not part of. There is a significant difference. To be party to these discussions but not part of them is, I would submit, in the long term, a highly vulnerable and unacceptable position for the United Kingdom.
Ms Kelly put the dilemma succinctly at the end of her evidence when she said:
"We can influence the debate indirectly".
I ask the Government this question. For how long are we to be content with being party to, but not part of, the Eurogroup? For how long are we to be content with influencing the debate but only indirectly? Given the importance of the City of London to the euro, given the importance of Britain to the euro, given the importance of the euro to Britain, for how long must we consign ourselves to indirect, not direct, influence, and to being party to and not part of the single currency that is reshaping Europe?
6.25 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Radice. He has been a very effective chairman; I pay tribute to his work and to his efforts in producing this report and to the Clerk, as my noble friend mentioned.
I am particularly interested in the comparisons frequently made between the European Central Bank, the Fed and the Bank of England. There are a number

65
of similarities and differences. Unlike the Fed and the Bank of England, there is no direct political relationship between the European Central Bank and a political economic department to which it would have some form of accountability. Mr Paul Volcker informed us that the chairman of the Fed and the Secretary of the Treasury met at least once a week. He said in his evidence— I quote from paragraph 33 of the report:
"The ECB is also 'to support the general economic policies in the Community with a view to contributing to the achievement of the Community'".
What would he most desirable would be some agreed political body that could communicate with the ECB to advise and even influence a decision of the bank. In the United States, the Treasury and the Fed are aware of each other's views. They are in a position to have proper and detailed discussions to set out their opinions and the actions that they propose. Disagreement between them would cause embarrassment and much worse. They need to get on with each other. That relationship has some similarity to that between the Bank of England and the Treasury in this country.
But the European Central Bank enjoys no similar relationship with those who run the economies of the member states. Of course it has discussions with member states, but the views that it encounters may be far from unanimous because of the differing economic situation in each of the countries. Given their widespread political and economic situations, how can we replicate the advantageous political and economic input that the Fed and the Bank of England both have?
Could we devise such a body? If we could, what would it look like? It would need a light touch. It might be able to intervene only when things were clearly going wrong. At present, the European Central Bank is working. How far is its success due to the western world's current reasonably stable economy? It is stable at the moment, but in a crisis how would it operate? I agree that at present there should be a symmetrical inflation target, but there are times when that may not be the best way to handle these matters.
In the argument between inflation and growth, banks in my view always have a tendency to prefer the risks of low growth in order to be sure of low inflation. Many in the industrial and political world press for higher growth even if there would be slightly greater risks with inflation.
The objectives of both the European Central Bank and the Bank of England were similar. Paragraph 33 of the report states that,
"The ECB is also 'to support the general economic policies in the Community with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, ' which include 'a high level of employment' and 'sustainable and non-inflationary growth'".
We see that the aims of the Bank of England are to maintain price stability and,
"subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government, including its objectives for growth and employment".
66
The United States are required to keep prices stable, but also and at the same time to seek full employment and to moderate long-term interest rates, which are formally seen as having equal importance. That is quite different form the European Central Bank. Both the Bank of England and the Fed have wider objectives. Of course, at the end of the day, there is one primary objective; we all know that. However, they have the responsibility of looking at these other things and taking them into account because of their relationship with the political and economic structures of the countries that they inhabit. That is important, and it is a gap that the ECB needs to fill in some way.
In practice, both the Bank of England and the European Central Bank have done what they know best—to provide a firm hand on the level of interest rates. Professor Buiter claimed in paragraph 38 that the three-legged mandate of inflation, growth and unemployment had "been forgotten in practice". We now have a single mandate. That is the conclusion of the committee. The question is how we achieve that mandate. The conclusion that I draw is that, if there were a closer relationship between the political and administrative institutions and the European Central Bank, we might get, if not a formal move to determine wider economic issues, at least a dialogue that is not dissimilar to that which the Fed has with the administration.
I believe that there is some trade off between inflation and growth. Some say that such a trade off refers only to the period while the rate of inflation declines. Once inflation is zero, growth can resume its upward path. But if that is so, why should those who hold this view not take the bull by the horns, continue the policy for the limited period of deflationary misery and arrive at the golden goal of zero inflation? The answer is that growth could halt and even become negative. So we have come to the realisation in the real world that, although we may not like it, some inflation is necessary to retain growth, but it must be kept strictly within limits. We must allow from time to time only the move in the direction of zero inflation and not hope or expect ever to attain it. That is what disinflation means in the real present world. If the aim is really zero inflation, how far would growth be affected? That is not a question that we are likely to test.
The Select Committee recommends a modification of the European Central Bank position to a symmetrical inflation target, and that is what we will achieve. In studying the reasoning behind the decisions of the ECB there is a need to spell that out more clearly, which was commented on by many other speakers in this afternoon's debate. There is a distinction between this and the clear danger of attribution of its various views. We must be clear that we cannot attribute to any of the members of the European Central Bank the views of each of the members. The reason is that the views of the Bank may not be the same as those of the individual member states. The identification of the views of the members

67
of the governing council will need to be protected. That was mentioned in paragraph 185 of the report, which states:
"President Duisenberg said that one of the reasons why the Governing Council did not vote but operated by consensus was that, like the Commission, it was a collegiate body. To move away from this position risked dividing the Council and losing its cohesive, collegiate attitude".
We must accept that. There are such differences between the member states that we cannot expose this to argument outside. We must hope that those members of the European Central Bank will look to the wider interests of the bank itself.
How far can we accept the economic variation among EU member states? That question has led to the stability and growth pact mentioned in today's debate. If there are wide variations, not only will the more undisciplined countries affect the working of the union, the central Bank will have difficulties in producing a policy that would be acceptable to all the member countries. The stability and growth pact was introduced to enforce an interest rate policy that could apply equally to all EU members. If a country had an economy that diverged from the others, they would incur higher interest rates. The situation could be endured for a short while if it were one of the smaller economies that deviated from the common policy. Much more difficult would be the position if it were a divergent major economy.
We now have that situation in France and Germany. Two major economies are not only diverging but doing so with a wilful disregard for other members of the European Union as well as the authority of the European Central Bank. That threatens the economy of the union, and the accompanying arrogance is a serious matter just when enlargement is taking place. I agree that the rules must take into account special circumstances—that is obviously essential, as several noble Lords have mentioned. However, I would certainly like France and Germany to be more contrite and apologetic and give more, clear avowals of future behaviour. We have not seen that, and that is something I deplore.
Finally, there is the question of whether and how far the European Central Bank should be given powers over financial supervision. My own view is that we should take all this slowly. We need to see how the arrangements that we have in place deal with the many different situations over some period ahead before we invest too many powers in the bank. In particular, we need to see progress in developing a working and accountable relationship between the bank and the political and industrial institutions of the Union.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Radice, and his committee on producing such a clear and concise report on an extremely technical subject. I begin by echoing what a number of noble Lords have said about the overall track record of the ECB; namely, it has been successful in its principal aims. It
68
did establish a single currency in Europe in circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan and others mentioned, in which many people expected—and in this country, hoped—it would fail. Following on from that, it has succeeded in establishing the euro as the principal global currency along with the dollar. It has also succeeded in attaining its objective of maintaining price stability.
There has been much discussion in the debate today about whether that is the bank's only aim and about the role of that goal as opposed to the subsidiary goals of the other economic aims of the EU. It is worth comparing the bank's role with that of the other central banks mentioned. The treaty says that:
"The primary objective of the European Central Bank shall be to maintain price stability and without prejudice to the objective of price stability, the ECB shall support the general economic policies in the Community".
That sounds to be almost identical in meaning to the words of the Bank of England Act 1998, in which we have the famous "subject to that" proviso. Indeed, evidence to this committee—and to the Economic Affairs Committee when we examined this issue—has shown that, whatever the exact words in relation to the ECB, the Bank of England and the Fed, the way in which they actually interpret their remits is virtually identical.
Before coming to some of the criticisms of the ECB that are valid, I will deal with two that are not. First, as several noble Lords have mentioned, there is the question of the extent to which the ECB, by its interest rate setting policy, has contributed to the sluggish growth of the euro-area. I agree with noble Lord, Lord Brittan, that monetary policy cannot really achieve that. Certainly, it could not have achieved that over the past five years. Does anybody realistically believe that, had the ECB adopted an interest rate policy at even a percentage point less than its current one, the outlook for the German economy would have been fundamentally different from the outlook today? I suspect not.
There are a number of major reasons why there is sluggish growth in the euro-area against which the policies of the ECB can have no impact. The first is the inflexibility of the European economies and the structural problems that they face. As we see in Germany, France, Italy and elsewhere, and as we saw in this country in the 1980s, trying to loosen these inflexibilities is an extremely difficult job and tends to bring with it considerable political difficulty for the government that attempts that change.
The second problem facing Europe is the increased competition from China in manufacturing and, to a lesser extent, from India in manufacturing and the service industries. Clearly the European Central Bank cannot have a significant impact on that. When countries and economies the size of China and India are growing at somewhere between 6 and 10 per cent per annum and are able to produce high-quality goods in competition with those of Europe, we clearly have a problem about which the bank can do virtually nothing.

69
The final issue, which is just coming over the horizon in the view of policy makers, is the consequences for Europe and European growth of a rapidly ageing population. The Economic Affairs Committee examined this issue, and I hope that the House will have a chance to discuss it in the not too distant future. Unless there is greater flexibility in retirement age, training and many other policies, a rapidly ageing population can have very serious consequences for economic growth. It is another issue that the ECB cannot begin to address.
The second invalid criticism of the bank is that it should have done more about the level of the euro. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out, at first the bank was accused of not being credible, or not being credible enough, and of helping to generate a euro that was too weak. Now it is accused of indolence when the euro is higher than many people, particularly exporters, would want.
I return to the UK experience. A couple of years ago, Sir Edward George, when he was Governor of the Bank of England, appeared before the Economic Affairs Select Committee. We asked him why the pound was so high. He said, "It is all very puzzling. I am not quite sure—it does not seem to make much sense". Perhaps he should not have known why the pound was so high. The idea that a central bank governor possesses all the intelligence and levers to manipulate the value of the currency in the short term is facile nonsense.
A straightforward corollary of having an inflation target as the single target for the bank is that one cannot have an exchange rate target. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that it would be valuable for the finance ministers at G7 or G8 to discuss the relative levels of their currencies, I see no prospect at this stage of the Americans wanting to join in such a discussion. Therefore, I do not think that it will happen.
If those are invalid criticisms, what are the more valid criticisms? The first is the way in which the two pillars of wisdom of the bank have operated. For me at least, the relevance of the monetary pillar is very questionable. Seeing a graph of M3 annual growth takes one back to the UK of the 1980s where huge attempts were made to target our economy on M3. They were almost totally unsuccessful. I therefore welcome the fact that it appears that the bank is downgrading the monetary pillar. That pillar should be downgraded even further—if it is possible to downgrade a pillar.
I also support the criticism regarding our current asymmetrical inflation target and the need to move towards a symmetrical inflation target. I think that it would be a lot clearer if we moved towards the 2 per cent target. Arguments about inflation targeting, or the need for an inflation target, have caused a quite phenomenal degree of opaqueness in the language of past and present presidents of the bank. Indeed, even the committee almost falls into a semantic bog at this point. There is a wonderful sentence in the report which 1 think I now understand, although I did not on first reading. It states:
70
"However, the ECB's decision to reject inflation targeting and maintain its two-pillar framework does not imply that the bank is prevented from adopting an inflation target".
Having read that three or four times, and having read the report several times, I do understand what it means. However, new readers would be better not to start there.
The report's conclusions on publishing minutes make sense. Press conferences are fine, but they do not have the permanence of minutes. As anyone who has read the minutes of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee will know, it is inconceivable that one could get the balance of the argument and some of the subtleties across in a press conference. More generally, at several points in the report it becomes clear that there has been a communications gap with the ECB, certainly under its inaugural president. He almost seemed to take a delight in being uncommunicative and unresponsive. In December 2001, facing calls to intervene to stem the fall in the value of the euro, he earned himself a place in every dictionary of quotations by saying:
"I hear, but I do not listen".
While that might have been the right policy at the time, it unfortunately summed up his view of his role. He constantly gave the impression that central banking was jolly difficult; that even financial sector audiences could not be expected to understand it completely; and, therefore, that it was not worth trying to explain it. That damaged the bank's reputation in its first days. I hope that the new president, Monsieur Trichet, who is naturally a much better communicator, will redress that balance. I agree with the point that a number of noble Lords have made, that a greater flow of information in co-ordinating policy between the ECB and the finance ministers has a lot to recommend it.
The second set of criticisms of the bank centres on its future governance and the membership of the decision-making body. I am not sure that I am wholeheartedly or enthusiastically supportive of what the report proposes. I can see all the arguments about the complexities of the proposed voting system and the neatness of the proposed monetary policy council. However, the problem is that it virtually removes the governors of the central banks of euro-zone members from the one key area of decision making that the ECB possesses. The model is not analogous with the current UK model, even though it is has independent members. Here, the governor chairs the MPC and has a key role in decision making on interest rates.
I have no particular brief to speak for governors of central banks as a union, but given that one of their principal roles within the euro-zone is to explain to their national audiences why decisions on interest rates have been taken, they will be put in considerable difficulty if they are not even in the room where the discussions take place. If one simply sees the Deutsche Bank or the Banque de France as branch offices of the ECB, that might not be a problem. However, at least for the short term, that is not how they will be viewed, not lea st by their own domestic financial markets. In the unlikely event that the UK were shortly to find

71
itself in the euro-zone, I doubt whether Mervyn King would see himself in that subsidiary role. I accept that the proposed system of voting may be too complicated and opaque, but I have sympathy with finding a mechanism for keeping central bank governors formally in the interest rate decision-making loop, not simply observers of it.
It is interesting that the majority of recommendations in the report propose that the ECB should in effect adopt the current practice of the Bank of England. One of the many downsides of the UK's decision not to join the euro-zone at the outset is that Bank of England officials did not have the opportunity to influence the policy and the operational structure of the ECB when it was being established. If they had, I have no doubt that some of the practices criticised in the report would not have been adopted in the first place. It is not to criticise the report to say that our exclusion from the euro-zone is bound to reduce the bank's impact in finance ministries and central banks across the euro-zone and within the ECB itself. That is a pity, but it is only one minor consequence of our continuing wallflower status in the management of Europe's currency.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Radice, and his colleagues on Sub-Committee A for producing this report. The reports of the European Union Committee are always authoritative and interesting. This one is no exception.
The House should take especial care to record its gratitude to the noble Lords who produced this report because the Government's response to it is a particularly dismissive one. I am hoping that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will give a more considered response to it this evening. The official response has the hallmarks of being produced by a junior trainee in the Treasury. I can just picture it. The Treasury cannot be doing with the euro or anything related to it, so it gets a young civil servant and sends him off with a pair of scissors, some Sellotape and that large box of papers that the Government produced last year to paper over the cracks in their policy on the euro. Two and a half months later, we have the Government's so-called response. It barely addresses the 35 paragraphs over the three and a half pages of detailed conclusions in the report. The Government's response is quite simply a poor show.
Today, however, your Lordships' House has given the report a proper hearing. We may not have had a huge number of speakers, but the quality has been very high. I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Brittan, whose expertise in European matters is well known.
The report comprehensively sets out how the ECB has developed in the past five years and raises interesting issues such as the asymmetrical nature of the target; who sets the goals; the time frame of policy; and the possible role of different types of pillar,
72
monetary and others. The report also examines the bank's role in financial stability. It is interesting to note how we have come to judge the ECB by reference to the success of our own national monetary policy arrangements involving the Bank of England.
When the Bank of England was given monetary policy independence I was a member of the Court of the Bank of England. In a corporate sense I was delighted to be given independence. However, the truth was that I remained a sceptic about the policy and its workability. That scepticism proved unfounded. While there are still some wrinkles in our arrangements, which we have debated in your Lordships' House previously, I think that the arrangements in the UK are a considerable success and superior to those in the ECB. Although that is not the report's conclusion in terms, I think that, between the lines, the framework for judging how well the ECB is doing is based on the success of our own arrangements. I think that that is a good starting position.
I should like to cover two linked issues—the governance arrangements and transparency, both of which have been touched on by other noble Lords.
The report explains with great clarity the triple layers of the Executive Board, Governing Council and General Council. Countries such as the UK who are thankfully outside the euro-zone are represented only on the General Council. However, the Governing Council is where the important interest rate decisions are made and is composed of the six permanent members of the Executive Board and the governors of the central banks of the euro-zone countries. Currently, therefore, 17 people are making the decisions on setting interest rates for the euro-zone, compared with nine on the Monetary Policy Committee in the UK and the 12 who have votes on the Federal Open Market Committee.
One might think that 17 looks cumbersome, but, as noble Lords have explained, it will get much worse with enlargement of the EU— or, more specifically, with enlargement of the euro-zone. There are some extremely complex arrangements that divide countries into groups and rotating votes—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Radice, pointed out, are well explained in the charts in the report. Nevertheless, having looked carefully at those charts, I am not sure that I could repeat exactly how the arrangements work. The very worst case—which is perhaps unrealistic as it assumes that all the current "out" countries would join with the maximum number of enlargement countries—is that there will be 27 central bankers sharing 15 votes in addition to the six votes on the Executive Board.
Part 4 of the report has an excellent critique of the arrangements, which have already been criticised by several noble Lords. To quote Professor Buiter's words at paragraph 140—and he has never been a man to mince his words—the arrangements are "an inelegant mess". The arrangements were rushed through the European Council despite opposition from the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. The United Kingdom Government connived at that by overriding the usual

73
UK parliamentary scrutiny arrangements. However, for that they earned only a very mild rebuke at the end of paragraph 259 of the report's conclusions. Given the committee's general conclusion in that paragraph, I should have thought that the committee should have been a little sterner with the Government. The paragraph states that the committee does,
"not consider that the agreed reform will work satisfactorily".
The Government's response to the report's conclusions on the Governing Council is rather difficult to discern. The civil servant with the scissors and Sellotape found a quote saying that the UK supports the existence of an effective decision-making body in the ECB. Hooray! But the real question is whether the Government think that the proposed arrangements for the ECB will be effective. I hope that the Minister will make the Government's position on that absolutely clear this evening.
Our view is that if these new arrangements do not paralyse the ECB after enlargement it will be a miracle. This is another powerful reason why this country should not abandon its successful national monetary policy arrangements and currency to join the euro at least until a proper set of reforms have been implemented to ensure that the ECB operates as an effective body.
At the heart of the governance arrangements is adherence to national representation. This is one of the diseases that afflicts many European institutions, but it is particularly relevant in the context of monetary policy. Our own experience in the UK tells us that monetary policy is best set by experts. That is why the Government have wisely resisted calls to have, for example, regional or trade union representation on the Monetary Policy Committee. But the ECB has a core of only six neutral experts and the rest of the General Council are representatives. Admittedly they are central bankers and not political representatives, but it is difficult to escape the conclusion, which I think the committee itself reached, that the country representatives on the General Council are just that.
It would, of course, be perfectly possible that each of the central governors would operate in a way that the interests of the euro-zone were the dominant ones, and partisan interests might never arise in the Governing Council. However, we cannot judge that because of the dreadful lack of transparency in the ECB. I refer in particular to the fact that the minutes of the governing council are never published. We cannot tell whether narrow country interests are argued—perhaps they are dressed up as economic imperatives or perhaps there is naked special pleading.
As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Radice, there are some elements of the ECB that contribute to transparency. For example, there are the press conferences. Also, the president of the ECB appears before the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, rather like his US and UK counterparts. However, the committee rightly points out that, unlike the US and UK, the ECB president's appearances are not televised and so those
74
of us in national parliaments and the public generally have no means of judging the messages and their delivery for themselves.
However, even if transparency improves though such things as televising, it will always be imperfect while the minutes remain a secret. The European Parliament wants the minutes published and Sub-Committee A rightly concluded that publication was warranted.
Sub-Committee A supports publication of the minutes but does not go as far as requiring the publication of full voting records or the attribution of views. We have become accustomed in this country to the publication of voting records. It is occasionally trivialised in the press, but it does contribute to transparency. On the other hand, our MPC's minutes do not attribute views. I think that had I been on the committee I would have been bolder than the committee has been. I would have placed the need to ensure that contributions were unbiased and seen to be unbiased by home considerations above the possibility—discussed in the report—of pressure at home coming from revealing either voting patterns or views. However, that is perhaps a refinement and we support the main thrust of the committee's recommendations on transparency.
However, I have absolutely no idea whether the Government agree because the civil servant with the scissors and sticky tape must have failed to find an opinion on the subject in his box of papers. I hope that the Minister will this evening give an unambiguous statement about the need for the ECB to become more transparent through publishing its minutes.
Let me conclude by repeating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Radice, and his committee for a stimulating report and for the opportunity that he has given us to debate that report and to expose some of the fault lines in the arrangements within Economic and Monetary Union.
7.2 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join noble Lords in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Radice, and the other members of the committee. The report is a worthy successor to the earlier one on the stablility and growth pact and does indeed, although people do not seem to like the phrase. make an important contribution to the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said as his summary of the report that its recommendations urge the ECB to go more in the direction of Britain, the Treasury and the Bank of England and its Monetary Policy Committee. I suppose that if I wanted an easy life I would conclude that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and that we need go no further than that. However, I will not do that because I believe that the subject is very important.
I was disturbed by the suggestion, put gently by some participants in the debate and considerably less gently by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Government were in some way being dismissive of these issues, or that they did not have firm views on

75
them. I remind the House and the committee that with the support papers that were published in June at the time of the EMU decision there was a paper entitled Policy Frameworks in the UK and EMU, which addressed precisely the same points as are addressed in this report. It addressed them if anything at slightly greater length—something like 100 pages—and covered the issues of monetary and fiscal policy, policy co-ordination and financial stability that are covered in this report.
When I turn to the committee's report, I find that the only reference to our policy framework document in the text of the report is a footnote on page 46 on an academic issue. There is no recognition at all that the Government had made, during the period in which the committee was considering the issue, a major contribution to the debate. The only other references to that to be found in the report are in the evidence from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and her officials, which are recorded in the evidence section of the report.
If anybody says that the Government have been dismissive of these matters, I would say that the boot is on the other foot. On the contrary, it is the committee that has been dismissive to the extent of silence about the very considered and detailed views that the Government have expressed on these matters. It is therefore misplaced to criticise, as some, mostly gently, have done, the Government's response.
It is also the case that the committee has its own terms of reference. It is fully entitled, and the House appreciates this, to express its views on such matters as it chooses to debate. The Government, of course, are inevitably more constrained. The committee can make recommendations regardless of the possibility in political terms of achieving any of the objectives that it wishes to meet. The Government have to live in the real world. The Government have to consider whether it is appropriate for them to make public comments on the conduct of a body of which they are not a member.
We are of course a member of the European system of central banks, but we are not a member of the European Central Bank. I suggest that in the real world it is not all that surprising that the Government do not leap to attention when a committee asks us for an unequivocal answer to questions about the composition and conduct of the European Central Bank, or indeed to the question of whether France has behaved brazenly in the way in which it has reacted to the implementation of Article 104 of the treaty.
I put those points to the House as an opening remark in my usual conciliatory way. That does not mean that I will not seek to comment on the debate and on the report itself, because it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, remarked, that we should observe the similarities and differences between the way we do things and the way the European Central Bank does them. Similarities include the fact that interest rate decisions are taken by an independent central bank with a statutory mandate to ensure price stability and, without prejudice or subject to that, to support growth
76
and employment. The frameworks incorporate a substantial degree of transparency in the form of publishing analysis and providing data and we will discuss whether more transparency is appropriate for the central bank. They both command a high degree of credibility in achieving their inflation objectives.
However, there are differences. The ECB defines price stability but here the Government define it. The ECB does not have an explicitly symmetrical inflation target, although, as I will suggest, it is moving towards one. The ECB assigns a special role to monetary aggregates under its first pillar although again, it seems to be chipping away at the first pillar to some extent. The minutes of our MPC meetings and the voting records are published, but the minutes of the governing council meetings are not. There are fewer formal mechanisms to hold the ECB to account, and the composition of the decision-making bodies is different. Some of that is inevitable.
Let me start, on the substantive issues that we have debated this evening, with the symmetrical inflation target. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, that if we really had an asymmetrical target in Europe, and if two were really the top or less were the bottom, we might risk deflation. However, as he said, it has not happened. Why not? Because there is movement towards a position that is closer to our position. Wim Duisenberg said that,
"in practice, we are more inclined to act when inflation falls below 1 per cent and … when inflation threatens to exceed 2 per cent in the medium term".
There have been a number of months when inflation has gone above 2 per cent and no action has been taken. Of course there is potential for uncertainty in the euro area. Inflation targets might be problematic and might cause the euro area's fiscal authorities to overreact to potential deflation. However, I suspect that the issue is more one of wording than of practice.
Similarly, I do not pay much attention to the difference in wording between our Monetary Policy Committee's "subject to" and that used by the European Central Bank. I recall that. at the time of the then Bank of England Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who commented on that point, opposed vigorously "subject to" because he wanted to have growth and employment as an equal and additional objective. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who recognised the correctness of delegation to the Bank of England, he may be coming round, and there may be more sweetness and light than there was at that time.
On the two-pillar framework, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggested that the use of M3 data should be downgraded more than it has been. I suspect that it is being downgraded more than it has been. It is only recorded once a year nowadays. I think that Milton Friedman would be disappointed, even having rejected his own theories, in the extent to which monetary aggregates are no longer important elements of monetary policy.
I return to the reform of the governing council, which is really an area on which it is very difficult for us to see a political way ahead. We can all have

77
formulae, of course, and the committee's formula of a small central core is perfectly rational. However, given the provisions of Article 10.6, inserted into the ECB statute under the Treaty of Nice, and the requirement for unanimity in both the governing council and the Council, the Government believe that the decision taken at the 2003 spring European Council, where the heads of state or government agreed the change unanimously, probably represents the only feasible proposal achievable at the current stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, may think that there are alternatives. However, living in the real world, there is not much likelihood of an alternative. We have set out in the policy frameworks document a great deal of the academic and political argument that has taken place, and we acknowledge the force of the different opinions that have been expressed. However, we have to rely on what is actually possible in the political circumstances of Europe as it exists.
Similarly on transparency, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—the chairman of the European Union Committee—asked in his letter, in which he expressed disappointment at our response, whether we agreed with the recommendation that the ECB should publish records of meetings of the governing council. That matter is resolved by the EC treaty, which requires the ECB to publish quarterly reports and address an annual report to the European Parliament, ECOFIN, the Commission and the European Council. The ECB has chosen to go beyond those requirements in the sense of having a press conference after the first meeting of each month, by publishing monthly bulletins, and by publishing the euro-system staff macroeconomic projections twice a year.
There is therefore a movement towards transparency. However, on what a body of which we are not members should do in detail in terms of publishing either minutes or voting records, I would not go further than Sue Owen, the director of our macroeconomic policy and international finance directorate. She said in her evidence to the committee that the evidence,
"showed, on balance, that the markets had correctly anticipated decisions. We inferred from that they felt they were getting enough information about the way the Bank worked at the moment".
That applies to the issues of both minutes and voting records.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, emphasised, there is a need for enhanced policy dialogue and exchange of information between the ECB and the member states of the euro area. Again, that is discussed in great detail in our policy framework documents. It would have been helpful had that been recognised in the committee's report. It could have been taken, as it is, as the considered and well thought out view of the Government on the matter. It is all there in chapter 5. Ed Balls's speech at York University last Friday gives it in even more detail. We are saying that, although mechanisms are in place for information sharing between the authorities, the evidence suggests that they may not be currently used to their full potential. That is a proper conclusion to make on the issue.
78
I suppose that the next kind of issue relating to that is also on accountability, and is that of who should define price stability. The Government provided a rather more detailed response on that point. Our framework has been set up to ensure a clear separation of roles and responsibilities between the Government and the Bank of England. In the case of the ECB, it is the EC treaty that states that no members of the euro system shall seek to or take,
"instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a member state or from any other body".
Even in extreme circumstances, the ECB's independence cannot be overruled. Any change to that would require a treaty change with unanimity. Again, that issue is covered in great detail in the policy frameworks document. In the real world, we must look seriously at what chance there would be of a treaty change requiring unanimity.
As I said at Question Time this afternoon, the Government support a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact that builds on the code of conduct agreed by member states in June 2001, and the report agreed by EU Finance Ministers on strengthening budgetary co-ordination in June 2003. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked what I meant by a prudent interpretation. I meant what I have always meant by it; namely, a combination of recognition of the importance of the economic cycle, the importance of sustainability, and the importance of public investment. My view is that, without saying so, there is a movement towards prudent interpretation. I shall not claim that that was the outcome of the meeting of ECOFIN on 25 November, but I shall certainly say that over a longer period the Chancellor's arguments have started to gain recognition in Europe. I think that is good and it was, indeed, Jon Cunliffe who said that in evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee. I cannot remember who quoted that without quoting his name.
We believe, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, that comprehensive reform of Europe's labour, product and capital markets is important to deliver the dynamic Europe of full employment and social justice to which Europe and we are committed. We said that in the most recent Pre-Budget Report and I am not complaining that it was not included in the committee's report, because the Pre-Budget Report was later. But we take such matters extremely seriously and we are concerned with the economic governance of the euro area. We do not blame the European Central Bank for the defects which undoubtedly exist in economic governance in the euro area, but in any case, as always, we will publish a progress report on European economic reform ahead of the spring European Council in March 2004.
Finally, the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Sheldon and Lord St John of Bletso, referred to financial stability and prudential supervision. We do support and have supported ECOFIN's agreement in December 2002 to extend the Lamfalussy process to banking, insurance and the financial conglomerate sectors. Of course there are differences in the sense that prudential supervision is a matter for member states

79
rather than for the European Central Bank, but the conclusions that we reach on such matters are shared by the November 2003 report of Sub-Committee B on the European financial services action plan. When we debate that, I trust that we can do so in a spirit of greater unanimity.
I do not apologise for our responses to the committee's report. We take the subject seriously and have expressed our views with the seriousness that it deserves. I repeat my gratitude to the chairman and all members of the committee for their report.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Radice: My Lords, my colleagues and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been an excellent and informative debate. I doubt that we could have had the same debate in the other place. I also thank my noble friend the Minister, despite his somewhat hurt tone, for his lucid remarks—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not at all hurt.
Lord Radice: My Lords, I understand the limitations on what he may say. I cannot resist one remark, which is that we did not quote from the document that he mentioned, but we quoted from the Financial Secretary and her officials, because she said it more clearly and lucidly—and gave us much more information—than the document. That is why we quoted from the hearing rather than from the document that he mentioned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order appoints 25 February 2005 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme. The amnesty provides immunity from prosecution for the offences set out in the schedule to the 1997 Act—offences that might be committed during the decommissioning process. Most relate to possession, but others concern offences which may stem from a person's participation in decommissioning—centred not necessarily on the weapons involved, but on the behaviour which may accompany participation, such as the withholding of information, or making arrangements with terrorists.
80
Section 2 of the 1997 Act, as amended by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Act 2002, requires that a scheme must identify the amnesty period and that it must end before 26 February 2004 unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. The purpose of this order is to extend that period until midnight on 24 February next year.
Naturally the Government would like to see the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons as soon as possible. The order is a vital part of the process of delivering on that. Since the amnesty provisions were last renewed last spring, there has been a further act of decommissioning on the part of the Provisional IRA. On 21 October last year, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported witnessing a third IRA decommissioning event in which weapons were put beyond use in accordance with the Government's scheme and regulations.
Naturally the Government regret that it is necessary to continue to have such provisions at all, but we are absolutely clear that without them the process of decommissioning that we all want to see would not be possible. I underline that we want to see decommissioning by all paramilitary groups—loyalist and republican. We also call on those groups outside the peace process to engage with the decommissioning body to bring about full decommissioning, because we want to see an end to all paramilitary activity and to stem the rise of the criminal culture that threatens to replace it.
I want to pay tribute to the commitment, perseverance and integrity of General John de Chastelain and his colleagues at the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I want to express my thanks to them for what they have achieved in the process to date. The decommissioning process has begun. We want it to continue and to be completed, so it is essential that we continue to provide immunity from prosecution for those involved. We do that through this order and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, on this side of the House we also express thanks to General John de Chastelain for all that he is doing in the peace process. Of course we share the Government's view that we all want the decommissioning period completed as early as practicable. However, we note that the amnesty period set out in the order must end one day before the decommissioning period. As the inception of the decommissioning period continues to be postponed we also accept that it is necessary under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act for the amnesty order to be renewed annually. As the Minister has indicated, the reality is that without an amnesty in force there will be no prospect of decommissioning. Accordingly, we support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Lord President, for introducing the

81
order. In the euphoria following the Good Friday Agreement there was an expectation that decommissioning would occur by the latest date set down in the 1997 Act. However, it has taken almost that long to achieve the beginning of credible decommissioning and it will take longer to achieve total decommissioning, so the amnesty must be extended.
The step of decommissioning weapons was a long time coming and no one should underestimate the significance of the move that occurred last October. It has always been recognised that decommissioning is a process—no one ever expected the IRA to decommission all its weapons at once. However, the Good Friday Agreement talks about the total disarmament of all paramilitary groups and that is our aim. Although the decommissioning that took place before the elections last year was welcome and significant, as yet we are still nowhere near the total decommissioning that all want to see.
I repeat what the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said many years ago: decommissioning should not be elevated to a principle of supreme importance; negotiations must go on. Has there been any contact between the IICD, led by General de Chastelain, and any of the loyalist paramilitary groups? Incidences of loyalist violence are increasing, and we cannot expect real dialogue on decommissioning by loyalists while such violence continues. The aim is to achieve the total decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons. What action is the Minister taking to achieve that?
We do not believe that in a democratic society there is any place for illegally held weapons and have always called for full decommissioning by both loyalist and republican paramilitary groups. We have been supportive of the progress made on the issue to date. However, we always hoped that we would be further down the line to total decommissioning than we are. We recognise that decommissioning is a process and that no paramilitary group will decommission all its weapons at once. But now that we have started out on the process, we cannot give the IRA, in particular, any reason not to decommission its weapons. That is why we will support the passage of the order.
We are at the point of impasse, but at least we are not sustaining a false equilibrium anymore. Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party have a choice: they must either come to an accommodation, in which IRA decommissioning will play its part as will the previous intransigence of the DUP, or else the stalemate will give way inevitably to Northern Ireland being governed by a de facto London/Dublin condominium. We all hope that devolution can be restored and that there can be some sort of accommodation between Sinn Fein and the DUP.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for their comments. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that the
82
decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is only one element—though a vital one—in the process of taking violence out of politics in Northern Ireland for good.
The noble Lord asked me specifically about contact between loyalist organisations and the IICD. I can tell him that in April last year the Loyalist Commission along with UDA representatives met the IICD. As I understand it, that was the last contact. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2004
7.33 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland. In 2001 the Lord Chancellor established a new regime to improve control of the legal aid costs incurred by defence legal representatives in the most expensive criminal cases. Those changes were introduced in response to concern that the proportion of the criminal legal aid budget taken up by the most expensive 1 per cent of criminal cases had risen from 40 to 49 per cent of expenditure on criminal legal aid. Very high cost criminal cases currently amount to £280 million out of the total Crown Court expenditure of £569 million.
Following a successful pilot scheme, regulations were made under the Access to Justice Act 1999 to introduce a new mechanism to improve case management and control costs in those cases. Evidence from the pilot scheme suggests that it would achieve savings of 31 per cent.
A criminal very high cost case is defined in regulations to be one where the trial is expected to last 25 days or more or where defence costs for any defendant or group of defendants represented by the same firm are expected to be £150,000 or more.
The Legal Services Commission has established a specialist unit to manage defence legal aid costs in the most expensive criminal cases. Its aim is to secure quality defence services to act in complex and expensive criminal prosecutions at value for money to the taxpayer. From April 2004, the commission's Criminal High Cost Cases Unit (CHCCU) will manage all cases that meet the statutory definition of a criminal very high cost case through entering individual case contracts with the defence legal representatives. The unit also manages all very high cost serious fraud cases. Representation in such cases is limited to approved firms meeting minimum standards that are members of the Specialist Fraud Panel established by the commission.
The unit takes over management of a case by entering an individual case contract with the legal representatives once it is satisfied that they have the

83
requisite experience and capacity to handle the case. A dedicated contract manager will then be assigned, and the legal representatives are required to produce a case plan. At that stage, the case is divided into stages. Regular reviews of progress against the case plan are undertaken by the contract manager. Payment is made at fixed hourly rates and is linked to satisfactory completion of the work at each planned stage.
The Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) Regulations 2001 provide for the selection of new legal representatives where public funding has been granted by the court in a very high cost criminal case and the CHCCU or the existing legal representatives do not intend to enter an individual case contract.
The amendments to this instrument have several effects. First, they provide that the commission determines any question on whether a case meets the definition of a very high cost criminal case. That ensures consistency with the existing provisions of the Criminal Defence Service Funding Order 2001 and puts it beyond doubt that the commission's judgment on this issue is final.
Secondly, they extend the list of circumstances in which the Legal Services Commission is no longer required to fund representation by the client's current legal representative. Specifically, they provide that when the current solicitor representatives are not members of the Specialist Fraud Panel and the case is a very high cost fraud case, the commission is no longer required to fund representation. Either the commission or any or all of the current representatives may serve notice that they do not propose to enter into a contract. That aims to ensure that clients in very high cost fraud cases receive quality defence representation from specialist firms that are approved panel members. The existing regulations also provide a mechanism for a client to change solicitors where appropriate.
Thirdly, they enable the court as well as the commission to amend the client's representation order where the client has selected a new representative. That is to enable greater flexibility and to prevent any delay to ongoing criminal proceedings.
The Law Society, Bar Council and other representative professional bodies have been consulted during the preparation of the instrument. The regulation changes form part of a wider package of changes designed to reinforce the current framework for managing high cost criminal cases. That includes steps to strengthen the existing contractual and regulatory framework. Some aspects of the proposed changes are still under discussion. However, the elements set out in the order have not given rise to any opposition on consultation, and both the Law Society and the Bar Council have been notified of our intention to proceed with this part of the package. In my view, the provisions of the regulations are compatible with convention rights. I beg to move.
84
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton)
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am engaged at present in a case that falls within the provisions on very high cost cases. It is my first experience of such a case, and I must say that I am very concerned about the bureaucracy involved.
We have little criticism of the order, but I shall outline my reservations about it. First, one is presented with a contract running to 19 pages, and one must guess how much time one will expend on a case. In the case on which I am working there are eight defence teams, each with a case manager, some of whom are at the headquarters of this unit. I do not see the need for that.
Furthermore, the regulations provide that if anything new is presented to the court, it is necessary for the consent of the case manager to be obtained before one can look at it. For example, in the case in which I am engaged at the moment, if the prosecution produce a plan, in theory it is necessary for the trial to stop while each of the teams contacts the case manager to get his permission to look at the plan. Similarly, any notices of additional evidence require, in theory, the consent of the case manager before they are considered.
All this is ridiculous, and it is ignored by those who are engaged in such a case at the risk of never being paid for the work that they are doing. This scheme is in danger of running into the sand through the enormous overload of bureaucracy that now surrounds it. I welcome the fact that there is machinery to appoint new counsel contained in these regulations, but, overall, I am concerned that this scheme will not succeed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, these regulations, interalia, provide that any question of whether the case fulfils the criteria of a very high cost case is to be referred to the Legal Services Commission.
As I understand it the commission, as contract manager, takes a number of decisions about the status of cases, including the decision on whether a criminal case falls into the category of a very high cost case.
Can the Minister assure the House that a process exists for practitioners to appeal against decisions by the Legal Services Commission, which classifies cases as very high cost?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I am grateful to him for rightly acknowledging his personal interest in the subject.
The experience of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gives a valuable insight into this issue. We are concerned to ensure that bureaucracy does not interfere with proper case management. I am sure that the noble Lord would accept that proper case management is important. Case management helps to

85
manage the costs. However, there are regular opportunities for the commission to meet with representatives from the Bar Council and the Law Society to look at the issue raised by the noble Lord. We are keen to see that bureaucracy levels are kept within limits and that the audit process is more precise and not overbearing.
The best that I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that I am grateful to him for expressing his concern in the way in which he did. It is an important issue, and we clearly need to keep it under review. Perhaps the noble Lord could share through his professional association some of those concerns and help us in our shared objective of ensuring that bureaucracy costs do not get in the way of a sensible case management approach.
There is currently no appeal procedure to cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but it is a valid point which is worth reflecting on. I will write to the noble Lord on that point. We are happy to consider representations on that issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised it in the way in which he did.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harbours Bill [H.L.]
7.44 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Berkeley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of procedure for dealing with applications for harbour orders]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, after "situated, " insert—
"(ab) the relevant nature conservancy authority, "
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, which also stand in my name. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to them together.
These amendments have been prepared to meet a point raised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, following the introduction of this Bill. I mentioned to your Lordships at Second Reading that I would be moving these amendments at this stage. I explained then that the effect of the amendments would be that the Secretary of State would be required to hold an inquiry to consider objections when English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales object to an application for an order, and inform the Secretary of State that the agency or the commission wish the objection to be referred to a local inquiry. That explanation was not quite right, and I apologise to your Lordships if I misled the House.
86
I should have said that the amendments put English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales in exactly the same position as local authorities under the Bill; namely, that they can require a local inquiry or a public hearing, but it is for the Secretary of State to decide which of those shall occur.
Other noble Lords questioned the effects of these amendments at Second Reading. I refer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Many of those noble Lords are not in their places. I have discussed this amendment and my speech with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and he has agreed that I should say that he is happy with what is now being proposed.
These amendments do not oblige English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales to object to every application for a harbour order. They already have a right to object to any application that may affect matters relevant to their statutory powers and duties, such as adverse effects on nature conservation. Experience demonstrates that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales exercise their rights to objection only in appropriate circumstances. In such circumstances, it is more than likely that the RSPB and other interested bodies, such as the local wildlife trust and amenity bodies, will also object.
In those circumstances, it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not require the application for that order to be referred to an inquiry. Where the Bill will assist is in cases where orders are promoted for purposes that do not adversely affect the environment. For example, an order may be promoted to alter the constitution of a harbour authority. I imagine that neither English Heritage, the Council, or the RSPB would wish to object to such an application. However, there may be others who would wish to do so, and the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to deal with those objections by means of written representations without the need for a public inquiry or hearing.
I hope that this has been an intelligible explanation. I do not think that these amendments will reduce in any respect the efficacy of what is proposed by means of this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: As well as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw regrets that he is unable to be in his place this evening, and he has asked me to deal with these few amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining them so clearly. These Benches are happy with the general aim of the Bill. If that can be achieved, these Benches will be satisfied. We support the amendments.
Lord Triesman: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his introduction. It was wholly intelligible even to me and therefore, I suspect, generally intelligible to everybody. I greatly appreciate what he said and the great care and detail that has gone

87
into his work. I applaud that work, and I know that it has been done over some time. It has brought us to our discussion tonight.
The Committee will be aware that the Government support the objectives of the Bill. If enacted, it would make a useful contribution to our policy of streamlining the procedures associated with the planning process. A detailed exposition of the Government's support and the support expressed here was set out in the reply made at Second Reading on 7 January by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton.
I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled the amendments. English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are already well versed in how to comment on harbour orders in their role as consultees on all relevant applications. Of course, the Bill brings the Harbours Act 1964 into line with the Transport and Works Act 1992 and similar planning legislation in respect of rights to inquiries. The amendment would upset that alignment to a certain degree.
I do not think, on the face of it, that that detracts from the Bill's objectives, but we would like to give the matter further consideration between now and Report, with a view to tabling our own amendments at that stage, if we believe that it is desirable to do so.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrat Benches and for my noble friend's kind words in responding to the amendment. I am happy to consider with him any further changes that might be necessary before Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ", and
(b) "the relevant nature conservancy authority" means—

(i) if the harbour (or any part of it) is situated in England, English Nature, and

(ii) if the harbour (or any part of it) is situated in Wales, the Countryside Commission of Wales""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of procedure where harbour revision orders are made by the Secretary of State of his own motion]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 7:
Page 2, line 44, leave out from beginning to ", and" in line 45 and insert "person within sub-paragraph (3A)"
Page 3, line 1, leave out "the local authority" and insert "that person"
Page 3, line 1, leave out "the authority" and insert "he"
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
"(3A) The persons within this sub-paragraph are—

(a) any local authority for an area in which the harbour (or any part of it) is situated, and

(b) the relevant nature conservancy authority."

Page 3, line 11, leave out "has" and insert "and "the relevant conservancy authority" have"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
  (First Day)
  Monday, 26 January 2004.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of two points of procedure. Noble Lords will speak standing; and the House has agreed that there will be no Divisions in Grand Committee. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 [Piloting conduct at European and local elections]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
  "( ) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section unless a three-quarters majority of the local authorities in the areas covered by the pilot agree."
  The noble Baroness said: Before I speak to Amendment No. 1, I thank the Minister for the very detailed letter that he sent to us. That was very kind. It raised a number of points, not all of which will be satisfied. We shall certainly want some of the information that he has given in Hansard. I do not believe that such information has been put in the Library, so I hope that, as the amendments arise—I have not withdrawn any of them—we shall be able to acquire detailed information.
  Turning to Amendment No. 1, Clause 1 provides that the Secretary of State may make an order requiring that,
  "the European Parliamentary general election of 2004 in a region specified",
  be conducted in a manner differing from the normal procedure, as was made clear at Second Reading and now in the Government's amendment, by all-postal elections. Other pilots have now been ruled out. Any such order would also apply to any local elections taking place in the selected regions on the same day. We understand that that does not include all local authorities in the region.
  The Secretary of State has consulted with the Electoral Commission and, unlike the House of Commons, we have the benefit of the results of the Electoral Commission's report. It recommends that only the North East and the East Midlands regions are ready to hold pilots. We shall deal with the issue of how obliged the Secretary of State should be to adhere to that recommendation, and the reasons that inform it, when we come to debate Amendment No. 4 and presumably government Amendment No. 5.
  At this stage I want to deal with the state of readiness of the local authorities that are specified in an order under Clause 1 and their willingness and ability to participate in carrying out all-postal votes in their areas of responsibility; that is at local elections in the pilot regions. For argument's sake, let us assume that the Secretary of State followed the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and selected the North East and the East Midlands in his order under Clause 1. That is all well and good in the case of the North East. From the Electoral Commission's report, we learn that its previous experience of piloting has led to a great deal of enthusiasm for pilots in this region. The report comments:
  "There is overwhelming support from an all-postal vote in 2004 among authorities in the region, underpinned by concerns that voter confusion would be high if electors were required to access conventional polling stations in June 2004. The region has a small number of authorities, a small proportion of whom are holding local elections in 2004".
  That is a direct quote from page 25, paragraph 3.2. That suggests that at least a majority of the local authorities are extremely keen to undertake pilot elections in their regions. However, that is not necessarily the case for the East Midlands. In paragraph 3.4 on the same page, the Electoral Commission comments:
  "Returning officers have expressed a willingness to undertake an all-postal pilot scheme",
  yet in the following paragraph we have the comments of the regional returning officer for the East Midlands, who states that he has "personal misgivings" about choosing the East Midlands as a region for the proposed pilot scheme. He mentions,
  "the considerable uncertainties that still surround the late date for binding decisions and the very significant unresolved questions around scaling the requisite technology up from individual authorities to the full regional electorate".
  If we refer back to the Electoral Commission report, the Committee will recall that he said that in order for these pilots to be satisfactory the regions and the local authorities involved should have detailed decisions by the middle of December—December of last year—on how they were going to take the matter forward.
  It is clear to me that many local authorities—in fact those which have not been involved in pilot schemes before—are uneasy about the lack of detail on the practical administration of these new postal elections. That is compounded by the fact that we are given no further details in Clause 2 about what will actually be in the pilot order—although we will be under some future amendments—and how the elections will work

  GC 3
  in practice. The Electoral Commission, in summing up the situation as regards the East Midlands, commented:
  "We reiterate that potential pilot regions should receive sufficient and reliable detail on the form of the pilot … and in addition, the Government should give potential pilot regions clear undertakings on the level of central support that will be provided in the same timeframe".
  The point is that not all local authorities in the East Midlands are comfortable with trialing pilot schemes. Their fears stem from the short timescale and the administrative and financial burden that they are concerned they will have to bear. There is a risk that they will either have insufficient resources or will botch the job because they do not have enough time to prepare the necessary infrastructure before the elections in June. The lack of detail with which they have been provided thus far has spurred on their misgivings.
  If we project this matter to the other two regions that the Government are now proposing to add—the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside—the situation is much worse, with a lack of enthusiasm experienced by returning officers, in particular in the local authorities of the North West where 33 elections are due to take place.
  Our amendment attempts to add an extra safeguard. Despite the misgivings of the East Midlands' returning officer, the Electoral Commission has classified that region as suitable. Our amendment does not state that every single local authority has to agree to the pilot. We would not want an overly cautious local authority to be able to exercise a veto to stop a pilot going ahead. All we ask is that the Secretary of State should consult local authorities in the region that he intends to specify and to proceed with an order under Clause 1 only if three-quarters of them agree to the pilot scheme.
  We do not believe that this will scupper the Government's plans. If the Electoral Commission's report is correct—as I have no doubt it is—those regions that the report has recommended will fulfil the requirement of a three-quarters majority in favour. There should, therefore, be no problem in accepting our amendment.
  However, if one-quarter of local authorities in the area are uneasy about holding a pilot scheme, for whatever reason—be it a question of costs, resources, infrastructure, timing or anything else—we do not believe that an order should be made for that region. It is, after all, the local authorities that will be responsible for running a successful election following the pilot scheme and if 25 per cent of local authorities would rather not risk the trial, we do not see why it should be imposed on them from above by the Secretary of State. Our amendment would allow a degree of discretion for local authorities in a region chosen for the pilot scheme, which we believe is only right and fair. I beg to move.
  Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
  Line 3, after first "the" insert "principal".
  The noble Lord said: I rise in general support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3, which stands in my name in this group. Before doing so, I want to respond to the general point put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
  Until now, all pilot schemes for running local elections have been implemented with the agreement of, or at the request of, the local authorities concerned. They may have been run by different means— electronic, postal or whatever—perhaps using more modern methods than the old system. I forget how many pilot schemes took place last May. There may have been 20 or 30. The Government wrote to local authorities saying, "Do you want to put yourselves forward to be a pilot?". Those chosen were taken from the authorities that expressed a wish to carry out a pilot.
  Equally, as I understand it, where authorities have piloted by-elections in the past couple of years, essentially the local authority concerned has decided that it wants to pilot a by-election, or, in some cases, several by-elections, in its patch. This is the first time that local authorities are being told, "You will have a pilot whether you like it or not". Under the Government's new proposals for all regions, a number of local authorities which will carry out pilot schemes are not only expressing disquiet but are strongly opposed to them for various reasons, including that of fraud. Therefore, this is the first time that an element of compulsion will be used on local authorities.
  I consider that to be a bad principle. The noble Baroness's amendment goes some way towards addressing that as at least a clear majority or overwhelming number—that is, three-quarters—of the authorities in the region must agree that they want to take part in a pilot. I make that general point in support of the noble Baroness's amendment.
  Amendment No. 2 is a pernickety, pedantic point made by a lifelong councillor, although I am not a councillor at present. Nevertheless, if we are talking about "principal authorities", we should say "principal authorities". We are not talking about parish councils. At least, I assume that the noble Baroness is not talking about parish councils. She is talking about authorities that are involved in the scheme.
  Amendment No. 3 provides an alternative point of view. It returns to the question of consent among authorities whose own local elections will be affected—not through any choice of their own and not because they would otherwise have been chosen as a pilot but because they happen to be in a region which, in their wisdom, the Government have decided should have all-postal vote elections.
  I believe that the noble Baroness's argument was based on running elections and returning officers, and so on. An alternative point of view—I am not sure which is right but I thought it worth debating—is that a three-quarters majority of councils whose own elections will be affected by the provision should be in

  GC 5
  favour of the scheme, and that is what that amendment seeks to ensure. It is clearly a probing amendment or one for discussion, but I believe that it raises an important point which should be made at this stage. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that, whichever region is chosen to carry out a pilot, it must have the capacity to carry out the election successfully and, ultimately, everyone must feel that it has been efficient and that peoples rights have been met. However, I am a little worried about the amendment and I want to pose one or two brief questions to the noble Baroness.
  Why has the figure of three-quarters been chosen for the majority? The House of Commons had a long debate on whether it should be a two-thirds majority, but now the figure is three-quarters. I want to know the basis or the argument for choosing the figure of three-quarters as opposed to two-thirds. I could almost understand it if the figure were two-thirds because one would then be saying that a majority was in favour. However, I am not certain where the figure of three-quarters comes in.
  I also want to make the point that if one were arguing imposition, even with a three-quarters majority, one could still argue that the local authorities making up the other quarter were having the pilot imposed upon them. Therefore, I believe that the argument falls a little flat there.
  The question of what is a local authority also arises. That is not defined in the amendment. How would one weigh local authorities of different sizes with different populations and different geographies within an area? Or are we saying that, in fact, a local authority with a very small area in terms of population and geography could raise objections when it is just a quarter of the region? That would then be very unfair in terms of the mass of the population of that region. Therefore, I am not certain how one arrives at the figure suggested by the noble Baroness and what are the criteria and the basis behind it.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): I am glad to have the opportunity to start our deliberations in Committee on these interesting amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
  Amendment No. 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would require the Secretary of State to gain the support of three-quarters of the local authorities in a region before that region could be selected for piloting.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, seek to narrow the meaning of Amendment No. 1 to principal local authorities. We shall discuss later today the Government's proposal that we place the chosen regions on the face of the Bill. There are a number of reasons for that, which,
  GC 6
  although they may be self-evident, I shall no doubt labour when we come to that point. Clearly, if that is supported, these amendments would no longer be needed.
  The first point is that local authorities have been consulted. Two consultations have taken place about pilots at the June 2004 elections—one by the Government and one by the Electoral Commission— through which local authorities were able to make their views known. Therefore, there has been no lack of opportunity for local authorities to express their views as is right and proper, and for the Government to receive their representations, both written and oral.
  The willingness and capacity of local authorities was a factor in taking the relevant decision. The willingness of returning officers and regional returning officers was considered by the Electoral Commission in making its recommendations on the regions. It has also been a factor that we have borne in mind in making our final decision. However, that was not the primary consideration. That has to be focused on the operational capacity or capability to deliver successful elections, and this is what we have taken—I believe rightly—as our main criterion. Capacity, not willingness, is the key factor. However, surely it is capacity for success, rather than just willingness or enthusiasm, that matters.
  As I believe has already been implied, it is not appropriate—for reasons I shall discuss at greater length in a moment—for local authorities, or a group of them, to be given a power of veto over whether there is to be a pilot of the kind we are discussing at the European parliamentary elections. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, shares some heritage with me in terms of a deep interest in, commitment to and passion for local government. She will know better than I that on many occasions local authorities have not always been enthusiastic about what they have had to do but good local authority officers know that they have to get on and do it. The clearest and strongest example of that is rate capping—not that there is any parallel between what is proposed here and rate capping.
  I was slightly surprised to hear the argument advanced regarding the East Midlands. We were interested to note the move from a two-thirds majority to a three-quarters majority. We noted the debate in the Commons regarding the two-thirds majority but we also noted that the Electoral Commission signalled that 74 per cent of the local authorities in the East Midlands supported the pilots. Lo and behold, the figure of 75 per cent pops out as the critical threshold. I am sure that as ever I have a suspicious mind and should wash my mouth out.
  We may talk about the choice of regions many times today but the Committee will also be aware that the Government did not decide—I believe against the expectation as expressed on Second Reading—to go ahead with the scheme in Scotland. The reason we did not go ahead in Scotland was not because the electoral returning officers were either enthusiastic or not about doing that, but they did not believe that they could

  GC 7
  deliver a successful process. It would be a bold government to force electoral returning officers to carry out that process in the face of clear statements from them that they do not think that they can do so for a variety of reasons, particularly when they could advance evidence for that. But that has not been the situation in the four areas that we mentioned. There would have been varying degrees of enthusiasm by regional returning officers or local authority returning officers as to whether at a particular point in time they wanted to carry out such a pilot process. That is a different issue from whether they believed, if they were chosen, that they could actually deliver a successful election. It is on that distinction that we have made the judgments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right that previous local authorities were in a position where they could volunteer. If they did not volunteer, they did not have to do a pilot process of this sort. There were good reasons for having that as the process up to now, because the local authority was making its own decision in its own area, and there were no other wider issues. However, if—as we do—we believe that there is benefit in a progressive, cautious, evaluated and researched process to see whether postal voting can be taken on a wider scale, while addressing some of the proper concerns that have been raised, it is self-evident to us that we should pilot at a regional as well as on an individual local authority level. Of course, if it required every local authority to volunteer—or even three-quarters of them—there would not be many regions in which one could pilot.
  The final reason on which we should reflect is that a lot is learnt from piloting such experiments in areas where there has been enthusiasm and willingness, as has been done to date. Most parties have an interest in seeing whether postal voting can be moved forward on a wider scale, albeit with security, safety and all the other issues that we marked at Second Reading. Therefore, one has to pilot not only on the willing and enthusiastic, but on those who may not be passionate about taking part, because that would clearly be the case if one were to carry out such a process on a national scale in years to come—perhaps in many years to come. By definition, a postal vote would be carried out across the willing and unwilling alike.
  Therefore, there is good reason, not bad reason, for doing pilots for areas where there is not a unanimity or even massively strong support for being in the vanguard of experimentation in such a way. In other words, one has to test in the difficult circumstances when people are less than enthusiastic, as well as the easier ones when people are piloting or postal junkies. There is also a good argument for not simply testing postal voting on simple situations when there is a single election, but testing on the more complex cases when multiple elections are happening at the same time. That is why we are doing that this time. There will be occasions in future when that takes place.
  For those reasons, while I very much understand the defence of the interests of local authorities in this respect, there are wider public policy reasons why it is
  GC 8
  desirable that we take forward cautious evaluated experimentation of this type, even when local authorities are not enthusiastic for it, subject to the Government and returning officers having confidence that they can deliver a sound election process.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall address the matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, although I was not sure whether to pop up after she had finished or to leave it to the end. I believed that Members of the Committee might welcome just one contribution, as they will be hearing a lot of my voice today. I also apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Atlee is not with us at the moment. Poor man, he is running two things at the same time, as he is also dealing with the Patents Bill, so he will probably come later on if he has time.
  First, I wish to address the question of the local authorities' willingness or capacity to deal with the pilots. We shall return time and time again to the Electoral Commission report. After all, the Government set up the Electoral Commission to advise them. While I know that any advice can have a boot put on it, it is probably sensible at least to follow a little of what has been said.
  Paragraph 2.40 on page 13 of the Electoral Commission report says:
  "With the regional pilots, it is perhaps inevitable that not all Returning Officers or their staff will be equally enthusiastic. This could be crucial in determining the likely success of a pilot scheme".
  For regional pilots, one could also read into that "local authorities".
  It is quite important that people want to do the pilots. We shall discuss later whether half the national voting strength is a pilot. When we are trying to work out whether something will work or whether it has flaws, it is sensible at least to do so in areas where there is a vision or large-scale support for it. Whether a two-thirds or three-quarters majority is required is only a matter for probing. The principle, to which we can return later if necessary, should surely be that there should be a significant majority of local authorities in favour, so that there is a real possibility that it will get off to a reasonable start.
  I know that there have been previous pilots, but they have been limited and, as far as I am aware, have never involved running two different elections at the same time on a pilot basis. So there are differences here and reasons why, if the Government want to find out whether it works, it should be done with a reasonable degree of co-operation and help. Whether the majority is two-thirds or 75 per cent, it must be clear that everyone wants to do it.
  That is why there should be another canvassing effort. I appreciate that the Electoral Commission has done its work, but it points out that not every local authority wants to hold a pilot or believes that it has the capacity to do so. Therefore, before we embark on the pilots, it seems sensible to have another skirmish. The reason why the Government will not be keen to do so is that the timescale is now very tight. The Bill has been bobbling around for a while, and even if all

  GC 9
  instructions on how to run the pilots were issued tomorrow, considerable effort will have to be made to get them off the ground for June.
  I will think carefully about what the Minister has said, but I am still of the view that there should be wholehearted support for what is to be done in a local authority area, or in local authority areas that make up a region.
  Lord Greaves: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  "(5) An order under this section may only specify—

  (a) the North East;

  (b) the East Midlands; and

  (c) any local authorities within those electoral regions which are due to hold elections on the same date."

  The noble Baroness said: This amendment continues the debate that we have just had on the regions selected to run pilots. Again, we have the independent and impartial assessment of the Electoral Commission, after wide consultation with local authorities in all regions under consideration.
  As the Government especially sought its advice, we see no reason for them to choose to ignore what it said and elect to propose two additional regions: the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. The Electoral Commission specifically said that it believes that only two regions are suitable for all-postal votes at this stage. It emphasised that it can make no positive recommendations on the suitability of any other region.
  On Second Reading, many of those who spoke asked the Government whether they intended to follow that recommendation. The Minister's response left me feeling concerned. He said that the Government were,
  "currently considering in more detail each of those further potential candidates",
  with the hope of announcing,
  "shortly whether or not we intend to proceed with any other region".—[Official Report, 8/1/04; col. 302.]
  We now know that it was not just one more region the Government were considering, but two.
  I believe that it would be irresponsible for the Government to specify any other region which has been rejected by the Electoral Commission. Why are they so insistent on the two additional recommended regions? If the Government had no intention of accepting the commission's views, why did they ask it to put forward its recommendation?
  We have been told time and again, when the Government have been trying to advocate piloting any innovative methods at all, that the exercise is designed to generate evidence in order that decisions on the wider use of these systems can be proportionate and soundly based. Whether this is justifiable in terms of the risk to security and concerns about secrecy and accessibility is an argument we will have on later amendments.
  What I would have thought would be obvious was that the whole piloting scheme, intended to "generate evidence" on new methods, would be jeopardised if it were trialled in regions which are considered to be unsuitable either by being unwilling, unprepared, or both. The result of the election will generate evidence which will not be a fair representation of how innovative methods would work in practice.
  An area unsuited to a pilot scheme would be more likely to have negative results from the pilot scheme and even more damaging in that the elections themselves could be botched, as we discussed. In the latter case, the results of the elections might even be called into question.
  Since the Government set up the Electoral Commission to make an independent view of these matters, we believe they should stick to its recommendations. I can tell the Minister now that we do not agree to the additional two regions he is proposing. Neither are recommended by the commission and neither appear to be prepared or enthusiastic to blaze a trail. The addition of the two regions means that the pilot turns from being a limited one into a full-frontal assault on the normal election process. Just under half of all the local authority elections due in England would be conducted on an all-postal basis. And out of the eight English European electoral regions, four would be subject to the same.
  We believe that this makes a mockery of the word "pilot"; that the subsequent necessary charge will be impossible to manage and obtain sufficiently detailed results; and that the Government should stick to the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. I beg to move.
  Lord Rennard: At Second Reading, I expressed a considerable number of reservations about the principle of postal voting and I shall not repeat them today. I mention that because, notwithstanding all of those reservations, I accepted the principle of experimentation to some degree. It seems that our debate should now be about how far that experimentation should go.
  However, not long ago, the Government appeared to be wholly against the idea of all-postal voting in the European elections. The only experiment to be held this June is the combining of the local elections and the European elections. We have received no answer— either at Second Reading or at any other point—about why there is a sudden Government change of heart. They say, first, that we will have no postal voting in the European elections; then they ask the Electoral Commission to come forward with three regions where that might be suitable; then the Electoral Commission

  GC 11
  said that two regions were suitable; and now the Government say that four regions should be subject to their experimentation. We have had no proper explanation of that rapid sequence of change.
  As was noted in our debate on Amendment No. 1, one of the problems is the speed with which elections can be organised by the returning officers and their staff and how the campaigns can be conducted by the parties. The uncertainty is unhelpful for those conducting the elections and those competing in them.
  It seems strange that when the Government fail to get a positive endorsement for three regions from the commission, they should come back and propose four. Why has there been a U-turn on the principle of all-postal voting in European elections; and why are the Government acting so strongly against the Electoral Commission's advice on suitability against their own criteria?
  No doubt we shall dwell carefully on the Electoral Commission's words on the issue, but the key phrase was when it stated that it,
  "concluded that there are two regions which best meet the criteria and are suitable for piloting all-postal voting in 2004".
  I accept that, as the Minister said on Second Reading, it also stated that a number of other regions could potentially be suitable, but it also stated that it did not,
  "feel able to make a positive recommendation on their suitability following our assessment of them against the criteria".
  We should consider the matter in detail. Three or four years ago, we debated at some length the principles of the Electoral Commission: how it should guide parliamentarians and government in an independent and objective manner, as far as possible. I accept that the commission's advice is not binding on any party or on the Government, but we should listen carefully to what it has to say, as the Government asked it to make recommendations on the issue. On page 27, in section 3.9, the report states:
  "The Commission is not able to make a positive recommendation that Yorkshire and Humber is suitable to undertake a pilot scheme in 2004".
  It notes great divisions within the region on the issue and the distinct preference among returning officers and their staff for running the election on conventional lines. I do not for a moment accept that the staff should have a veto, but what is the point of the Government asking the Electoral Commission which regions' staff say that they can and would want to run a pilot, and to find the staff who are unwilling or think that there would be problems, and then saying that the commission should simply be overruled?
  Similarly, in the North West, the commission state that it is,
  "not able to make a positive recommendation that the North West region is suitable to undertake a pilot scheme in 2004".
  It noted some willingness but some opposition to the scheme. Some practicalities may be difficult to address in the short period between now and the elections if, having expected there to be no all-postal elections in Yorkshire and Humber or the North West, we now try to introduce them.
  GC 12
  In a spirit of compromise and willingness to accept experimentation, I noted carefully the argument made for experimentation and said that, despite reservations, we may be able to go along with two pilot experiments. It would be a good thing and healthy for democracy to see how they would work, subject to other reservations and tightening up as far as possible some of the procedures I discussed. But I have not heard any case for there to be four pilots rather than two.
  In particular, why should the whole of the north of England and half of the Midlands be subject to all-postal voting experimentation, but nowhere in the south? That seems strange. Perhaps this is a point for those of us who have been described as political anoraks, but we think that that will distort the results across Great Britain in the European elections.
  Inevitably, the European elections are used as a sort of mid-term popularity poll about the Government. People look at the share that each party gets in each election. If all-postal voting results in increased turnout in all those areas that are traditionally stronger for Labour and weak for the Conservatives, that opens the Government to accusations that they have distorted the results of the 10 June European elections in their favour and against the Conservatives.
  If there were a Liberal Democrat Government, we would insist that all-postal voting should take place early in the South West, it being our strongest region, to inflate our share of the national vote. I do not suggest that that will happen soon, but the point is that it is not good for governments to introduce experiments that may favour their party in elections. By proposing that the whole of the north of England and half of the Midlands should have all-postal voting—resulting, we hope, in a higher turnout—while the south of England should not, the Government are open to suggestions that they are operating for partisan advantage. That is especially so when they appear to be over-ruling the Electoral Commission.
  If an experiment were to be made, it should have been for weekend voting. I cannot see the case for having four all-postal pilots. Given that the commission states that it cannot possibly recommend the North West or Yorkshire, the Government have not made the case for extending the pilots to four. On that basis, we support Amendment No. 4.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: I too support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I apologise to the noble Baroness that I had to nip along the corridor during part of her speech. Therefore, I did not hear it all but I am sure that I agreed with everything that I did not hear as well as I agree with the basics of the amendment that she is moving and I support my noble friend.
  I live in the North West and vote in the North West in those elections where I am allowed a vote. The Government's decision to put the North West forward has resulted in a great deal of dismay on the part of many people in the North West—but certainly not

  GC 13
  everyone. The next disclaimer I want to make is that, regarding one or two comments I am about to make, I am not making any party political points at all about any particular party that has been involved in attempting to rig elections by postal votes. I point out that of the recent court cases in the past two or three years that have resulted in convictions—there have been precious few of them—for councillors and candidates, in two cases at least, in Hackney and Havant, Liberal Democrats were convicted. Therefore, I am not making any political points at all in what I am going to say.
  In addition to the points that my noble friend made, the Electoral Commission report on electoral pilots at the June 2004 elections discussed the question of fraud. I want to address the issue that all-postal vote elections will be wide open to fraud. Paragraph 2. states regarding the North West:
  "There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the North West in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes … Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004; this will be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting".
  It is not just a case of unfavourable publicity. In the context of fiddling elections the actual results get changed from time to time. The report also points out that in the view of the Electoral Commission widespread or universal all-postal voting should not be brought in until there is individual registration. I submit that four regions, which is virtually half England, is getting fairly close to universal postal voting.
  One of the reasons that Government Ministers have put forward for all-postal voting is to increase the turnout in order to change the election results. That was stated quite overtly by Nick Raynsford, who was quoted in the Observer on 4 May last year in relation to the election successes of the British National Party in Burnley, where I live. The Observer quotes Nick Raynsford as stating:
  "The BNP thrives in areas of low turnout. If you increase turnout there is a better chance that they won't get through".
  He went on to say:
  "I also think they tend to thrive on that rather old-fashioned atmosphere of a traditional poll".
  One can question Nick Raynsford's thought processes regarding traditional polls and old-fashioned atmospheres, but nevertheless what he was saying there was very clear—increase the turnout and you will "dish" the BNP, and the way to increase the turnout is to have all-postal vote elections. I have to say that I think his basic thinking in relation to the North West and, indeed, in relation to Yorkshire is wrong. I do not believe that the BNP will do worse if the turnout goes up, but that will have to be seen. The one place where the BNP did really well—the only place that it has really broken through the 30 per cent barrier—was in Burnley last May when it polled in the high 30 per cent or in the low 40 per cent pretty well everywhere it stood. The evidence there is interesting. My figures relate to the wards where the BNP stood for election. The one ward in which it did not stand is not included
  GC 14
  in the figures. I refer to the 13 wards where the BNP stood in Burnley last May. In the seven wards that it won—where it had councillors elected—the average turnout was 44.2 per cent. In the six wards that it did not win—where the BNP failed to gain a seat—the average turnout was 39.1 per cent.
  There was a 5 per cent difference between the wards it won where the turnout was higher. I would not argue that we should therefore look to have a lower turnout to "dish" the BNP, but in a particular authority where one is comparing more or less like with like the evidence is that BNP's success puts the turnout up. I fear that that could be the case in the North West next year where its lead candidate, Nick Griffin, needs only about 8 per cent to be in with a chance of winning a seat.
  It is even more surprising that the Government have chosen to include Yorkshire. As I understand it, the clear view of returning officers and local authorities there was that they did not want it. I know most about the authority in Bradford, where during the past few years there has been a large number of claims that people have engaged in electoral malpractice in relation to the postal vote. One of the first came from Terry Rooney, MP for Bradford North. He commented in relation to his own election results at the last general election and I quote from the BBC News website of 16 June 2001:
  "Mr Rooney said he believed abuses of the system meant it was impossible to say the poll was free and fair".
  It was all about people going round after the postal ballot forms had arrived and intimidating people into voting a particular way.
  It is interesting that all the political parties on Bradford Council, of which there are four including the Greens, appear to be united against the idea of an all-postal vote in Bradford. There is a substantial fear of electoral malpractice. I quote from the Bradford Telegraph & Argus published on Friday 23 January:
  "Bradford politician, Mohammed Riaz, a prospective Conservative European Parliamentary candidate for Yorkshire and Humberside said 30 per cent of Asian people in parts of Bradford would return votes for candidates they did not really want in a postal system. He said they would come under pressure from friends and family to vote in certain ways".
  The fact of the matter is that all of us who were involved in grass-roots politics in areas with large Asian populations know that postal-vote rigging and postal-vote malpractices take place on a horrendous scale. Some have spend a lot of time trying to stamp it out.
  As regards Bradford, the leader of the council, Margaret Eaton, who is a Conservative, said that she was "angry and disappointed" by the decision. The Labour leader, Dave Green, said that he was "concerned about abuse". David Ford, the Green councillor, said that it was "disastrous". Jeanette Sunderland, who is a good friend of mine, said she was afraid that it would allow cheats to win. Particularly significantly, the Bradford Telegraph &Argus, which has always been one of the more civically concerned

  GC 15
  and sensible evening papers in this country, had an editorial headed "All-postal ballot is a bad idea". It stated:
  "The Government ruling that Bradford voters should have an all-postal ballot imposed on them for the Council and European Parliament elections in June is a very bad idea indeed".
  It continues:
  "It is a flawed case which fails to take into account the cheats who will seek to make political capital out of this system … It is far too easy for ballot papers to be 'harvested' to enable votes to be fraudulently assigned to one candidate or another".
  I would not claim that it was restricted to one party in Bradford by any means.
  In the North West, I have been sent some interesting information by the Blackburn Conservative Association, which has been looking into fraudulent postal vote activities in Blackburn. Much was alleged in the 2001 election and before the 2002 elections it stated its concerns to the returning officer. It asked him to compare signatures and so on between postal-vote application forms and declarations of identity. That request was refused and the Blackburn Conservatives therefore carried out its own survey in Bastwell ward.
  I do not want to say too much about this because police investigations may be taking place. However, I want to read—anonymously, for fairly obvious reasons—a couple of the letters of which I have copies. One is from Mr D of Blackburn. He writes:
  "The post arrived at my home and was behind the door. Two men knocked at my door and asked, 'Have you got postal vote?'. They said, 'Then give it to us'. Mrs D handed the unopened envelope to them. The forms were not signed or promised to the man".
  That is a husband describing what happened to his wife's vote when he discovered that it had been given away.
  There is another from a young girl student, who writes:
  "While I was at university the postal vote arrived, but as I was in a rush I left the envelope unopened and obviously unsigned. Once I returned home I had been told from my father that some individual claiming to be from the Labour party insisted on taking the envelope regardless of the fact it wasn't signed. My father described him to be from an Asian background with a small white beard. The person took away my postal vote without my authority".
  Anyone involved in politics in such areas knows that this kind of activity goes on all the time.
  It happens not only in Bradford. A Conservative councillor in Guildford had to resign—there was a by-election which we won—because he had been caught on a CCTV camera in the town hall—foolish man— filling in a ballot paper for a postal voter. There are many examples of fiddling postal votes. I am passing over a number in Pendle because I have spoken for a long time, but I shall return to some of them when we discuss later amendments in my name.
  In Oldham, the whole culture of managing the postal vote and carrying out many practices which ought not to be carried out is probably at a high level of competence in a number of parties—and I say that advisedly. The Ritchie report into the situation in
  GC 16
  Oldham between the communities after the disturbances two years ago had much to say about the political relationships and politics in the town and the way in which community leaders and groups seek to use elections and representation on the council to promote their own interests in addition to the interests of the parties for which they stand. The report produced for the Liberal Democrats, indicates that the prevalence of ballot fraud in Oldham stems from two main factors: the importance attached to having representatives on the local council; and the presence of a large block of voters among whom there is a culture of obedience and deference to community leaders. Sections 11.42 and 11.50 talk about the intricate nature of politics in the Asian communities in Oldham, with individual groupings or clans within the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities attempting to get greater influence by having elected representatives.
  People tell me that I should not talk about this because it is damaging and so forth. I believe that there are scandals going on which do no good whatever either to the communities who are being manipulated by certain unscrupulous people seeking political power or to community relations in general. They certainly do no good at all to the general democratic process. In the North West there is fear and trepidation that if we have all-postal ballot elections in June in places such as Oldham, parts of Manchester, Ashton-under-Lyne, Bury, Rochdale, Blackburn, Burnley, Pendle and certain other places too, many of those elections will be rigged. I am not particularly talking about the European election here, although it may well be that in the North West, because of the particular circumstances of some of the candidates, there will be intense pressure for what I am discussing to take place there too. However, so far as the local elections are concerned, where there are all-up elections in many places—in Blackburn and in all the metropolitan authorities—there will be huge pressures and all-postal ballots will leave the door open to people hoovering up votes on an enormous scale. Many votes will be cast in people's names either by people who are intimated and suffering undue influence when the votes take place, or by people who are not even the electors to whom the votes have been sent.
  The Minister will no doubt ask, "Where are the complaints to the police? Where are the prosecutions?". It does not take more than a moment's thought to realise that people who are being subjected to this kind of intimidation and undue influence will not stand up in a court of law and subject themselves to the community pressures that that would produce for all kinds of reasons. I regret to say that in some cases there will be nods and winks between members of the different parties that that will be the case.
  I have two final comments. I realise that I have spoken for a long time but this is an absolutely crucial reason why there should not be all-postal ballots at this stage in these two regions of Yorkshire and the North West. Two things go on in Oldham that are very common. One is that tenants of privately rented accommodation very often believe—they certainly

  GC 17
  accept it if they do not believe that it is right—that their vote belongs to their landlord. Time and again people knock on doors and are told, "My landlord does the votes here. It is my landlord's vote. It is part of what he gets for letting the house to me. I give him my vote as well". That practice is quite common. It occurs without postal votes being in place. People hand over their polling cards and personation takes place. However, postal votes make the whole operation so much easier and enable it to take place on so much larger a scale.
  The second thing that happens is vote trading between families. Any politicians who have been involved in politics in Oldham for any length of time will tell you that they have probably witnessed this or known about it. One family in one ward will cast their votes for a particular candidate in their ward in return for other families in another ward casting their votes for a different candidate in that other ward. This occurs irrespective of normal political allegiances and takes place across parties. It takes place quite formally. Often the actual postal votes themselves—when postal votes are involved—are handed over. People say, "Here are our postal votes for your man in our ward and you can give us those postal votes for your man in the other ward". It is astonishing that this takes place but it does take place. A huge amount of education is needed. I believe that a huge amount of policing of the system is taking place. What we should not be doing under any circumstances at this time in places such as Bradford, Oldham, Blackburn and, indeed, in my own patch in Pendle, is to introduce a system that will inevitably mean that such practices will take place on a far greater scale.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: Let me start with the aspect on which I believe we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Through her amendment, she has sought to specify in the Bill where the pilot regions will be. In other words, she wants to make it clear from the parliamentary process, in the Bill, that the elections should take place in those regions and no others. Although I do not agree with her on the regions that she nominates, as will be clear from the later amendments that we shall come to, I agree with her on the desirability of the primary legislative process defining these issues.
  I do so for two reasons. Parliament will decide in any event, either through primary legislation or through an affirmative order. For reasons that we are all alive to, the sooner Parliament decides where the pilots are to take place, the better in practice for the regional and local returning officers to make their preparations. It would enable them to do so in a way that gives them clarity about what is going to happen and gives them legal authority to incur expenditure, as they will need to. It is clear that the sooner Parliament takes such a decision, the sooner the preparations can begin and the greater the prospects of success for the pilot processes.
  In that respect, I detect no significant difference between the parties who have spoken. We may differ on how far or how fast we should go, but Front Bench
  GC 18
  spokespersons have not signalled in principle that we should not pilot. The issue is about where and how we should pilot and how we should address reducing the risks that may or may not come about through all-ostal voting.
  For those two reasons—to give the earliest date for Parliament to decide and for the regional or local returning officer to know where the pilots will be—I believe that the noble Baroness is right to put the regions in the Bill. We shall come to why we believe that there is a better mechanism to do that than the specific one that she advanced. The mechanism that we set out does not only give certainty; it also removes the need for a general order. By doing that, as far as one can put a time to it, we probably save a month on the process, which is very much in the interest of all concerned.
  I agree with the noble Baroness. Let us through Parliament and primary legislation name the regions. We shall have a good debate today and perhaps return on Report to discuss which regions they should be. Let us do that in a manner that avoids uncertainty and maximises the decision for the returning officers through the mechanism that we have set out in the Bill and our subsequent amendments.
  I shall address the points made by the noble Baroness before coming to those made by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Greaves. We have not ignored the Electoral Commission's advice. The Electoral Commission, as is often the way of Government, has been asked, as a body that has independent stature, a relevant locus and experience, to consider the issues and give advice. It has given us advice. We have not asked it to make the decision but to investigate the issues and give its analysis and reasons, and what underpinned its reasons. We have asked it to investigate, appraise and advise, not to decide.
  The Electoral Commission did so in a way that we found helpful. It set three categories. There were two regions for which there was a positive recommendation, a clutch at the bottom for which the commission could not recommend and a group of four in the middle for which it could not positively recommend at this point, but left open the question of whether the process could be suitable. Since the statement that we would go for the first two regions but were considering whether to go for three or, as it turned out, more regions, we have worked our way down the list to see whether, through a process of investigation and inspection, we could find reasons that satisfied us that we could carry out pilots in more than just two without there being a risk.
  I have explained why, with some sorrow from some people, we rejected the idea of Scotland, because the returning officers were clear that they did not believe that they could carry out a successful election. We also considered Yorkshire and Humberside and the North West. In the process, both at official level and through my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, we met the regional returning officers, who are very senior local government officials, to get their views and

  GC 19
  advice on the issues. That was done to go into why they were in favour or might have cautions and what lay behind that and, above all, to focus on what was the central question for us. They were asked whether they believed that they could carry out the election successfully, if the Government decided to nominate their region for a pilot.
  It is clear that the returning officers for the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside would express different levels of enthusiasm. That is what one would expect from the Electoral Commission report. When it came to it, both regional returning officers said that if they were asked to do the job they could do it technically. The difference between the two was that the regional returning officer and most of the local officers in the North West were very positive and enthusiastic, whereas the ones for Yorkshire and Humberside would prefer not to be asked but believed that they could do it technically. That is why they have been included. We did not involve the West Midlands because, after the first two meetings, there seemed to be good reasons for involving the two other regions. Therefore, there was no reason to go further and involve the West Midlands as well.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, suggested that all the local authorities were strong for Labour. From a partisan and improper point of view, I wish that were so, and that all the local authorities in those regions were for Labour, but that is not the case. There is a mixed pattern in some of those areas.
  As for why we have moved on from combination, the existing parliamentary rates, as we discussed in detail on Second Reading, in both local and European elections, show us clearly that we have a problem. The turnout level is unacceptable, which is why we put in place arrangements to combine European and local elections, as the process is more convenient for voters. There is no difference between us on that; the evidence for that is clear. The combination would prevent us from piloting. We are also building on the positive report from the Electoral Commission on our 2003 pilots, which said that it felt that the pilots had been successful. Therefore, we felt that there was a strong case for moving forward. Because of the need to increase turnout, and to give strength and legitimacy, it is sensible for us to advance piloting in this way.
  I shall not comment on all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, except to say that some of the points that he read into the record are challenges to local authorities and police forces in the areas that he mentioned. They are also points that I shall mark and consider, and we shall discuss them with officials, as they are serious points made by a serious politician, who I believe has a genuine interest in making elections open, candid and fair. I am sure that he is also in favour of higher rather than lower turnout. I shall not respond to his points in detail, but I shall consider them subsequent to investigations today. The issues should also be put before the police, who should consider them if they have not already done so.
  GC 20
  In passing, I agree with the noble Lord about the Bradford Telegraph & Argus. It is an impressive local paper for the way in which it has dealt with some of the challenging issues in Bradford, and I have enjoyed discussions with its editor, although that is by the by. I also noted what Ken Ritchie said about Oldham.
  I do not want to lean too heavily on what has been said, but it is inconceivable that, because there may or may not be risks of malpractice, which may or may not be connected with certain socio-economic or cultural groupings in towns, we should write those places out of the story. We have to find ways in which to pilot successfully measures that are likely to raise turnout in areas where there may be particular issues. Therefore, while I respect the noble Lord's concerns, if anything those concerns are good reasons to see whether one can carry out pilots by postal voting. That would address those concerns. We must find ways in which to do that at some stage; otherwise, we are saying that we shall never have postal voting on a wider scale than in those areas where people are interested. That is not the Government's position, for good reason.
  At risk of wearying the Committee, I shall say a few words, as I am not sure whether in our complex procedures today I shall miss the chance if I do not speak now. With the leave of the Committee, I shall give a little of the justification for the amendments that we have tabled, which turn on Amendment No. 4. With the regions and the nature of the elections on the face of the Bill, there will be no need for an affirmative order. That will save time in the overall process of the legislation—and quite substantial time which could make a lot of difference to returning officers. They will be able to enter formal contracts and incur expenditure immediately following Royal Assent, rather than waiting another month.
  The clause continues to provide for a pilot order to detail the mechanics of the pilots. Those will be the nitty-gritty of the operational aspects, and work is under way on that, including input from the stakeholders, such as the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators for the regions, those representing disabilities and others. Having raised these issues in discussions between the Second Reading and Report stages, certainly with the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, I shall seek with opposition Front Benches and opposition parties generally to share the policy behind the pilot order before we get to Report stage. In that way, noble Lords will be able to see what is intended for the pilot and the details of the administration of the pilot order at the earliest possible opportunity.
  A number of consequential amendments would flow from the amendment that the Government have tabled, which we may or may not reach later. Those amendments flow from putting the greater detail into the Bill. In Clause 2, the amendments are to meet the changes; for example, to replace,
  "each region specified in the main order",
  with "the region". There are a string of others.
  It might weary the Committee less if I sent a fairly fast letter to set out that detail, rather than give it all now. If noble Lords will take it on trust that they will

  GC 21
  receive such a letter within days, they will see the fuller argumentation as to how the subordinate amendments tie back to the thrust of the central one, for the sake of clarity.
  We agree that it is right to clarify through primary legislation which regions are involved. I suspect that we disagree on which regions they should be, but believe that there is a very strong case for the four regions that we have identified. The further testing that we have done, subsequent to the Electoral Commission report, gives the Lord Chancellor and the officials who have looked at it the confidence that the electoral officers in those areas can carry out a successful pilot. If we are confident that they can do that, it is desirable to have a wider and fuller pilot rather than a smaller and narrower one. That is why we have gone to four. I hope, as we shall test later, that I have totally convinced the Committee of the merits of the case, but time will tell.
  Baroness Hanham: I am not sure why the Minister was moving Amendment No. 5, which encompasses a whole raft of stuff.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: He was speaking to it, not moving it.
  Baroness Hanham: Well, he should not have been speaking to it, because we are debating Amendment No. 4.
  Lord Filkin: As ever, I was seeking to be helpful to the Committee while trying to avoid a procedural lacuna. I wanted to explain why we felt that the route down which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, had gone with her amendment was not the best one, and that there was a better one. It may be that the clause stand part Question is carried, that we do not get support for our amendment and that I do not have another opportunity to speak on that subject. I was seeking to be helpful.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his explanation, although it will not surprise him if I say that I do not agree with many of his comments. It would clearly be helpful to have the regions that are finally agreed in the Bill, and I accept his reasons for saying so. However, I believe that we shall disagree over the number of regions involved, and why.
  The Minister said that we were all in agreement with the principle of piloting—to which I say, "Yes, but with reservations". We have made it clear from the start that, while we see some logic in piloting further the principle of all-postal voting and believe that it is perfectly sensible to do that in conjunction with another election, we do not accept that virtually half the nation polling on the European elections—and, consequently, on their local elections—represents a pilot. In fact, one may well find out that the turnout across the country is just about equal to the turnout that one would get in a fully national election. I do not believe that that is a pilot.
  GC 22
  A pilot ought to be done over a small area. I appreciate that the process has been done in local elections on a small scale, but it has not been done on anything like a regional scale. Of course, it could not have been done on a regional scale, except for the European elections, because there are not regional elections. With something as big as a region, it seems absurd to make that happen on a much wider basis rather than with a small number, so that one could really test out what the result of the pilot would be.
  I am not sure, either, that we are all totally signed up to the fact that all-postal elections will increase turnout. It is true that there was evidence of increase in turnout when it was used for local elections—for which there was, probably, good publicity. That may be the situation with these pilots. It certainly was not true of the one-off election that took place in Lewisham last year, where there was an absolutely infinitesimal rise, with the turnout rising from 22 per cent to 24 per cent. That does not make the process worthwhile.
  There is not total agreement about the advisability of large-scale pilots, which is what we are dealing with. The Minister is suggesting that there should be four regions. We have briefly touched on the number of local authorities that will be involved within those regions. In the North West, a vast number of local authorities will be electing at the same time. They are not tiddly local authorities, either; as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, major cities and areas will be piloted at the same time. They will have different make ups—they are not at all the same as each other. There will be vast discrepancies in turnout, particularly in the North West. In fact, the North West would probably justify a pilot on its own, without any competition, if that was what the Government wanted to see.
  Instead, the Government have chosen two regions that are perhaps easier, and two which are very much more complicated. I am not certain whether that will demonstrate anything helpful. Indeed, the results may take so long to come out that they will not affect well, or not have any basis for affecting, the referendums that will take place subsequently in the autumn for the regions, which I gather will also be done on a postal vote basis.
  The Government set up the Electoral Commission for the very purpose of providing them with advice as to what they should do and how they should do it on all matters relating to elections. While it is clear that the North West was not at the bottom of the pile, it certainly was not one of the regions that the Electoral Commission came down in favour of using as a pilot. The Minister said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and he had meetings with regional electoral officers. However, those discussions should not have taken place on the basis that the recommendation that everyone expected was that at the most three regions would be used. We have ended up with four, which is virtually half the electorate that would be involved in all elections.

  GC 23
  I am not happy about the situation. I noted the very long speech by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which touched on a number of matters that we shall want to discuss, but dealt specifically with the North West and Yorkshire regions. The Government should take what he said extremely seriously. He raised very major questions about this area. We would all acknowledge that those two areas are quite difficult.
  Lord Filkin: Before the noble Baroness finishes, can I ask her a question? She said that pilots should be on a small scale and that one should not pilot at a regional level. Correct me if I am wrong, but the implication of that is that if this or any government felt that there was a good case for postal voting on a wider scale, either at a regional election or at national level—and I have signalled that we are a way from that position—one would have to do it without ever having tested whether it was practicable. Is that what she wants?
  The second implication of her comments is that, if a government took the view that there was good reason and tested experience for conducting local authority elections on an all-postal basis with or without other areas, we could never have tested that beforehand on any regions other than the willing. I find it hard to believe that that is really what she is saying, but that is the logical implication.
  Baroness Hanham: I must have been listening to myself differently from the way in which the Minister listened to me. I certainly was not saying that there should not be a regional pilot—I did not say that. I was saying that there should not be more than the two regional pilots, which would encompass the local elections. I fully accept the package, but I do not accept it on four regions. My argument against that proposal is that it would be a pilot involving half the national electorate. I do not call that a pilot; I call that virtually a full election.
  The Government will be making a mistake if they move the pilot out from the two regions that were originally identified, with the local authorities in them, and have a combined election. I was not arguing the point that the Minister has just made; I am sorry if I led him astray. I hope that it is now clear that I would support, even with some misgivings, a pilot of the two regions and the local authorities encompassed within them, as was agreed. However, I am not happy about the additional two, which opens up a whole can of worms. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Filkin: Because of my earlier improper helpfulness, there is not a great need for me to speak at great length on this matter, which will be an enormous relief to the Committee. We have set out two things. We have said why we believe that we should put in the Bill, so that it is beyond doubt, a process that allows there to be the earliest certainty. While that is now not possible because, I suspect, the amendment in which
  GC 24
  we propose that contains the proposal of four regions—and I detect that there is no unanimity on that proposal—I at least detect open minds on the process that we have advanced.
  At this point in time, we shall not be in a position to get a consensus in the Committee on both those issues at the same time—that the pilot should involve the four regions that we propose and that this is a better way of making progress to give early certainty. Therefore, I shall not be moving the government amendments, and we must support Clause 1 standing part now while giving clear notice that we shall return to these issues on Report.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
  Clause 2 [Pilot order]:
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  Lord Rennard Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
  "( ) The pilot order must provide that—

  (a) all postal ballot papers must be accompanied by a declaration of identity, signed by the elector and by a witness, and containing in legible form the name and address of the witness;

  (b) each elector who has returned a postal ballot paper is sent an acknowledgment by the returning officer."

  The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Greaves outlined some serious concerns about the practice of postal voting, which would obviously be exacerbated in a move to all-postal voting. In the Second Reading debate, I indicated that, while we have many reservations about all-postal voting, if there are to be pilots, we regard it as absolutely essential that there are necessary and proper safeguards, as far as they can be introduced, to deal with some of the abuses.
  Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are helpful in that regard. My noble friend Lord Greaves will no doubt talk about his amendment in due course. They address some of the significant problems, particularly in relation to personation. I note that the Electoral Commission has not said that it considers the measures particularly necessary to deal with postal voting problems. Many of my arguments in relation to the Bill are based on what the Electoral Commission has said. However, let me say in relation to that apparent contradiction that the Electoral Commission has obviously seen pilots in many areas where there were very few of the problems to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred.
  Those of us who have occasionally had to deal at first hand with some very real problems with our electoral process are rather more sceptical about the problems that will occur if postal voting on a compulsory basis, or all-postal voting, is rolled out in future. Postal votes need to have a witness to say that the person receiving the postal vote is the person for whom the postal vote was intended. That would be a helpful measure, which I would not regard as a great burden. It would be an effective deterrent against fraud.
  I myself have voted by post in national elections for 20 years or so, as the nature of my job has invariably meant that I have not been in the area where I am registered to vote on polling day. Before one had an automatic entitlement to vote by post, I applied to vote by post on the grounds that my occupation often took me away from that area on election day. I never found it difficult to get someone to sign to say that I was the person who was entitled to that postal vote. I do not believe that it is any real barrier to someone casting their vote that they have to say, on a separate piece of paper to their postal vote, that they are the person for whom the vote was intended, with somebody witnessing that.
  In relation to the problems that we considered in some detail at Second Reading relating to houses with multiple occupancy, that would be a significant deterrent for the sort of abuse that might occur. Houses were mentioned where perhaps 10 postal votes were put through a communal letterbox and left in the hallway. Even if we have the sort of measure that the Government say they are considering—of asking returning officers to ensure that delivery is undertaken by hand and supervised by the returning officer rather than the Royal Mail—it will not address the problem of 10 postal votes being left in a hallway. The first person who picks up those 10 postal votes will be able to fill them in and send them back. It would be a significant deterrent if those votes were not counted unless there were 10 separate declarations of identity, filled in by the person by whom it was intended that the postal vote should be received and witnessed by another person. Indeed, if there were 10 people in the property, that should not be very hard to do.
  Such a measure would make the intimidation and fraud to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred very much harder. It would be one thing if one could simply go to someone's house and say, "I have come for your postal vote—take it away and fill it in in your own good time, and there is no record of identity". It will be very much harder for someone to go to your doorstep and say, "I have to take away your postal vote. By the way, I also need you to sign this piece of paper that confirms you are the person to whom the postal vote was sent; that I know who you are and that you have filled it in yourself. The declaration of identity is essential for us to agree with this principle of all-postal pilot experiments. Without it, we would not have sufficient confidence, even for the North East and for the East Midlands to go ahead with the experiments.
  I also think that the receipt is a very helpful device in that it states that the person received his postal vote and that it has been sent back. It gives the person some assurance about how the process works, which he would not otherwise have, compared to when he goes to a polling station and physically puts the vote in the box. It means that if someone does not receive a postal vote—perhaps it has been collected by someone else or he lives in a multi-occupational property and someone has collected in all 10 postal votes or someone else has taken it—and he receives the receipt from the
  GC 26
  returning officer to say that his postal vote has been taken and accounted for, he will know that there has been an element of fraud.
  One of the problems that we have had with all-postal voting pilots is that we have not really been able to find out what evidence of fraud there may be. Many people will never know that their postal votes have been stolen. I think the receipt will be helpful in determining the scale of the problem and is necessary in the two pilots, which I hope we will have before consideration is given to rolling the matter out any further. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved, as an Amendment to No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
  Line 7, at end insert—

  "(c) the envelopes containing ballot papers and declarations of identity shall be opened on each working day between the day of issue of the ballot papers and the day appointed for the poll (or, where more than one day has been appointed, the last of such days);

  (d) each candidate and each agent may attend the opening of the envelopes containing postal votes and may appoint agents to attend on their behalf;

  (e) the returning officer shall issue on each working day between the day of issue of the ballot papers and the day appointed for the poll (or, where more than one day has been appointed, the last of such days) a marked register indicating which votes have been returned;

  (f) each candidates and each agent may during normal working hours between the day of issue of the ballot papers and the day appointed for the poll (or, where more than one day has been appointed, the last of such days) inspect the declarations of identity that have been returned and may appoint agents to do so on their behalf;

  (g) as soon as practicable following the declaration of the result, the returning officer shall issue a marked register of ballot papers that have been returned and counted;

  (h) any person may inspect the declarations of identity during a period of six months following the declaration of the result."

  The noble Lord said: I strongly support both points put forward in my noble friend's amendment, particularly the requirement for a witness with his address; in other words, an identifiable person on the declaration of identity. Without that, the declaration of identity is worthless. I speak from some experience. At the local elections in Pendle two years ago in May 2002, there was a great deal of argument about postal votes. Before I say anything about this matter, let me say that I have no wish whatever to hide behind parliamentary privilege in anything I am going to say either now or later on. Anything I say in Committee I have said in public and in some cases I have published in leaflets.
  The only way we could really get to grips with what had happened was to go into the town hall after the election and inspect the declarations of identity. Those declarations of identity meant that we could prove— to our own satisfaction anyway—that elections in four wards had been substantially rigged and that in three of those wards at least six candidates had been elected who would not have been if these practices had not

  GC 27
  taken place. Those candidates all happened to be Labour candidates and the candidates who would have been elected in their place were Conservatives and three or four Liberal Democrats. I do not make any political points at all; I merely say what happened.
  I shall explain exactly what happened when I move a later amendment which seeks to prevent what happened in Pendle from happening again. We were able to get key information from the declarations of identity and the presence of the names and addresses of witnesses. That led us on to further investigations. We were able to discover that, in three wards in Nelson, Councillor Iqbal—who was a candidate in this all-out election—witnessed 146 declarations, Councillor Azhar Ali witnessed 141 and Councillor Nasim witnessed 59 in his own ward. Those three people had witnessed no fewer than 200 declarations of identity in those wards. It is no secret locally that we believe—and we have stated publicly—that many of those votes were never seen by the people in whose names they were issued and, in many cases, the signatures of the voters were forged on the declarations of identity.
  One may say, "Well, why has all this not been investigated by the police?". I asked that question. I personally made more than 100 individual complaints about votes that we believed had been misused in this way. Unfortunately, it appears that the police found it impossible to make adequate investigations for whatever reasons. One excuse given was that there was a murder in Rochdale and that that was more important. It is very important indeed if people want to be able to get to the bottom of postal votes being misused, that there is a declaration and a witness— someone who can be followed up and interviewed and asked about the matter.
  Having said that, the additional amendments that I have put forward are probing amendments. I am not sure that I actually agree with all the proposals set down, but they are all things that have happened in some of the pilots which have taken place so far. They are absolutely crucial in the running of pilots, so far as the openness of the procedure and the information people will have during the process.
  Some of the pilots that have taken place have done what is asked for in Amendment No. 7 and some have not. The reason for putting them down is to probe the Government's thinking on the basis of experience. Paragraph (c) deals with whether postal votes will be opened progressively day-by-day as the election goes on or whether they will be kept together and opened at the end, as would normally happen.
  Paragraph (d) deals with whether candidates and their agents will be able to witness the opening of those votes and what they will witness. Paragraph (e) is whether a marked register will be produced on a day-to-day basis during the campaign. That has happened in some of the elections; for example, it occurred in the Blackpool pilot. The political parties knew exactly who had voted at each stage of the campaign, and, indeed, because they were able to watch the envelopes being opened, they also knew who was winning each
  GC 28
  ward and on which marginal wards they then had to concentrate. There are major questions on whether that is a desirable practice in postal voting. It is a matter on which I should like to hear the Minister's views.
  Paragraph (f) deals with whether we can inspect the declarations, hopefully with a witness, and join the election campaign itself. Therefore, if there are allegations—I have to say that if this goes ahead in our part of the world, it will be "when"—of malpractice during the campaign, will it be possible for people to check them while the trail is still hot? One of the reasons the police find it very difficult to investigate election offences of this kind is that the trail very often has gone cold by the time they get around to it six or nine months later. People have actually forgotten what has happened because voting for them is not a tremendously important event that is stamped on their memory forever. So, will we be able to inspect the declarations? I say, "we", as someone who will be involved in these elections. Will people, candidates and their agents, be able to inspect?
  Paragraph (g) deals with whether there will be a final marked register on who has returned postal votes. There is no such register in current postal vote legislation. One knows who has been issued a ballot paper in the polling stations because there is a marked register of that. All one gets on a marked register is who has been sent a postal vote, not when the postal vote was returned—although one can find that out by inspecting very labouriously these declarations of identity and compiling one's own marked register, which in our case for these four wards took us two days. So it is a laborious process.
  Finally—paragraph (h)—will we continue to be able to inspect the declarations of identity in the six months, or whatever period it might be, following the declaration of the result, in terms of the probity, the openness and helping politicians involved locally to try and clamp down on fraud by the other side? I hope that it is a mutual process. It is important that we know what the Government think on these matters. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: We support these sensible amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats, which attempt to bring two key security and anti-fraud measures onto the face of the Bill. We fully agree that the removal of the counter-witness signature is a serious measure, the implications of which are all the more damaging because they may be almost impossible to quantify, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
  How does one go about checking up on whether the person who has completed and returned the postal ballot was actually the person to whom the ballot was sent? Perhaps the Minister could let us know what checks are intended to be put in place to deal with that matter.

  GC 29
  We already know that senior police officers have raised concerns over greater use of postal voting leading to vote rigging. In The Times on 19 April 2003, a detective chief inspector of the West Midlands fraud squad remarked that,
  "the current election system is based on trust and that trust is being eroded. That is why some form of identity is needed from voters, both at polling stations and for those who vote by post. The new postal voting system provides an opportunity for malpractice."
  The Bill proposes increased powers of arrest for personation, but that is not sufficient in itself. We are concerned about the removal of the counter-signature of a witness from postal ballots in many previous pilot schemes. The Electoral Commission supports this removal. I recognise that. Yet, we still believe that it could encourage fraud, especially in areas with a large number of houses in multiple occupation. Although it is not a foolproof method of ensuring the identity of the person completing the ballot paper, it is an extra safeguard that would increase confidence. A counter-signature requirement remains the norm for postal voting at normal elections. We see no reason why it should not be included for all-postal pilot schemes. We have included this provision in our new clause about the administration of elections, which we will discuss later.
  In terms of a form of receipt, I believe, again, that that is a matter of confidence. I am sure all of us feel some anxiety when we commit any envelope of importance to the post box. It is not unknown for post to be lost in transit. I am told that an average of 1,500 items of mail are lost every week across every parliamentary constituency. I think that must be by day.
  We fully support the inclusion in this amendment of a duty for a receipt to be provided. It will increase voter confidence and will also be an additional safeguard for everyone wanting to exercise his right to vote. We believe that it would justify the extra burden in terms of administration and cost which the provision of a receipt would necessitate.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I rise to respond to these five amendments. I was deeply shocked to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, say that he was not necessarily 100 per cent committed to one of the amendments to which he was speaking. Such a position has never been held by any government Minister, as I am sure noble Lords are aware.
  I turn first to Amendment No. 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, and Amendment No. 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. At present, it is our intention to mandate within the pilot order that in order for a ballot paper to be considered valid it must be returned with a security statement signed by the elector.
  We do not intend to, as these amendments suggest we should, additionally require electors to obtain the signature of a witness. I shall explain why, as I sought to do in part in the letter I wrote. Following the Electoral Commission's advice we have essentially
  GC 30
  taken our lead on this issue. The commission has evaluated all electoral pilots since 2002, both those which featured a security statement, such as we intend to use, and those that used the model as set out in the amendment. Through that process the commission reached the clear conclusion that a security statement, requiring the elector's signature but not that of a witness, is the best model.
  The Electoral Commission in its report The Shape of Elections to Come made the following points about the system proposed in the amendments: first, it stated that it,
  "discourages some electors from voting as it can be inconvenient to find a witness, or there is a perception that the witness will see their vote."
  Secondly, that although,
  "the declaration of identity is intended to act as a safeguard against fraud, the very fact that another person has to be involved in the voting process creates the potential for a breach of securify".
  My final point on the issue is that I do not see that the declaration of identity model would be a more effective bar against fraud than that which we propose. It must surely be the case that if someone were prepared to risk the consequences of forging an elector's signature on a security statement, little would hold him back from also forging the signature of a witness on a declaration of identity. It would be perfectly possible and likely that such a person would seek to forge both.
  Therefore, while I fully accept the laudable intentions of these amendments, I do not think that they are necessarily the best way to address the issues that lie behind them.
  On Amendment No. 7, voters must be sent acknowledgements. That would require returning officers to send an acknowledgement to every voter stating that his vote had been received.
  Acknowledgements are not sent out for postal votes under traditional arrangements. For an all-postal vote it would be extremely costly and burdensome to provide. We cannot see a sufficient reason for doing so. I recognise that a system of acknowledgements might help to cut fraud in that the receipt of one might raise the alarm for someone whose vote had been used without his permission, although it would not necessarily address all the issues spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for reasons that are self-evident.
  However, we would argue that a more sensible approach is to ensure that postal ballots are delivered correctly to electors initially—avoiding the likelihood of this situation occurring. We shall come to that issue in later amendments today or later on in our process.
  Additionally, local authorities will have a record of ballots received and electors may be able to contact the electoral administrators to get confirmation of receipt. So it is possible for them to check. We will discuss that issue with administrators in order to identify the practicalities of it, as I think the Committee would wish.

  GC 31
  Amendment No. 8 deals with the marked register arrangements. The amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would make provisions to require that envelopes containing returned ballot papers are opened each day during the course of the poll, and that candidates and party agents can attend these opening sessions and inspect the declarations of identity for the ballot papers—both during and after the period—and that a marked register should be produced daily with a final one as soon as possible after the end of the election.
  While again we appreciate that these amendments seek to provide some detail around the process of opening and checking of envelopes containing postal ballot papers, they unfortunately impose a number of restrictions upon the administrators. Some could result in outcomes that would not be helpful to those they seek to benefit.
  We fully support the view that candidates and agents should be able to observe the opening and processing of the returned ballots, but do not want to be prescriptive by mandating a daily opening. That would limit the flexibility for electoral administrators to make the best use of their resources for opening and verifying the ballot papers.
  We will make provision in the pilot order for the attendance of the candidates and political party agents and other authorised observers, such as Electoral Commission officials, but we take the view that the RRO's and LROs are best placed to decide when and how to undertake the opening process, ensuring secrecy provisions are given the utmost priority when they do so.
  Some administrators may wish to open the returned ballot envelopes daily, but others may prefer to do it every second day to take account of resources and planning for activities. That will need to fit in with other requirements they have to meet—such as providing polling progress information—but within those requirements provide flexibility for them to manage it to best effect.
  Polling progress information will need to be provided within the parameters of what is wanted by the parties and candidates and what it is possible for administrators to supply. Officials in my department have spoken with representatives of the major political parties and there is a variety of timings at which the parties would like to receive the information. One party representative said that his party workers would not wish, in general, to have the information daily as they would not have the resources to process it on a daily basis. What is wanted within a party may also vary from area to area, depending upon the party's resources.
  There is a variety of ways in which the information can be provided both electronically and on paper. Again, this is something we should allow flexibility on to meet the needs and capabilities of parties and administrators. The Bill is specifically drafted to achieve this by using the term "polling progress information".
  GC 32
  To mandate the provision of a "marked register", which most people interpret as a copy of the full register marked to show who has and who has not returned a ballot paper, could result in a serious waste of resources, producing something that cannot be effectively utilised. Again, some party representatives specifically said that they would not want the information in that form.
  Therefore, we suggest that it is sensible to leave the detail of these matters to the pilot orders to make provisions that give guidance around regularity and format rather than mandating something that could be, in some areas, both onerous to produce on a daily basis and unwanted by the recipients.
  Baroness Hanham: We are deeply into administration now, but we do not seem to be too worried about the voters. If a marked register is not produced—if not on a daily basis on an every other day basis—the voters will be knocked up, called, telephoned, doorstepped or garden-stepped by campaigners who do not know that they have voted. The huge difference that will take place in these all-postal elections, particularly with something as important as the European elections, is that campaigning will be prescribed to a limited amount of time. People are going to vote willy-nilly all the way through, from the moment they receive their polling card or vote until the actual day of the election. There will be a great many upset people if there is no indication that people will not worry them again.
  Lord Filkin: That is an interesting point. I think it was adverted to in one of the national papers about the end of a quiet Sunday afternoon, or something to that effect.
  Baroness Hanham: I thought it up myself.
  Lord Filkin: I was not meaning other than it is an interesting point. I shall reflect on it. In essence, I think that we have to strike a balance between centrally prescribing exactly what must be done and leaving a discretion at local level for people to make a register on a daily basis, if they wish to do so, but not feeling that they have to do it on that basis, either because parties do not want it or because the practicalities make it difficult. Nevertheless, if there is anything further I can reflect on that will be even more persuasive, I shall seek to do so between now and Report.
  In essence, we think it is sensible to leave the detail of these matters to the pilot order. We envisage there being fully marked registers produced following the elections and made available for inspection on the same basis that they are made available in traditional elections. It is intended to provide for this in the pilot order and we believe that it would be unnecessary detail on the face of the Bill.
  The proposed amendment to allow candidates and agents to view the signed declaration of identity during the course of the poll does not take into account that we propose to use security statements for these elections in line with the Electoral Commission's recommendations.

  GC 33
  In any event, it is the returning officer's duty to ensure that any concerns about fraud are dealt with. Specific provisions will be made within the pilot order to allow electoral administrators to check signatures and to ascertain whether a ballot was completed by the elector to whom it was allocated.
  We believe that adding a further burden for electoral administrators to make the security statements received at any stage available for inspection would further impact on their ability to manage resources and to plan.
  Following the election, the security statements have to be sealed up, provided to and retained by specified officers or offices, depending on which election they pertain to—for example, in local government elections by the proper officer of the authority to which councillors are to be elected. Existing rules govern the inspection of such documents and we do not seek to amend those for the purposes of these pilots.
  Amendment No. 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would remove a specific reference to how the votes cast at the election are to be counted. In the present draft of the Bill we believe this needs to be retained in order that we have—
  Lord Greaves: Perhaps I may help the Minister. Amendment No. 65 appears in the grouping by mistake. It is actually on its own down in the groupings list.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for saving his and my time on that issue. We will no doubt come to that amendment later.
  Amendment No. 29 deals with reasons that must be given for redirected postal votes. I do not want to incite premature optimism on this—
  Lord Rennard: I believe that the Minister is working from a previously issued groupings list. There have been a number of points this afternoon where we have gone on to amendments that have not been dealt with. Amendment No. 29 is further down the list. On my groupings list we are merely dealing with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
  Lord Filkin: I apologise to the Committee. I will seek to get an amended running order so that I do not go over matters prematurely.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, spoke about how we will find evidence of fraud. I shall repeat what I said at an earlier stage of our proceedings. I think that that is a good point. We cannot just rely on complaints as an identifier of fraud. We must go further. I take that issue seriously. No doubt we shall find a subsequent opportunity for doing so.
  In response to one of the points about fraud made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the Electoral Commission is looking to set up a call centre for electoral matters, possibly in March. We are discussing how this should be used for people to report instances of fraud, coercion and so on, thereby providing another strand of reporting and potential investigation.
  GC 34
  The checking of signatures by local authority officials is not as implausible as it may sound. I am advised that in the May 2003 local elections in Newcastle, the authorities scanned in voter registration signatures, held on about 50,000 signatures. They checked more than 1,000 signatures on returned ballot papers' declarations. They found no fraud. So there is evidence that a local authority has already begun to identify ways to try to validate declaration signatures. We will be watching such experimentation with interest to see what can be learned from it.
  I have not, I fear, spoken to every point made on the group of amendments. But I hope that I have put on record the Government's position on the matters, at least for now.
  Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister for much of that information. I accept that many of the details have to be in regulations, not on the Bill. I actually wanted to know the principles behind how the Government intent to implement it. There are two points that I am not sure the Minister has answered clearly—if he has, it did not get through to me.
  First, is he saying that—regardless of whether it is on a daily basis—as the ballot paper envelopes come in, in whatever format, they will be opened progressively and continuously during the fortnight or whatever period there is between the date they are sent out and 10 June? Is he saying that they will not all be kept to the end, or will that be left to local discretion?
  Secondly, did the Minister say that in principle—at whatever intervals and in whatever ways—a list of who has already sent back a ballot paper or a list of the ballot papers that have already been received by the authority will be available for inspection? Will political parties get a list of everyone, so they will know who not to chase—if that is thought to be a good thing—and individuals can ring up and say, "Has my ballot paper come back yet?" Will that information be available—again progressively and continuously— during the campaign? I have two more points to make, but I want to have an answer to those two first.
  Lord Filkin: On the noble Lord's second point, it is clearly our intent, for reasons we discussed at Second Reading, that the local authority throughout the period will give the political parties, in an appropriate and useful form, information about who has voted and who has not, to allow for canvassing to be focussed, as we discussed. So, the answer to the noble Lord's second point is yes.
  On the first point about the process of receiving the returned ballot papers, it partly depends on which envelope system is used. Essentially, in many cases they will be reading the identifier on the envelope and identifying who therefore has voted to date, but not opening the envelope. In other cases, where the return shows for whom one is voting on one side but the identity of the voter is on the other, they will just be

  GC 35
  looking at them with the voting record face downwards. So they will simply be able to record who has voted to date, without inspecting how they voted.
  Lord Greaves: I hope the Minister is not saying that it would be possible to identify who has voted from information on the back of the ballot paper, other than by the number—which of course is not an immediate identifier, one has to cross-check it against a list of ballot papers issued. I assume that that was a slip.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Lord is quite correct. One obtains the number that allows the administrators to identify the elector, but not directly from the form. I think it would be best for me to send a nice clear letter to the noble Lord on the issue.
  Lord Greaves: Perhaps I can help the Minister. I would hope that the information about to whom the ballot paper belonged comes from the identity slip, not from anything on the piece of paper that is the ballot paper.
  Lord Filkin: That is absolutely correct.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: I thought that that was another matter on which I should have a go at the Minister, but it seems that it is all right.
  The Minister said that signatures would be checked. Perhaps, as the Committee progresses or via some other means, he can tell us how that will happen. As the Electoral Commission pointed out, the problem is that, if individual registration does not take place, we shall not have individual signatures against which the ballot papers can be checked. The only signatures that we shall have are those of the people who, during the annual canvass, are likely to fill in the household form showing who is entitled to be registered as an elector. In many households, the person who fills in the form will be precisely the one who intimidates everyone else and perhaps conspires to fix the information. I do not think that is very satisfactory. It will be only a small and very skewed sample. The signatures that we should check are those of people such as students who are away and old people who might not otherwise get round to voting. Clearly that will not happen. Therefore, we want more information on that.
  The Minister said that after the election the declarations of identity—the "security statements" seems to be the new jargon—are sealed up and placed in envelopes along with the rest of the material. However, unlike some material, such as ballot papers, at present they are accessible for six months to anyone who wants to inspect them. Will that accessibility continue? Clearly that must be established.
  Finally, the Minister said that it is the duty of returning officers to ensure that any fraud is dealt with. However, the constant refrain of returning officers I have dealt with is that they have no means of dealing with fraud. If they believe that something untoward has taken place, they can only refer it to the local
  GC 36
  police. Quite frankly, when it comes to electoral matters, the local police very often do not have a clue. At present, in many cases, returning officers simply do not have the powers to ensure that fraud is dealt with. If the Minister is to put such powers in his regulations, I shall be very interested to see what those regulations say. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rennard: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
  "( ) Any pilot order made under this section must comply with section (Administration of postal voting)."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24, to which the substance of what I shall say relates. I apologise for the fact that what I have to say will take rather a long time—almost as long as the Minister took in his reply. However, the issues raised are all very relevant and, again, they cover the points concerning administration.
  Ultimately, the way in which the system is administered will affect, first, how voters view postal voting and, secondly, how the reputation of postal voting stacks up. Therefore, it seems to me that it is extremely important that we get this matter right. I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I am a little long-winded in speaking on this issue but I believe that all the amendments that we have tabled are relevant. Subsection (4) will cover the question raised in relation to the previous amendment concerning the counter-signature and the marked register. Therefore, I shall skip over that issue somewhat because I believe that most of it has been said.
  It may be helpful if I explain briefly our thinking behind the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 24 on the administration of elections. When I looked through the Second Reading debate, I was struck by the fact that the majority of concerns voiced from all over the House focused on the practical details of the elections, specifically—we have heard much about this today—on the issues of fraud, security and accessibility. The latter was not mentioned so much but we are raising it now. All those matters are currently absent from the face of the Bill.
  The Explanatory Notes state that an order made under Clause 1 would,
  "set out the region or regions in which piloting is to occur and, in broad terms, the manner in which the election is to be conducted in each region".
  Presumably, then, there will be something along the lines of:
  "There will be an all-postal ballot in East Midlands".
  Clause 2 provides for a,
  "supplementary order to implement and give effect to any order under clause I above. This order would contain the details of the manner in which the elections may differ from the way in which they would normally be run".
  I take that to mean the practical details for the local authority and, in particular, for the returning officer about the administration of the election.
  I have serious concerns about leaving those details off the face of the Bill. Orders under Clause 1 are allowed some degree of scrutiny—that is, they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, orders under Clause 2 are not only absent from the face of the Bill; as I understand it, they will not even be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, we have no idea what the regulations will look like.
  We have tabled these two amendments to try to remedy that position. It would advance the confidence of the Committee in the merit of pilot all-postal voting if some guarantees were on the face of the Bill regarding the issues covered by our new clause. They are specifically: the provision of information to electors about the voting process—in particular, the provision of accessible information to the elderly and disabled and information which will make people aware that they can return their vote by post or in person at a polling station or however it is to be identified; the provision of a ballot box at a polling station in every ward on the main polling day with facilities to ensure that the disabled can vote independently and in secret, if that is where they wish to do it; a compulsory counter-signature requirement—we have discussed this and so I shall touch only briefly on the fact that it is there as part of our amendment—for all postal votes returned by post or, if delivered in person, a registration process to mark receipt; the need for a different person to mark off receipt of postal votes and to check counter-signatures from anyone else who will open and process the sealed envelope; and special provisions for houses in multiple occupation or anywhere where more than one family lives.
  I appreciate that the proposed new clause is not the most elegantly drafted amendment. However, I also realise that it raises five or more key issues about the practical running of a pilot scheme which merit individual debate in themselves. However, this is Grand Committee stage, where we cannot vote on amendments. Therefore, I felt that it might be more productive if we had a general debate on these issues of administration rather than individual debates on separate amendments.
  However, perhaps I may deal, first, with the important issue of the provision of information. This is perhaps the most central issue in any democratic election, especially when we find ourselves in a situation, as we currently do, where a worrying downfall in voter participation has taken place,
  GC 38
  particularly in local and European elections. The Electoral Commission is aware of the dangers of misinformation. In commenting on the individual regions, its report states that the North East is,
  "well suited to a discrete information campaign",
  whereas, in comparison,
  "electors in the eastern region are mostly accustomed to conventional voting methods and would be hard to reach through local media".
  It is clear that the information campaign is therefore a vital part of the pilot scheme and we need to be sure that the message gets across to the electors as efficiently as possible.
  On Second Reading here and throughout proceedings in the other place, many questions were asked about whether voters would still be able to post their postal ballot forms in a box at a polling station in person or whether they would be able to vote only by returning the form by post. Currently, the details of how the elections will work in practical terms are completely unclear. The problem with trialing a pilot scheme is that the voters themselves may be similarly confused.
  Our amendment would ensure that there was a concerted effort to explain to voters how the election would work in practice and what alternative methods would be available for registering one's vote. If that does not happen, some members of society—perhaps, in particular, the elderly or the disabled—may become confused about the new system and they may not vote at all.
  Voting in combined elections is confusing ai the best of times, but the situation is far more bewildering when the method of voting is being changed. Therefore, can the Minister give some details about the steps that will be taken to make every voter aware of the alternative procedure which will be trialled? This is an important matter and we believe that it warrants inclusion on the face of the Bill. I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that point today. If he cannot do so and a letter is required, I shall be grateful if Members of the Committee can be sent copies of it.
  The second point on which I want to focus is accessibility. The Minister has assured us that electors will have the opportunity to place their vote in a ballot box at a polling station, or whatever it is called. I am using the words "polling station" as a shorthand. This is only of limited comfort, however, as it comes with the proviso that:
  "It is likely that we shall require at least one staffed delivery point to be provided in each principal local authority area, and that in each area at least one of these points will remain open until the close of poll".—[Official Report, 8/1/04; col. 302.]
  I do not believe that that is satisfactory. Does it mean that there will be one staffed delivery point in each ward? If it does, that will be satisfactory. Will it be in the location where the polling station is usually situated? Will facilities be available to fill out the postal form in secrecy? On what days will such a place be open—on the main polling day or on other days also? What security will be in place at these staffed delivery points and what information will be available?

  GC 39
  What facilities will there be to assist those who have disabilities when they come to fill out their form? How will the voters be registered and what identification, if any, will be necessary because there will be no polling cards?
  We on these Benches are adamant that there should be a staffed delivery point in each ward, and our amendment would guarantee that. It does not state in "each local authority area", as it would be extremely difficult if there were only one for many people to access. A delivery point in each local ward by the local authority would act as a measure of last resort. Moreover, in the event of industrial action it would also reassure voters who did not trust the postal service, thus increasing turnout. Very large rural areas may need to have more than one delivery point per ward. Greater clarification for voters of their opening times would also be essential.
  Our third point follows on from here and was debated substantially when we addressed the Liberal Democrat amendment. We are also certain that there should be a counter-signature for all ballots returned by post. We have discussed that point and I do not propose to say anything more about it because I have already supported that amendment.
  In the case of voter confidentiality, it is important to maintain the traditional secrecy of the ballot, although we would not go so far as some and argue that home voting is incompatible with the ECHR's requirements for a secret ballot. Concerns have been raised that voter secrecy in all-postal pilots will be compromised. In some past pilot schemes, the declaration of identity was even attached to the ballot paper and detached only at the count. We believe it would be better to retain the traditional method of placing the ballot paper in a sealed envelope, separate from the declaration of identity. It would help to reassure voters that their ballot would remain confidential during the delivery, handling and counting processes. Our amendment would ensure that that was the case and would also ensure that the personnel who handled the two were kept separate.
  The final component of our new clause would make special provision for the delivery of postal votes to houses in multiple occupancy. On Second Reading, many noble Lords commented on the problems which houses in multiple occupancy present. This is, perhaps, a problem without an obvious solution. However, I feel that if we are moving to a system in which elections will be all-postal, we need to try to find at least some additional safeguard to deal with multiple occupancies. It is not only houses that we recognise under the Housing Act, but also student hostels and other places of multiple occupancy.
  The Bill attempts to try out new, innovative ways of approaching voting. Why do we not try to include some additional provision to ensure that ballot papers delivered to multiple occupancy households are delivered only to those in current occupation? I appreciate that part of the problem lies with those whose responsibility it is to keep an up-to-date
  GC 40
  electoral register and also with those, such as students, who move house and fail to register themselves at their new address.
  Perhaps this should also partly be an information campaign, which might run in tandem with the new provisions for hand-delivered ballots for houses of multiple occupancy. I note from the Minister's letter that that is, indeed, being considered. I presume that the Minister will answer by telling me that some of these provisions would be time-consuming. However, I believe that it is worth airing the subject because it is a real problem. Unless anyone has a better idea, I see no difficulty in attempting to include a provision to redress the abuse. It is better to do that than try nothing.
  I shall briefly conclude. My new clause is based on the principle that some of the details of how the elections will be administered must be put on the face of the Bill; otherwise, we shall have no idea about the practicalities of what we are debating. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of my fears about potential problems and that he will offer some guarantee of the type which my amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: I rise to speak to my Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27, which are amendments to Amendment No. 24 tabled by the noble Baroness. In doing so, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on putting forward the extremely important issues set out in Amendment No. 24. It may be helpful to the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 10, which effectively covers the same ground as that dealt with in Amendment No. 26. That will avoid my having to speak to that amendment again when we reach the next grouping, and the next group can then be withdrawn.
  Three issues are involved here. Amendment No. 25 addresses what I consider to be a great misconception among many people. Judging by government press releases, I believe it to be a misconception of the Government and perhaps even of the Electoral Commission that secrecy relating to the ballot is a voluntary matter and that, if people wish their votes not to be secret, that is up to them. However, that is not the case. Under existing legislation, ever since the famous Ballot Act 1872, the secrecy of the ballot has not been a voluntary matter; it has been compulsory.
  In effect, the Ballot Act was based on three principles. The first, which had been a principle long before the introduction of the secret ballot, was that, if one had a vote and wished to cast it, one would do so in person; in other words, the person exercising the vote was the person to whom the ballot paper was issued. That principle existed in the old days before the introduction of the Ballot Act and it was carried through into the new legislation. That is why, for example, impersonation is an offence.
  The second principle, introduced by the Ballot Act, revolutionised democracy in this country. It did away with a huge amount of graft, corruption and bribery at

  GC 41
  one fell swoop. The second principle is that the vote is cast in secret. That is why we have those funny little rickety polling booths, which Nick Raynsford considers to be traditional and a little out of date. However, it is a vital principle that the vote is cast in secret. That means that people have an opportunity to vote without anyone else knowing how they have voted.
  The third principle is that that secrecy is compulsory. Unless it is compulsory, one cannot prevent people responding to offers of bribery and showing other people how they have voted. The fact that people are not allowed to show others how they vote means that they cannot be bribed, although they can say that they have voted for whatever person. If the Minister wanted to try to bribe me to vote in a particular way—not that he ever would and not that I would accept it—I could give him all the blarney in the world and tell him that that is how I voted. But I cannot prove it, and it is the fact that the voter cannot prove how he or she voted that guarantees against bribery and that kind of graft. It is generally believed that secrecy is voluntary. It is not voluntary and it should not be, even if one is casting a postal vote.
  I remember that I received a ballot paper for the last European elections and, by accident, I voted for the wrong party. There were several columns and one had to place one's cross somewhere in a box at the top. For various historic reasons, purely by accident, I voted for someone in the Liberal Party. My daughter saw me do that and, in allowing her to see me do it, I broke the law. There should have been something on the ballot paper to say that I was breaking the law. I was fortuitous in that case because I crossed out my mark, voted for the correct party and helped Chris Davies to become elected. However, when people have postal ballot papers, it is easy for the papers to be passed and shown around. They should carry a statement saying that one is not allowed to do that. You must not let anyone else see how you vote, even if you want to do so.
  My second intention in the amendment—a point also covered by Amendment No. 10—is to probe what the Government mean by "staffed delivery points". I am not sure that I am entirely enamoured of the initials that that phrase will provide when the Government start to talk about "SDPs". I am not sure whether or not that is a good omen. Perhaps I should not go into that with my noble friend Lord Goodhart sitting beside me. However, I merely want to find out the difference between a staffed delivery point, where a council official will no doubt assist people and ensure that no funny business takes place, and a polling station. I do not understand the difference, and it will help us later if the Minister can explain that clearly.
  Finally, in my Amendment No. 27, I merely take up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—that is, that Section 345 of the Housing Act does not relate only to homes in multiple occupation; it covers a whole range of establishments where many people live in bedsits or rooms, or perhaps communally in common lodging houses, if they ever manage to become registered to vote. There are all
  GC 42
  kinds of institutions, and the question is: even if someone delivers the ballot papers by hand, what difference will that make? What will people do with them when they get there? Are they to interview the people there to ensure that the ballot papers are handed over to the correct individuals? That would no doubt deprive of a vote many people who returned just before polling day because they would not have a ballot paper. I do not consider it at all easy to solve the problems that can arise in such places, and I believe that the Government will have to think very hard about exactly how they will deal with them.
  Clearly, the electors in such establishments must not be disadvantaged and the process must not be made more difficult for them than for everyone else. But, equally, if piles of ballot papers are left lying around on tables in hallways or in people's pigeon holes, or wherever, that will allow unscrupulous people to hoover up votes. If no more than a signature is required—those people will never have signed a registration form for the council—it will be impossible to police and impossible to prevent such abuse.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was true to her word when she threatened to speak fully on this amendment. She did so, and I look forward to scrutinising all that she said because I do not guarantee to have caught every single one of her interesting points. However, I hope that we shall cover at least some of them.
  I shall speak, first, to Amendments Nos. 24 and 27, which concern houses in multiple occupation. These amendments seek to address the issue of delivering postal votes to houses in multiple occupation. Amendment No. 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is an amendment to Amendment No. 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
  Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 24 would require all postal votes for electors in houses in multiple occupation to be hand delivered. Although we understand the concern surrounding HMOs, we do not feel that it is appropriate to be prescriptive in that way. There are a whole variety of circumstances in which a house can be in multiple occupation, some of which might be a cause for potential risk and some of which might not be. I would need to check my exact recollection of the definition of a house in multiple occupation, but I believe that a fair amount of Pimlico and Belgravia would meet that test and would nevertheless have some stability of its occupants.
  However, the central point is that regional and local registration officers should have discretion as to how they address the issue. I want to ensure that we clearly mark for them the importance of recognising the potential for a higher level of risk in some houses in multiple occupation, and that they therefore give the issue very serious consideration as part of their preparation for all-postal ballots of this form.
  Moreover, the Electoral Commission is currently working on guidance on this issue. The Royal Mail is to talk to local returning officers to identify ways and means of addressing the special circumstances in their

  GC 43
  local areas. One option might be to deliver ballot papers to students at universities via a specified person or office. If that were done, it might avoid them being open to misuse in an unsecured pigeonhole mail system. However, we believe that that should be dealt with at local level because circumstances will vary locally. There is a limit to how much can be sensibly done by central direction in those circumstances.
  While not wanting to regulate or specify the means, it is important that the Government give a clear signal on what ends we believe are to be achieved. Therefore, between now and Report stage, I shall consider what the Government should say further, either in the progress of the Bill or in the more detailed order, on which I have already signalled we shall consult and share some of our policy thinking. In that way, we can give the strongest possible signals to regional and local returning officers in that respect.
  Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 relate to supported delivery points. Amendment No. 24 would provide that a polling station was made available at every local authority ward, was accessible to those with disabilities, and that those who voted in such a place were excluded from the declaration of identity element of the amendment that I have already discussed.
  Amendment No. 26 would provide that polling stations were provided in every place where they are provided in a conventional election—but this is an all-postal election, so there will be no polling stations. The thrust of the amendment is essentially to negate the purpose of the pilot experiment. We are seeking to test, albeit in a progressive, measured, researched and evaluated way, how all-postal balloting can take place in wider circumstances than has been done so far in the volunteer local authority pilots. We want to see whether it can be done in a way that still delivers the potential significant increase in turnout that has been generally if not universally identified to date. We also want to see whether it can be done in a secure way, meeting the other objectives that we would wish to see met.
  Therefore, to specify as the amendment does that as well as postal ballots there should be local polling effectively takes us back to where we are now, in broad terms. In conventional elections, there is local balloting with the option of postal ballots as well. In that way, we would learn nothing and be back to where we started from. However, there will be supported delivery points that will perform a similar but not an identical function to conventional ballot points.
  Perhaps it would be helpful if I outlined our policy in relation to supported delivery points, particularly given the nature of the probing by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in that respect. The current intentions include the following key features. Electoral administrators will be required to provide at least one supported delivery point in each principal local government area. I shall not use the shorthand term, SDP, which is in my notes, as that may cause even more confusion. Electoral administrators may make provision for more than one supported delivery point at their discretion if, for example, the principal local
  GC 44
  authority area covers a large geographical area with poor transport links. Supported delivery points must provide a space in which electors can complete their ballot papers in secret. It will be possible for electors to receive assistance at a supported delivery point. At least one supported delivery point will be open in each principal local authority area on the day of the poll, until the close of the poll. Such points must provide access for people with disabilities.
  Amendment No. 24 suggests that there should be one supported delivery point in each local authority ward. I have already signalled that we believe that that is effectively dual running and would not therefore test what we wish to test—how to carry out an all-postal election on a wider scale than has been done to date. We feel that providing at least one point in each principal local authority area is enough for this purpose, with the proviso that more may be supplied if there are special circumstances, such as a dispersed population or poor transport links.
  Our recollection is that the research carried out by the Electoral Commission on the use of such facilities at previous all-postal ballots found a very low use of such facilities. That is not an argument for saying that one should have none of them, but we believe that it is an argument of proportionality which signals that to go to the extent being talked about, to mandate one in every ward, is clearly disproportionate and unnecessary. I have in mind a figure of 3 per cent or so. I am advised that over 2.15 per cent of the electorate voted using delivery points. I was slightly over when I said 3 per cent.
  Delivery points do not operate in the same way as polling stations. Amendment No. 24 would exclude voters in a polling station from the requirements of the declaration of identity, on which I have already stated our position. Subsection (4)(b) would require that for votes delivered at a supported delivery point there would be no witness requirement, but an elector would be marked off on the register when he or she went in to cast his or her ballot. This is perhaps based on a misconception. Supported delivery points are not polling stations.
  An elector using such a point can either use it to drop off an already completed ballot paper or to fill in a postal vote at the point and then put it into the box. An elector could, if he or she wished, complete a ballot paper inside an SDP and then post it in a Royal Mail post-box. That may happen, for example, where someone is seeking information before completing the ballot paper. All voters will therefore use the same type of postal voting ballot paper, whether voting by post or delivering their ballots to a delivery point. All will therefore need to sign the security statement described earlier in debate.
  On Amendments Nos. 24 and 25, on information that must be provided to electors, subsection (1) of Amendment No. 24 would compel local authorities to provide the maximum amount of information to electors on how postal voting works. That must be in a format accessible to the elderly and to those with disabilities. It must also include information as to the

  GC 45
  fact that voters may vote in a polling station, which I assume refers to a supported delivery point. Again, we believe that we understand the objectives, but we believe that they are over-prescriptive. The key point to make is that we do not wish to be over-prescriptive in that way. While the format of the ballot paper and other key material such as the instructions and security statement are prescribed, we rely on the professionalism and experience of returning officers to be aware of the needs of their local areas and to act accordingly.
  The right balance on all those issues is for the Government and, where appropriate, the Electoral Commission to set out the broad principles and objectives, recognising that there are signs of intelligent life in local authorities and in returning officers and to leave them to use their skill and experience according to the varying local circumstances that will pertain. The Electoral Commission recently produced guidance on that issue called Equal access to electoral procedures. We are comfortable that electoral administrators will utilise that guidance and their own experience and local knowledge to good effect. There is a danger in over-prescribing, which could have adverse consequences.
  I also make the point that we are piloting all-postal voting as a means of making voting easier and more convenient, and making instructions unclear or inaccessible goes completely against the thrust of what all parties want to do in this process. Therefore, we and the Electoral Commission will be working alongside returning officers in order to make clear and accessible information available. That will include information such as the location and opening times of supported delivery points.
  Amendment No. 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has the laudable intention of trying to ensure that people are aware that they should vote in secret, as they would in a conventional poll. The Electoral Commission recommended in its report on the 2003 electoral pilots, The Shape of Elections to Come, that secrecy warnings should be included on postal and proxy voting literature. We have accepted that recommendation and propose to mandate it in the pilot form. We believe that this is an important but practical detail, which sits best in the pilot order. I have already given a commitment to consult early on the principles behind the pilot order so that opposition parties can see what we are seeking to do before we go to the next level of really serious detail.
  On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, through Amendment No. 25, it is an offence for someone to induce a voter to display his ballot paper after he has marked it. Additionally, people must be made aware that they should vote secretly, hence the secrecy warnings that we shall provide. However, we must be flexible and provide for those who need assistance from a companion or electoral staff. Clearly, that assistance may include another person seeing a voter's completed ballot paper and we would not want to prevent that in circumstances where the voter actively wished that to happen.
  GC 46
  On the secrecy of the count, the amendment suggests that it be made the duty of returning officers to ensure that, once the postal vote has been registered and the counter-signature checked, the content of the sealed envelope be processed by another person. The process of verifying that the vote is valid and the counting are separate activities. A security statement is checked against a ballot paper or envelope while the paper is still sealed or it is dealt with face down so that the way the elector has marked the ballot paper cannot be seen. The counting is then undertaken subsequently with those conducting the count not able to identify by whom the ballot paper was completed as, by that stage, the security statement has been detached. During the verification and counting stages, political parties may have people present to observe the processes and to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is maintained.
  I have given a long explanation, if not a total one. At least I have set out the broad thrust of the Government's view on the issues. Members of the Committee will have noted that we are concerned to allow electoral administrators to play their part and to use local knowledge. I recognise and commend the wish of the Committee to play its part in ensuring that the Bill is rigorously considered and improved. We need to strike a balance between clearly specifying what should be achieved and not over-specifying or over-regulating the means to achieve it. That should be done for good reasons: respecting varying local circumstances and the expertise that exists in regional returning officers and local returning officers.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: Delivery stations are likely to be much used, particularly as people may not realise until they arrive at polling day that they have to return the ballot paper by post. As the Bill now stands—although there is an amendment dealing with this point— anything posted on polling day will not be counted. So people will need to go to a delivery point to hand over the ballot paper.
  The Government propose that there should be one delivery point per local government area. Admittedly there is a power to create more, but it is not very likely that local authorities will incur the expense of doing that. At the moment we are in the local government area of the City of Westminster, which I know is not one of the pilot areas. It stretches from Vauxhall Bridge to Maida Vale. However, it would be impracticable to find a single point in the City of Westminster that would be remotely convenient for a considerable proportion of the population. Perhaps the Government should insist that the number of delivery points provided should be regarded by the local authority as being sufficient in number to enable people to deliver their votes conveniently, rather than simply having a minimum of one.
  Lord Filkin: I shall reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said and on what has been said to date. Essentially, this is about striking a balance, by

  GC 47
  which I mean that we seek to pilot and to evaluate all-postal ballots. Therefore, it is obvious that if we provide places, although not conventional polling booths, where one can vote on the same level as we do currently, we would have no basis for evaluating all-postal ballots. The clear intent of the Government is to ensure that there is, for the kind of circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, instanced, the opportunity for people, if they wish, to go somewhere to deliver the ballot paper in person. That may be because they are late, or they want the security of doing so themselves, or they may want to receive advice from an official.
  My broad intent is still to recognise that local authorities are not foolish in that respect. If we articulate that that is the intention, it will be the job of local authorities to reflect that. If, for example, one were in a very large low-density rural area with, for the sake of argument, just two market towns with very poor communications between them, but good ones into them, one would expect the local authority to consider having two delivery points to achieve the objective.
  In Government we cannot set down mathematical rules, saying that in such a density of population or in such a geographical area the local authority should proceed in a certain way. Local authorities should consider those issues when deciding whether they have a sufficiency of delivery points for the objectives that we have set out.
  Conditioned by what I signalled earlier, we are not doing this with no previous experience. This is not the first time that, as a society, we have piloted postal ballots in a local authority area. We have much experience of that. To date that experience has been that such delivery points have a very low level of usage for the obvious reason that most people know that they can put their ballot paper in a letterbox and in that way send in their vote.
  A further point that avoids or reduces the risk mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with which I agree, is that it is important that there is maximum publicity to the people in an area so that they know that they have until such a date to put their ballot papers in the letterbox and so ensure that their votes count. That is the better way of addressing the issue, so that people know they have to get on with it.
  The evidence tends to be that a very high proportion of people vote relatively early when given a postal ballot. It is not as though we are starting from the position in which most people appear to leave it until the last minute. Like many of us, if they have a piece of paper to deal with, they process it. Part of the point is that we have to ensure that publicity makes the matter clear.
  The final point that I would make is that people who post their ballot papers on the day before balloting will have every reason to expect that the Royal Mail will do its job and get it there in time. The Royal Mail has given us an assurance that it will have a late sweep of sorting offices to ensure that all such ballot papers are
  GC 48
  picked up so there will be no risk of inefficiency on its part that will lead to people being disenfranchised as a consequence. As with other noble Lords, I shall read and reflect on what has been said.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: I apologise for having to leave the Committee briefly. The evidence is that most people vote within two or three days following receipt of the vote and a few postal votes trickle along afterwards. That has a dramatic effect on an election campaign. If postal votes are sent out a fortnight before polling day in the European elections—such elections rely far more on a national campaign than do local elections— is it the Government's intention that aspects of the national campaign, such as party political broadcasts and so on, will be geared to that fact? How can the Minister square that when whole regions will have an all-postal election and effectively will be voting 10 to 14 days before everyone else? How will that relate to national campaigns and tie in with party political broadcasts, propaganda and so on? Have the Government thought about that and, if not, will they?
  I was concerned by what the Minister said about Amendment No. 25. He said that the Government would not want to stop anyone showing his or her vote to someone if he or she wanted to do so. If a couple living together receive postal votes, and one is incapacitated but is capable of saying how he or she wants to vote, it would be normal for the wife or the husband to fill in the ballot paper and return it. I think that is strictly illegal but it is not something on which one would want to clamp down. Equally, if someone is disabled he or she may want a close relative or a carer to sort out the vote according to his or her instructions.
  Is the Minister really saying that anyone can show his or her ballot paper to anyone else willy-nilly and that that is not something that the Government would want to discourage or to stop? If he is saying that, all the provisions of the Ballot Act relating to fraud will be thrown out of the window.
  Lord Filkin: I take the point. Although I did not speak at length, as perhaps I should have done, I specifically sought to imply the situation that the noble Lord mentions, whereby people in exactly those circumstances are clear how they want to vote, but they may have a physical impediment to doing so themselves. They can get a relative or a friend to assist them in that process. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says, that happens; there are good reasons for why it needs to happen but that does not mean for a second that one is encouraging anything more than that.
  Lord Greaves: I would have mentioned this earlier, but I could not put my finger on where it happened— I believe it was in Bradford: it was widely understood that votes in the recent election were being sold at 10 a piece. We need to stop that.

  GC 49
  Local returning officers have discretion to do things differently in different places and that sounds fine. If we were talking about a series of local elections, I would agree with that entirely, but the Minister says that local returning officers will have discretion. Will they have discretion within a region? Will people voting within the same region—in Carlisle, Burnley, Chester, or wherever—find that the arrangements for voting differ in those different places? That appears to raise a matter of principle. I understand that the Minister is saying that within the same regional constituency—a big constituency—the situation might be different; say in Yorkshire and in the North West. But if he is saying that the situation might be different within the North West, the potential for having systems that perhaps could benefit one party or one set of candidates as opposed to another would make it easier to vote in places where one party is stronger. That matter should be considered.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving way. The last thing we want is anything that leads to a presentational suspicion of the kind of impropriety of which he has spoken. The objective is to seek to be clear in terms of what we believe should be the principles, the policy and the good practice. We have to recognise that within a region, how one gives life to a principle, which is a common principle, may vary in different localities. I struggle with my geography of local authorities, but I can think of some rural shire districts in parts of Yorkshire that perhaps have more sheep than electors. The geographical distances are very different indeed compared with what may be the situation in an urban area.
  Because of that difference of social geography, one cannot set sanely from the centre of government a rule saying that there must be X facility in exactly X form in every area. Basically, one has to set the objective and leave the returning officers to consider how best to meet it. The principles should be common throughout a region. We may need to rely on the judgment of the returning officers in different social and geographical areas as to how those principles are given life.
  Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister. I can see controversial times ahead.
  Baroness Hanham: The more I listen to the Minister, the more I am utterly convinced that the process should be piloted in a limited number of areas, and particularly in regions. We are embarking on an unusual system. As the Minister rightly said, such a system has never been piloted in an area that is bigger than a local authority. I appreciate that some local authorities where pilots have taken place are very large, but the regions are vast. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of people but about millions of people who will have to be encouraged to follow the system. I think there are 3 million—a substantial figure—in the North West. Many people need to be persuaded that this is a good idea. I am totally reinforced in my view that our earlier amendment was correct.
  GC 50
  Of course, rules cannot be over-prescriptive, but I am not sure that anyone is saying that in terms of elections at the moment. The rules are fairly prescriptive as to what one can and cannot do and as to what must and must not be placed where and what information must be available. Because there is to be all-postal voting, I do not believe that the procedure should be treated differently. It seems to me that the rules and regulations for all-postal voting must be as tight as they possibly can be so that there is not too much room for entrepreneurialism among regional electoral officers who may have a flight of fancy about something.
  I believe that it is necessary to have somewhere for people to hand in their votes, if they wish to do so. One has only to look at somewhere such as Cumbria and the North West, and at the vast areas that there are within that regional authority—not within the local authority but within the regional authority—to know that one SDP in a local authority area will be insufficient. The distances are too great. We have to accept that that could be a disincentive to some people to vote. Some people do not want to use a postal vote. If they had wanted to use a postal vote, they would have applied for one, and they have been fairly liberal until now.
  Such people have to be catered for as well. Some may have a completely rooted objection to committing their vote to the Royal Mail—a view with which I have some sympathy. We have to ensure that those people, if they wish, can go somewhere that will receive their votes and not somewhere that will offer them a Royal Mail box to put it in. They want a place where their votes will be received and marked off as being received and then be placed in a box that will be sealed so that people can see that their votes have gone. The younger generation may be happy and comfortable with all that is proposed, but I believe that many people will not be at all comfortable.
  There is much detail in what we have discussed. We probably need to see what the Minister is proposing and where we have difficulties about lack of prescription. I return to one point. The Minister said— I know that he has reassured the Committee but I believe that we have to get the matter out of the equation—that a ballot paper will be checked face down. The signature has either to be attached with the sealed part on top, so that the vote cannot be seen and part of it can be torn off, or it has to be in another envelope. Part of the process cannot be to turn over a ballot paper; no one is supposed to look at it. I am sure there are other ways of dealing with that. I believe that we should make it abundantly clear that that will not be satisfactory; there must be no question that anyone receiving a vote can know what the vote is. The secrecy element is of great importance.
  I shall read what the Minister has said. We shall be grateful for discussions in the future if he is proposing that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 10A:
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert "; or
  ( ) by different methods"
  The noble Lord said: I cannot resist reflecting on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said earlier about the particular slowness of the East Anglians. I recollect that in one election I was told that there was a better candidate than me and that was Rab Butler, who had died a good decade earlier. The point of Amendment No. 10A is to give life to the preamble to the Bill which talks about different methods of voting. There is a very restricted sense in which that is true under Clause 2, which talks about the days on which voting can take place and the places where voting can take place. The amendment would allow an experiment to be made of the method of voting; for example, it would bring in STV or a system where the voter had as many votes as there were places available in the region. If there were seven or eight MEPs, the voter would have seven or eight votes. However, the obvious experiment is to utilise an STV system in one of the regions. It is used in Northern Ireland and has been since the beginning of European elections.
  I suggest that it would be extremely informative and enlightening to look at turnout in a region where there was an STV system; first, against the turnout in the same region at the previous European elections and, secondly, by comparison with comparable regions at the forthcoming European elections. I do not mean to labour the point, but last time the turnout was catastrophic, less than one in four. The number of voters under the age of 25 is fewer than one in six, not forgetting that over 1 million young voters are not even registered to vote.
  The point about running pilots in different methods of voting is that noble Lords may remember that when the original Bill went through the House before the previous European elections, there was a battle royal and the House rejected the method of voting that was ultimately agreed to; namely, closed party lists. It rejected it three times and it was only by using the Parliament Act—I believe for the third time in history—that the present system of voting was adopted. It is a mystery to me why the Government have not made a virtue of trying out an STV or a multi-vote system as part of the pilots, given the massive opposition to the present system.
  I suggest to the Minister that the defects in the present system are generally acknowledged. First, the voter is allowed to vote only for a party, unless an independent candidate stands. That is alien to our tradition of voting, as we vote for individuals. Secondly, and more to the point, the present system prevents an elector selecting between the candidates on a party list. It is pre-determined as to how the vote will go if one perseveres with the present system. Thirdly, it prevents voters discriminating to their taste between candidates on different party lists.
  Most people would say that that is the least democratic electoral system that has been or could be devised. It places a grotesque power in the hands of the
  GC 52
  parties in assembling their lists. Even if we adopt the Liberal Democrat system, which, if I may say so, is the most democratic, of giving all party members the opportunity to vote for the candidates to be included on the list and to decide their order, there are still only a few hundred votes cast per region, in which there may be 2 or 3 million voters. In our case, it is often pretty certain that the first person on the Liberal Democrat list will be elected in several regions. The number of people deciding that election are a few hundred: a tiny fraction of 1 per cent of the voters.
  I should like to think that no one was interested in persevering with such a profoundly undemocratic system when there are two obvious and infinitely more sensitive and democratic systems available that could be used in a pilot. It was to give the Government a chance to do that under the Bill—there is time for it to be done; we might choose one rural and one metropolitan region—that I tabled the amendment. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I commend the adventurism of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Not in our wildest reflections had we spotted that the amendment was an attempt to introduce STV.
  First, we had an interesting debate on the issue, which I enjoyed reading in Hansard, on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I had an exchange on related issues on a Parliamentary Question last week.
  The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will be amazed to hear me say that the Government are not going to introduce STV on a pilot basis through the Bill, for reasons that I am sure he will understand of both principle and practicality. There is enough for returning officers to do without changing the voting system now—were that our intention, which it is not.
  We had understood the amendment to mean that the noble Lord wanted it put beyond peradventure that we were proposing postal voting rather than any other form of voting in the pilots. We intend to state the method of voting to be used in the pilots—postal voting—in the Bill, as I said earlier. We have taken into account the clear guidance from the independent Electoral Commission in its report recommending regions and types of voting that no region includes electronic voting as part of a pilot. So we will rule that out in amendments that we intend to table on Report. So, with great sorrow, I fear that I shall disappoint the noble Lord, if not surprise him.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do not know why the Minister thinks that I am not surprised, especially as he did not advance a single reason of merit why the proposal should not be pursued.
  Lord Filkin: With all courtesy, it is not the place or the time to do so.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As this is a pilot Bill about different methods of voting, I can hardly see why it is

  GC 53
  not precisely the Bill to give STV the opportunity to be assessed against other systems. I do not follow the Minister's reasoning. I take the Minister to be as much of a democrat as anyone else, so I do not understand why he does not see how that would vastly encourage voters to take an interest in elections, because they would have the chance to express a preference between candidates. At present, they are dead elections. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) The pilot order must make provision for including in the count of votes any postal ballot paper received by the returning officer through the post on the day following the day appointed for the poll (or, where more than one day has been appointed, the last of such days)."
  The noble Lord said: I move the amendment to raise a small point. It is important that as many voters as possible should be able to vote on polling day. That has been the custom in this country for many years. It is true that if we go back to the early part of the 20th century or earlier, there were different polling days in different constituencies, but the idea of a national polling day has lasted for nearly a century.
  People should certainly have the right to vote on polling day and to do so without difficulty. In all-postal elections, it will be possible to vote on polling day only by taking the ballot paper to the delivery point. I shall not reopen our previous debate about the difficulty that may arise even in relatively compact urban areas in finding somewhere at which one can deliver a completed ballot paper. That is a major change in voting practice.
  Under a conventional system, a great majority of the votes are cast on polling day. It is only those who have applied for a postal vote—who have taken a positive decision to vote by post—who vote before polling day. Where the all-postal vote is used, the overwhelming majority of votes will be cast before polling day. It is plainly undesirable that people should be actively discouraged from voting on polling day. It is surely desirable that people should be able to take into account factors—which may be external or something to do with how the campaign has been handled— before they vote.
  The answer is to allow postal votes to be counted if received through the post on the day following polling day. That will enable voters to complete their ballot on polling day and post it before the last collection time. There is a small risk of delay in validating the votes, but as the Minister said, it is unlikely to be serious, because the Royal Mail has undertaken to give priority to the delivery of ballot papers and to take all possible steps to ensure that those posted in due time get there. If we allow people to vote on polling day, we will eliminate the risk of a substantial number of voters not realising that they need to vote before then.
  The consequence of that is that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to start counting for an election conducted on a Thursday until the post is received on Friday. The answer to that is: why not? What is the
  GC 54
  problem there? In European Parliament elections, under the present rules, although votes are cast on Thursday, they are not counted until the following Sunday, so that the count coincides with that in most other European countries, which conduct their elections on Sundays.
  So there is no problem of delay for European parliamentary votes. For local authority elections, I can see no real problem in delaying the count from Thursday evening until, say, midday on Friday. That may increase the tension for candidates awaiting their results, but I cannot think of many other drawbacks. If that is the only drawback, that is too bad for the candidates. It also has the advantage of being cheaper, because the staff doing the counting will be counting in normal hours instead of being paid late night overtime.
  I should add that my amendment has nothing to do with the problems of security that we debated earlier. It is intended simply to ensure that people can vote by post on polling day. I can see no serious argument against that and several serious arguments in favour. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I did not think that I was going to have much sympathy with the amendment, because I thought that it was about the late posting of ballot papers. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has explained that it is all about ensuring that people can vote on polling day, that opens another question. Will there be a polling day, or will there simply be a last day by which votes will be received. That is important, because if there is to be a Thursday that we recognise as polling day, by which you must get your vote in, there will have to be some method of dealing with the problem.
  The second point raised is the uncounted postal votes that were stacked up in Florida. After the unhappy experience with the hanging chads, it was discovered that mountains of postal votes had never been counted because everyone had thought that they would not make the slightest difference. Even if the amendment is not accepted, we will need to ask the Electoral Commission in its follow-up report to state how many votes in regions were not counted because they were received late.
  That will be an extremely important issue—to which I had not woken up until the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, started me thinking about it. If people are confused or if the Royal Mail does not do as it says it will and deliver on time, votes will not be counted. If we cannot deal with that point now, we must return to it when we discuss the Electoral Commission's subsequent duties. So I support the amendment.
  Lord Greaves: In a letter that he wrote to my noble friend Lord Rennard and kindly copied to us all, the Minister attempted to give us some guarantees about how the Royal Mail will deal with the election. As he admits, the Government rely,
  "heavily on the expertise and reliability of the postal authorities".

  GC 55
  We are told that there will be a best practice guide and that the Royal Mail has,
  "put in place a central team for ensuring successful delivery… At a regional level, there will be dedicated teams which will work closely with electoral administrators … the Royal Mail already has plans for management teams to act to process electoral mail in the event of industrial action".
  Then, in total Civil Service gobbledy-gook, the letter states that the Royal Mail will,
  "introduce local timing contingencies to cover late posting and deliveries".
  I do not have a clue what that means, and I do not believe much of the rest of it. No one whose mail regularly passes through the sorting office at Preston in Lancashire or who has ever dealt with election mail in the past will have much confidence that the Post Office will be terribly on the ball. I hope that I am wrong, but we cannot have confidence about that in advance. Classically, every year there are problems with the delivery of polling cards and intermittent problems with the delivery of postal votes.
  It will be interesting to know if party election material will be included in the new super-duper efficient Post Office system for the election. Every year a large number of electors do not receive Freepost items sent to them—especially if they are not addressed as Freepost items; but even when they are so addressed, they go to the wrong places, get delivered in the wrong constituencies, and all the rest of it.
  The Minister will also be aware of a recent election petition in the High Court in Dudley concerning the Belle Vale and Hasbury ward. The judgment issued on 19 December made it clear that if ballot papers are not delivered to voters by the Royal Mail in time to enable them to cast their vote by post—the Local Election (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 do not impose strict liability on the returning officer. In other words, if people do not receive their postal votes, that is just too bad and nothing can be done about it.
  In that ward, where the margin between the top two candidates was only 40 votes—given that it was in Dudley, I cannot imagine that either of them was a Liberal Democrat—a significant number of postal votes did not arrive in time. On the Tuesday before Thursday polling day, the returning officer was notified that 44 electors had not received their ballot papers and special arrangements were made to issue replacements. On the day after, the eve of poll, another 65 were notified to the returning officer, and again replacements were issued.
  In view of the local disquiet, the local authority conducted a survey of the 278 electors who did not return a postal vote in time. It found that 47 were returned but arrived after polling day and so could not be counted; 52 postal votes arrived on polling day; and 58 had not arrived by polling day—if they arrived at all, it was afterwards.
  With one local election and one ward with only a few postal votes, the system can cope. But we are discussing a vast scale: a huge number of elections to be run by postal votes. Unless there is some slack in the
  GC 56
  system to allow for where the Post Office does not deliver the postal ballot papers when it is meant to, there is the scope for a major problem. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others who have spoken to the amendment.
  First, in all-postal ballots, the electors have adequate opportunity to vote. In practice, they have more opportunity to vote than in a conventional election. They will have at least six days to vote—we have yet to finalise the figure but it will be at least six days; it could well be significantly more. So there is plenty of opportunity to vote in good time, before the final day. If someone leaves it late to vote—for whatever reason; the usual reasons why we have difficulty voting clearly do not apply; if one is going away, one can vote from further away—one can use a supported delivery point, as we discussed previously. In an all-postal ballot, people will have the opportunity to bring the ballot paper to a supported delivery point to be sure to exercise their vote on the last day of the poll.
  As we have previously stated, the Royal Mail will put in place procedures to ensure that late arriving votes will be detected. It will conduct sweeps to ensure that ballot papers are not missed if they arrive on the last day of the poll. Although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, thought that there were not, there are practical reasons as well some of principle, although I shall not seek to lean overmuch on them, because the situation is clear in principle. People in all-postal ballots have many days on which to post. The literature will clearly indicate which is the last day of voting. There will therefore be ample opportunity for people to vote in time and to know what is the last day for them to do so.
  Turning to some of the practical issues, the European parliamentary election regulations allow returning officers the discretion to count the votes before the close of the poll in the last European member state to vote, although they cannot announce any result until that time, for obvious reasons. That allows returning officers to count at the time that most suits their ability to secure the necessary people to conduct the count. That might be Thursday night or Friday morning, when staff are more available than on Saturday or Sunday.
  The regulations for local elections state that the count must be conducted as soon as practicable after the close of poll. The amendment would mean that the count could not begin until 10 p.m. on Friday at the earliest, which would delay any local election result and involve staff counting on Saturday, which would have considerable resource implications in higher staff costs. It is doubtful whether it would be easy to obtain as many staff of suitable quality over a weekend.
  Given the opportunities available to people to vote over an extended period that postal balloting allows, and the safeguard of supported delivery points, we should not inhibit the returning officers as would the amendment.

  GC 57
  Furthermore, no postal ballots to date have allowed votes to be counted if they come in the day after the close of poll, so there is no experience on which to draw. Although we are experimenting through the pilots, we do not want to put at risk the efficiency of the count when there is no substantial problem that needs to be addressed.
  It is clear from the Electoral Commission's report and the research to date that campaigning will need to be different in all-postal elections. The purpose of piloting is to see how elections can be conducted effectively in the differing circumstances of an all-postal ballot. Political campaigns will need to be spread over a different period and conducted at local level, not geared towards the end of the campaign. So voters do not necessarily need to wait until the end of the campaign before they exercise their vote.
  That is clearly a challenge for political parties and candidates and one reason why we have agreed to the so-called marked registers before the close of poll, so that parties know how many votes are being received by returning officers as the campaign progresses. The Electoral Commission will evaluate the impact of all-postal voting on political party and candidate campaigns as part of the research that will underpin the pilot process, so we will discover how campaigns were adapted to voting over an extended period.
  The commission's evaluation of the 2003 pilots included an assessment of the impact on campaigning in all-postal ballots. Its findings included that candidates and agents needed to started canvassing earlier—even before postal votes were dispatched. Many ballots were returned soon after receipt. In Gateshead, for example, where an all-postal ballot took place in 2002, 40 per cent of ballot papers were returned within five working days. Because candidates had experience from 2002, they adapted their approach in 2003. The use of a pre-poll marked register would help parties to time campaigning effectively.
  However, the commission found that few candidates and agents expressed concern about the all-postal process in general. The majority thought that it was an innovation that improved turnout and was therefore a good thing. I emphasise that the last day of posting will be made clear in election literature. I already mentioned the late sweep to which the Royal Mail is committed to try to ensure that any ballots posted in good time—the appropriate time—will be picked up and counted. For those reasons of principle and practice, I cannot support the amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: Will the Electoral Commission be asked to find out how many votes were not counted—those that arrived subsequent to the poll? If people elect to have a postal vote, it is up to them whether they get it back in time; but for people with a compulsory postal vote, it will be important to know how many votes were not counted because they were received too late.
  GC 58
  It ought to be part of the Electoral Commission's remit to pester. That is another reason why the pilots would be so much easier to do in two regions.
  Lord Filkin: How kind of the noble Baroness to make that final point to advance her cause. All I will say for now is that we will reflect on that point and, no doubt, drop her a note before Report.
  Lord Greaves: I am sure that the Minister did not, but I thought I heard him say that a ballot paper that is posted in good time but arrives after polling day but before the European votes are counted would be included. He did not say that, did he?
  Lord Filkin: I will check Hansard, but basically I said that the Royal Mail will put in place arrangements such that, for example, a ballot paper posted the day before the final day will be picked up from the sorting office to ensure that it counts. If a ballot paper is delivered later than the final date for casting a vote, it will not be counted.
  Lord Greaves: If the ballot paper is posted before the final date for delivery—the final date for posting of which people are advised—but, despite its efforts, the Royal Mail does not get it to the returning officer, the authorities at the town hall, or wherever, until after 10 o'clock on polling day and it arrives the next day, when the count will not take place until two days later, what will happen to it?
  Lord Filkin: That is an interesting question. I shall say no more, aware that the court case to which the noble Lord referred is under way—it is being appealed. I should like to consider the issue in the round rather than respond off the cuff.
  Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that, because it must be absolutely clear. Can the Minister tell me what is meant by,
  "local timing contingencies to cover late posting and deliveries"?
  Lord Filkin: That is the Royal Mail making a commitment that it can honour in practice, as I said, to ensure that it does all that it can to scour its sorting offices to ensure that nothing is lurking in the corner and that ballots that have been cast and posted in sufficient time are delivered to the returning officer in time for them to be counted.
  Lord Goodhart: The Minister gave a number of reasons why refusing to allow people to vote by post on polling day might not cause a great deal of hardship. That is not very much either here nor there. In my view, people should have the right to wait until the last possible moment, if they want to—they may have good reasons for doing so.
  The Minister did not explain the disadvantages of that. The only obvious disadvantage that he mentioned was that it would be impossible for a returning officer to start counting the votes until after 10 o'clock on the Friday night, if votes received through the post on Friday were to be counted. That is not necessarily the case.

  GC 59
  In ordinary elections now, it is convenient and so written into the rules that postal votes must be received by 10 o'clock on polling day because that is when the polls close. In practice, if postal votes are to be received that day, they will be received much earlier. It is unnecessary to state that votes must be receivable until 10 p.m. Surely the Royal Mail could notify the returning officer when it expected to make the last or only delivery—nowadays, there is almost always only one delivery a day—on the Friday, and counting could start as soon as that was made. In practice, the Post Office delivers in the mornings; it would be perfectly possible to say that counting could start at midday or one o'clock on Friday afternoon.
  The amendment is probably worth another run, so I may well bring it back for discussion on Report but, for today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7 p.m.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
  "(3A) Before including in a pilot order provisions for voting at places other than polling stations, the Secretary of State must consult all affected local authorities, and must not make such an order about a place in a local authority area if the local authority affected objects to it."
  The noble Earl said: We heard much talk about voting places other than polling stations when discussing our new clause earlier. The Minister keeps mentioning "staffed delivery points". These are important because voters may have more confidence in them than in the Post Office.
  Local authorities will know best where polling stations have previously been situated. Any staffed delivery points that provide an alternative location for placing one's ballot must be situated at the discretion of the relevant local authority. I would not be content with the Secretary of State imposing in a pilot order a system that is unworkable for the local authority that will have the job of running the election. We need to know that it has been consulted and approves.
  That is a matter of accessibility to ensure that everyone in the area can exercise their democratic right. It is not good enough to leave those things out of the Bill and subject them to the whim of the Secretary of State against local authority experience and judgment. After all, in responding to a previous amendment, the Minister extolled the virtues of local authorities. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is absolutely right. It would not be right for the Secretary of State to impose on local authorities a specific form or number of supported delivery points. We discussed that matter earlier. We intend to provide supported delivery points as part of the all-postal pilots for the reasons instanced previously.
  GC 60
  The key point is that the pilot order will not include details of the locations of supported delivery points. The implication is that the Government would select the number of such delivery points and tell the local authority in the area that that is what it must provide. That will not be the situation. Rather, the order will require that the regional returning officer provides a specified number of supported delivery points.
  We intend that that will be a minimum of one per principal local authority area, with a discretion locally to provide more depending on local circumstances, as I said earlier. The location of those supported delivery points will be decided by the regional returning officer—no doubt, as should be the case—in consultation with the relevant local authorities. I can therefore give the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the assurance that he seeks.
  Earl Attlee: Will there be any limit on the maximum number of supported delivery points that the returning officer can decide to have? Can he go mad and have hundreds of them, or will there be a limit? Will there be guidance on what considerations he needs to take into account regarding geography; that is, whether it is a densely populated or rural area?
  Lord Filkin: We discussed those issues earlier. The broad thrust is that we shall set out our objectives in having supported delivery points. As we have previously stated, all the evidence to date from all-postal pilots is that those points are used by a very small proportion of voters. As I said, a balance must be struck, taking account of differences in geography and social geography. There will be no limit on the numbers. On the other hand, returning officers will have to consider what is necessary and appropriate. Clearly, they will not—to the sorrow of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—go as far as she implied that they should when discussing an earlier amendment. We do not believe that that is necessary.
  Earl Attlee: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I was not present earlier, as I was speaking in the Second Reading debate on the Patents Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) The pilot order must make provision to ensure that those with disabilities are able to exercise their vote independently and in secret."
  The noble Lord said: It is obvious that an all-postal vote makes it easier for some disabled people to vote. That applies to people who have mobility problems. They can, of course, vote by post now. They have to apply for a postal vote, although one application can cover future elections as well as the one for which they are applying. People with visual impairment may also benefit. For example, they will not need assistance to get to the polling station. But—this is an important "but"—once they get to the polling station, the presiding officer can assist visually impaired people.
  The presiding officer is a public servant. He is forbidden, of course, to disclose any information that he obtains about the way in which a voter he or she has assisted has voted. If a visually impaired person completes a postal vote at home and no other help is available, the voter is likely to have to get help from a member of his or her family or someone from the same household. They will be in practice unable to keep their vote secret from them. Those helpers may have strong views on the election and the voter may be unwilling to offend them. That may result in a vote that does not represent the real wish or intention of the voter.
  The Disability Rights Commission and the RNIB are very concerned about this issue and in their briefing for the Second Reading put forward proposals to deal with the problem. I remind the Committee what those numerous proposals were. The proposals state:
  "All electoral information must comply with RNIB's clear print guidelines. Standard pre-polling information and voter instructions must be in a minimum of 14 point in Plain English… Pre-polling information and voting instructions must be made available to disabled voters in accessible formats … on request. Returning officers must be in a position to provide the following range of formats: large print, tape, Easy Read, Braille, disc and e-mail. The ballot paper MUST be compatible with the tactile voting device. Tactile voting templates and notices of the ballot paper in large print, Braille, on disk and on tape must be made available to disabled voters on request—and must be available at every staffed delivery point. A home visit and one-to-one assistance to be provided to any disabled voter who requests it unless there are exceptional circumstances. Staffed delivery points must be accessible to disabled voters. Signature guides or other aids are to be provided to assist voters to sign the declaration of identity".
  As I say, that is a long list, but it is an important list if visually impaired voters are to have the same rights as other voters to vote and keep their vote secret. The Government should say which of the items on that list they are prepared to implement and explain why they are not prepared to implement the other items. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: We fully support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which stems from consultation with the Disability Rights Commission. Although all-postal voting can facilitate voting for those who are less mobile, it is important that pilot schemes recognise the special needs of those with more severe disabilities or impairments. That should include accessible copies of the ballot paper, envelope and accessible voter information. It should also mean that assistance will be provided for those who need help in filling out their postal ballot form when they return it to the polling station.
  I shall not repeat many of the excellent points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but we consider that there is a real need to make sure that the Bill states these provisions upfront. A great many people will need special provision. Our Amendment No. 43 gives them added protection. Under the terms of Clause 4,
  GC 62
  the report that the Electoral Commission must draw up after any pilot elections have been held must include,
  "an assessment of the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted and the different provision",
  achieved various objectives. Amendment No. 43 seeks to include the objective of having,
  "facilitated voting for those with disabilities, having consulted such organisations or individuals representing disabled people as the Commission considers appropriate".
  We are considering trialling voting methods. It must be explicit that the Electoral Commission's report will make an assessment of the effect of pilot trials on those with disabilities.
  Lord Filkin: These are important issues that have formed part of the evaluation and research that the Electoral Commission has supported and funded on earlier all-postal ballots. I shall comment briefly on the broader picture. In essence, that will carry the story that the Committee would expect. There is much evidence that many disabled people have welcomed all-postal balloting.
  I do not seek to imply that that means that everything is perfect; what I seek to get on the record is the point about proportionality. There is much evidence that disabled people have found those methods to work well. I refer in particular to the research funded by the Electoral Commission through Scope that sought to include people with disabilities in the process of evaluating how disabled people voted at elections.
  Disabled people were asked how easy and convenient postal voting was for them. An overwhelming number found it very easy or easy—77 per cent and 18 per cent respectively. About 2 per cent found it difficult. When asked how convenient it was to vote in that way, 84 per cent found it very convenient, 12 per cent found it convenient and 2 per cent found it either not convenient or very inconvenient. When asked whether it was easy to vote in secret, 76 per cent said that it was very easy, 15 per cent that it was easy and 3 and 6 per cent respectively that it was not easy or difficult. When asked whether they would choose to vote in that way again and whether they would say overall that postal ballots made the experience of voting better or worse, 75 per cent said that it was better, 21 per cent that there was no difference and 4 per cent that it was worse. Of those who were asked whether they would vote in that way again if given a choice, 82 per cent said yes, 10 per cent said no.
  I shall not bore the Committee with any further figures. I seek to demonstrate that, as one would expect, a universal postal ballot system appeared to have many attractions for many disabled people. That does not, of course, negate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As he would be the first to point out to me, the needs of disabled people vary; they are not homogeneous and therefore we must consider those issues carefully and recognise that there may be a case for particular arrangements. Ensuring that all-postal ballots remain accessible to those with

  GC 63
  disabilities is important to the Government. As far as possible, we must ensure that disabled people are facilitated in casting a vote.
  I turn to Amendment No. 13. After Second Reading, I wrote to Members of the Committee setting out various policy details, including those for providing disabled access. As I stated then, we already intend to include adequate provision in the pilot order to meet the objective, which I believe is common between the Front Benches. As for providing assistance to those with a visual impairment, we specifically intend to ensure that supported delivery points must have a tactile voting device available for blind and partially sighted users to enable them to vote in private. Supported delivery points must have a large-scale version of the ballot paper available for voters to refer to. Electoral administrators will make arrangements to deliver a tactile voting device to a blind or partially sighted elector who requests it. We believe that that course of action provides a better solution than providing a ballot paper in Braille, for example.
  We will also provide for those with other disabilities. Specifically, we intend to ensure that supported delivery points provide access for people with disabilities, as is required for polling stations. Electors will be able to receive assistance at a supported delivery point. Electoral administrators may mark a ballot paper for a disabled person at a supported delivery point if they request such help. Electors will also be able to request assistance with voting at an agreed place and time if they are disabled and unable to attend a supported delivery point. That is a further significant point.
  My final point is that we want to be able to allow someone who is unable physically to mark a paper to be assisted by someone who will be permitted to make a mark on that voter's behalf. We spoke about that earlier. That is the current system under the regulations, but it could be considered as not allowing a disabled voter to vote independently and in secret and so be barred under the terms of the amendment.
  Having said all that, with the caveat about proportionality, noble Lords are free to consider whether we could introduce other measures. I shall not respond here and now to all the various tests, but shall do so shortly. We shall reflect whether other measures could be introduced bearing in mind the caveat regarding proportionality.
  I turn to Amendment No. 43, the purpose of which is to require the Electoral Commission to report on the extent to which the pilots facilitate voting for those with disabilities. I should like to consider the amendment carefully before Report. It clearly provides what we expect the Electoral Commission to do, but I should like a little space and time to consider whether we can be more positive, rather than just saying no out of hand. I should be grateful for a little time to reflect on whether we can be a little more helpful within the terms of what I have said so far.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he able to give me in writing a more detailed reply on the specific points raised by the two organisations that provided the briefing? That would enable me to consult with them to see how strongly they feel about these matters. I would need to do that before we decide whether to bring the matter back on Report.
  Lord Filkin: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sits down, I am pleased to commit to do so.
  Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
  "( ) The pilot order must make provision for any additional costs incurred by local authorities resulting from holding the elections on a pilot basis (over and above the costs incurred if the elections had been held on the traditional basis) to be covered by funding from central Government."
  The noble Earl said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 16 which focuses on costs. It is intended to reflect the guarantee from the Minister in Hansard where he commented:
  "The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked whether extra money will be available. The short answer is "Yes". The Government will cover the additional costs that result from holding the elections on a pilot basis. As one would expect, however, local authorities will be expected to pay the costs that they would have incurred if the elections had been held on the traditional basis. That is the normal agreement with local authorities on new burdens, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, knows better than I do".— [Official Report, 8/1/04; col. 349.]
  Our amendment would reflect that commitment. I am curious about how it will work in practice. How does the Minister envisage computing how much extra cost is incurred by an all-postal election? For instance, when we are considering the provision of voting information, this would be a requirement under the traditional method of electoral voting. By what method would it be possible to decide how much the greater provision of information that the new type of voting made necessary increased the overall cost spent on providing information?
  The extra resources needed for a large regional postal vote could be hard to quantify. Would the provision of staffed delivery points rather than polling stations be a cost saving that would be weighed up against the costs in terms of postage? What about unseen costs such as the training of returning officers and electoral staff to man the delivery points and fully get to grips with the new system? These officers will have their normal duties in the local authorities. They will not be able to spend all their time training with regard to the postal vote.
  I fear that the Government might compensate local authorities less than they deserve simply by using the formula, "We will not pay for that. You would have had to finance that under a normal election anyway".

  GC 65
  How much have they budgeted for in terms of covering the extra cost? In other words, what is the total extra cost of all-postal votes to central government. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, deconstructs his amendment into a number of very detailed questions. I shall respond to the main thrust of what he is asking but if there are further details on which he wishes an answer, I shall have to write to him.
  The Government in the form of my colleague Christopher Leslie in the other place have already given an absolutely unambiguous commitment that additional funding will be made available to local authorities to cover the extra costs rightly and reasonably incurred as a result of the pilots. I am very happy to put that macro commitment on the record once more. Funds will be made available from central government funds to cover the additional costs of these pilots.
  I shall try to answer the more detailed question with another general reply. It is generally the case that electoral administrators are given 70 per cent of the estimated cost of elections in advance and then they make a claim for any additional moneys (or repay any excess) after the specific costs and expenditure have been calculated. We do not propose to change this arrangement for the purpose of the pilots. At the moment we do not have the total estimated cost figure for which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Earl and that he will withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am a little alarmed that the Minister does not know what the cost of such elections will be
  GC 66
  as the elections will occur very shortly in a few months' time. One of my concerns at Second Reading was that we needed to make progress with this matter. Has the Minister no idea what the total cost will be? There are only two regions. The cost will have to be split between two local authorities. I think that the local authorities would be more comforted if they knew roughly what kind of budget they ought to be operating to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I think the first point to make is that we have not yet decided how many regions will take part in the pilot. Of course very detailed work has started on costings but it would be quite wrong for me to give a "work in progress" figure at the moment rather than an accurate figure. Certainly a great deal of detailed work has started on the cost but we do not know—the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was not present when we had this discussion as he was detained in the Chamber—how many regions will take part in the pilot.
  Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am a little anxious that he still does not know what the cost will be as that leads on to other matters. However, subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Filkin: This seems a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday, 29 January at 3.15 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.

  Supreme Court
  Supreme Court
  Legislation: Evaluation
  Legislation: Evaluation
  Gender Recognition
  Gender Recognition
  Children Act Sub-Committee
  Children Act Sub-Committee
  Magistrates' Courts: Evaluation of Specialist Courts
  Magistrates' Courts: Evaluation of Specialist Courts
  Sudan: Darfur Province
  Sudan: Darfur Province
  European Court of Human Rights: UK Cases
  European Court of Human Rights: UK Cases
  Gibraltar: Tercentenary Celebrations
  Gibraltar: Tercentenary Celebrations
  Public Servants and Racist Organisations
  Public Servants and Racist Organisations
  Police Officers: Racist Behaviour
  Police Officers: Racist Behaviour
  Work Permits: Sectors Based Scheme
  Work Permits: Sectors Based Scheme
  Terrorism: Legislation and Publication of Information
  Terrorism: Legislation and Publication of Information
  Terrorism Legislation: Arrests and Detentions
  Terrorism Legislation: Arrests and Detentions
  Youth Offending Teams: Bereavement Counselling
  Youth Offending Teams: Bereavement Counselling
  M6 Toll: Policing
  M6 Toll: Policing
  National Firearms Register
  National Firearms Register
  Chemical Weapons: Russian Federation
  Chemical Weapons: Russian Federation
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Duke of York's Royal Military School and Queen Victoria School
  Duke of York's Royal Military School and Queen Victoria School
  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
  Pension Credit
  Pension Credit
  Television: Audio Description
  Television: Audio Description
  Tourism: Government Funding
  Tourism: Government Funding
  Financial Services Authority
  Financial Services Authority
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Personal Income
  Personal Income
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  UK Online for Business
  UK Online for Business
  Civil Service: Training about Parliament
  Civil Service: Training about Parliament
  Ministers: Induction
  Ministers: Induction
  vCJD and HIV: Public Expenditure
  vCJD and HIV: Public Expenditure
  vCJD: UK Cases
  vCJD: UK Cases
  Sexual Health and HIV: Independent Advisory Group's Recommendations
  Sexual Health and HIV: Independent Advisory Group's Recommendations
  Research Ethics Committees
  Research Ethics Committees
  Medication Reviews for Older People
  Medication Reviews for Older People
  Human Reproductive Cloning
  Human Reproductive Cloning
  Sea Levels
  Sea Levels
  BSE
  BSE

  Northern Ireland Prison Service Framework Document 2000–05
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Education in Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:

  The Director General of the Northern Ireland Prison Service acts as accounting officer for the resources allocated to the Prison Service in accordance with the financial arrangements set out in the framework document.

  To reflect current business needs, I have approved the following increases to this delegated authority.

  Amount and Conditions

  1. Capital New works

  £3 million + VAT for any one project (previously £2 million + VAT)

  Purchase of land

  £1 million for any one project (previously £150,000)

  2. Losses Write off losses coming under Section 36 of "Government Accounting"

  £50.000 (previously £10,000)

  Northern Ireland: Post-Primary Education
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Education in Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:

  The Government are today publishing the report from the working group, chaired by Mr Steve Costello, which was asked to provide advice about new post-primary arrangements in Northern Ireland. Copies of the report are being placed in the Library. As part of its remit, the working group was asked to take account of the responses to the extensive consultation on the Burns report, including the diversity of views on academic selection.

  The working group's advice has been carefully considered. The review of post-primary education has been ongoing for over five years. The uncertainty about the shape of post-primary education must be ended. The Government believe that the advice provides a sound basis for moving forward and have accepted the recommendations in full.

  Many Northern Ireland schools enjoy a high reputation, but the current transfer and post-primary arrangements have significant weaknesses. They do well for some pupils but not for others, and there are inequalities of access. These issues must be addressed.
  ws 2
  The key concept of the new arrangements is an entitlement framework to guarantee access for all pupils to a wide range of academic and vocational course options. This will directly address the current disparity of access to courses and, for the first time, secure a proportion of provision as being vocational. It will complement the revised statutory curriculum being proposed by the CCEA and will provide increasing choice and flexibility as pupils mature. Extensive collaboration among schools and with FE colleges will be required in order to secure the full range of provision in each locality.

  The working group advised that any alternative selection arrangements would be no less problematical than the current arrangements; that it is educationally unsound to select pupils at age 11; that 11 is too early to commit pupils to particular pathways; and that it is unsound to believe that the more able should follow only academic courses. Academic selection will end and new transfer arrangements will be based on informed parental and pupil choice. An academic route will remain available, but pupils and parents will choose this pathway rather than being selected for it.

  Ending the transfer tests immediately would create a huge demand for places in popular schools and it will be necessary to create the conditions for new arrangements to work. The entitlement framework and the associated collaboration arrangements will need to be in place. The pupil profile, being developed by the CCEA will also need to be in place to give parents the information to help them to make informed decisions, and new admissions criteria will be required to determine admissions where schools are oversubscribed. The group recommended that further work is required to determine those criteria and the Government will be taking this forward immediately.

  To provide the time to create the conditions to end the tests, the working group recommended that the last tests should be held in Autumn 2008. The Government have accepted this advice.

  The Government are not specifying what types of schools will exist under future arrangements. Any school offering access to the entitlement framework has a place in the new arrangements. These could include new school types such as specialist schools able to respond to local opportunities and needs. Schools where the curricular emphasis is on academic courses will continue to exist provided they meet the entitlement framework, including access to a range of vocational courses as well as academic courses.

  Implementation will involve schools and FE colleges working together to develop arrangements for their area. Support will be provided to help them through this process and to facilitate local discussion and decision-making. Officials will be taking forward consideration of related policy issues such as school transport, open enrolment and the arrangements for school funding. This work, and the work on admissions criteria, will provide opportunities for consultation with education partners and others on the detailed aspects of the proposals.
  ws 3
  The Government believe the working group has charted a way forward which deserves the widest support. It is a new and bold approach to guarantee access to an educational entitlement for every pupil irrespective of their background or circumstances, where they live, or the school they attend. It will impact on all schools and the Government will be working in partnership with the education sector to tailor the post-primary arrangements to meet the specific needs of Northern Ireland.

  Pupils need to be prepared for life and work in a modern technological world and a global economic market where the pace of change is accelerating. The Government's decisions today create the conditions to take this forward, to raise standards for all pupils and provide the world-class education they rightly deserve.

  Higher Education: Variable Tuition Fees
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In my statement to the House on 8 January I set out measures to improve the student support arrangements that would operate alongside the introduction of variable tuition fees in higher education from autumn 2006. I said we would establish an independent review, working with the Office for Fair Access, to report to the House, on all aspects of the new arrangements based on the first three years' operation of the policy. I can now give more details on the draft remit of the review. During the passage of the Bill I would welcome comments and suggestions for amendments to this remit.

  The review, which will be conducted by a commission, will work on the basis of evidence from the first three years' operation of the variable fee arrangements. It will report to Parliament and will cover three main areas.

  The impact of the new arrangements on higher education institutions (HEIs):

  Charging policies, and how far HEIs have varied their fees.

  The additional income HEIs have raised and how they have used it.

  The provision of bursaries and other financial support.

  Any effect on the range, mix and take-up of subjects and qualifications offered, including any effect on foundation degrees, courses lasting longer than three years and the regional composition of HEI provision.

  A financial assessment of the relative impact on different parts of the higher education sector, and an analysis of future funding pressures.

  ws 4
  The impact of the new arrangements on students and prospective students:

  Overall level of application and participation in higher education.

  Student support arrangements, including those for those from the poorest backgrounds as well as those above the threshold for government support.

  Choice of institution and course, mode of study (full time/part time)

  Quality of teaching received, attainment, and likelihood of completing a course.

  Levels of debt; students' assessment of the value of HE, and rates of return from gaining a degree.

  Patterns in subsequent employment— particularly recruitment to the public services— or decisions to go on to further study.

  Any differential effect on particular groups; for example, lower socioeconomic groups; men and women; different ethnic groups; people with disabilities; people from different regions.

  Future policy:

  Whether any improvements should be made to the graduate contribution scheme and the upper limit for tuition fees.

  What changes should be made to the arrangements for student support in order to ensure that students from the poorest family backgrounds on the most expensive courses receive support at a level equivalent to the maximum level of fees.

  I would expect the commission to work with the Office for Fair Access, as well as seeking views from a range of other interests. The Government will consider any report before submitting any recommendation to the House on raising the upper limit of the tuition fee.

  Work to establish baseline data for the review will begin in the 2004–05 academic year.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  We are pleased to report to House the latest developments in our plans to provide the Royal Air Force with a modern replacement air refuelling capability. The future strategic tanker aircraft (FSTA) programme is planned to replace the RAF's ageing fleet VC10 and TriStar aircraft around the end of the decade. We have been considering for some time whether the FSTA capability can be provided through a service-based contract with industry under the private finance initiative (PFI). We can now report

  ws 5
  that, following a detailed assessment process, a bid from Air Tanker Ltd has been judged to offer the best prospective value for money PFI solution to the FSTA requirement. This decision marks a key milestone on this vital project.

  Under a PFI contract, industry would own and maintain the aircraft and provide training services, infrastructure and some personnel, while the RAF would undertake military operations. A PFI contract has the potential to offer considerable scope for innovation, not least because the contractor will be able to use aircraft not required by the RAF in peacetime to generate revenue, through commercial usage. Industry is also best placed to manage the through-life risks of owning a fleet of modern jet airline aircraft Two PFI consortiums submitted bids last year. Air Tanker Ltd, which comprises Rolls Royce, EADS, Cobham and Thales, proposed a service using Airbus A330 aircraft, while the Tanker Transport Services Company (TTSC), which comprises BAE Systems, Boeing, Serco and Spectrum Capital, proposed a service using Boeing 767 aircraft. The competition was keenly fought. However, our judgment is that Air Tanker's proposal offers the best prospective solution for the Armed Forces, the taxpayer and UK industry.

  We will now take forward single bidder negotiations with Air Tanker Ltd, aimed at concluding a PFI contract as soon as possible. We should stress, however, that this remains a complex and challenging PFI programme. A number of detailed issues remain to be resolved and we look to AirTanker to work with us over the coming months to resolve the outstanding issues. A final decision on whether or not to proceed with a PFI contract will not be taken until these negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded. We will of course ensure that the House is kept fully in touch with significant developments.

  Direct Payments
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Ladyman) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Government are committed to seeing an increase in the take-up of direct payments, as they are an excellent way for individuals using social services to gain control and independence over their own lives. Direct payments are cash payments made in lieu of social service provisions to individuals who have been assessed as needing services. I understand that some councils are expressing some confusion about the ability of individuals using their direct payments to pay a spouse or other close relative.

  Direct payments cannot be used routinely by individuals to pay spouses, or close relatives who live in the same household. The regulations were changed in April 2003 to give local councils some discretion in this matter. They can allow payments to be made in
  ws 6
  this way, but only where they are satisfied that securing the service from the relative is necessary to meet satisfactorily that individual's need for that service.

  Regulations have never specified that close relatives living outside the household could not be paid using a direct payment and there is no legal restriction on individuals using their direct payment in this way. Councils are however able to make conditions about who can be employed in individual circumstances. There are often legitimate reasons for doing so but a decision should be taken according to the merits of each individual case.

  Hepatitis C Compensation Scheme
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The department announced in August of last year the setting up of an ex-gratia payment scheme for people infected with hepatitis C from National Health Service blood or blood products. Since that announcement, work has progressed on the detail of the scheme.

  The UK scheme will award eligible claimants with initial lump sum payments, of £20,000 to all those who now have hepatitis C from blood or blood products, with a further £25,000 being awarded when people reach a more advanced stage of illness.

  We feel that these are fair and reasonable payments and hope that they will help to alleviate some of the problems people who have been affected in this way are experiencing.

  Work is ongoing to set up the independent body that will administer the scheme and to introduce the necessary legislation so that people will not lose their social security benefits as a result.

  In the course of negotiations we have been able to define a further level of detail on eligibility and scheme administration which will be advantageous to claimants. In particular, bureaucracy will be minimised for people making a claim, in recognition that it will be difficult for some people to gather evidence from 20 years ago.

  The scope of the scheme has also been extended to include people who have cleared the virus as a result of treatment and to those infected as a result of the virus being transmitted from someone who was infected from blood or blood products. The scheme will also consider people who were mfected with HIV as well as hepatitis C in the same way as those only infected with the hepatitis C virus.

  Work is progressing on finalising the application process for awards and setting up the independent body that will administer the scheme. Organisations such as the Haemophilia Society and Hepatitis C Trust will be fully involved in that work to help to ensure that the procedures are as user-friendly as possible.

  We will work with the relevant organisations to ensure that claimants know what to do to make an application.