Sitting of 19 July 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

    Suez Medal
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he will make a statement on the distribution of medals to those who served in the Suez campaign. [184468]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin):Distribution of the Suez medal began last November after the publication of Command Paper 5999 in the House on 23 October. As at the week ending 16 July, 40,297 applications had been received and 11,199 medals had been dispatched. I pay tribute to the hard work of all staff at the medal offices who are dealing with the backlog as speedily as possible under the current arrangements for medal distribution.
    Mr. Allen:I will surprise my hon. Friend not by linking this to the question of an Arctic convoy medal, but by paying tribute to him and the Front-Bench team,
    2
    I hope, on behalf of hon. Members in all parts of the House, for their superb work in finally awarding the medal to the Suez veterans. That is appreciated by hon. Members of all parties and, indeed, by the veterans themselves. There have been some difficulties and delays, as we would expect on an exercise of this size, but will my hon. Friend tell us how the distribution is going and whether all those brave ex-servicemen will get their medals as soon as possible?
    Mr. Caplin:I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and praise him and many other colleagues from all parts of the House who campaigned so assiduously during 2002 and 2003 for the award of a Suez medal. Let me update the House on the current situation. All applications that are received from Suez veterans are acknowledged on receipt. In the medal offices, these are the assessment dates: in the Royal Navy, 5 February 2004; in the Royal Marines, as the applications are received; the RAF is assessing cases received on 26 November 2003; and the Army Medal Office is currently assessing cases received on 31 October 2003.
    Mr. Peter Luff: I am sure that my constituents in Droitwich will be very pleased to hear the Minister's tribute to their work in issuing the canal zone medal—one of some 300 to 400 medals issued by the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa—but may I tell him perhaps one last time that the proposal to close the Army Medal Office and move it to RAF Innsworth is bound to throw into chaos the distribution of the Suez canal zone medal and other medals? Whatever the long-term merits of moving the Medal Office, please may I ask him not to do it now?
    Mr. Caplin:Again, I reject the hon. Gentleman's comments and pleas in relation to the future of the Army Medal Office. It is essential that we establish the Ministry of Defence medal office, and we have taken the decision to establish it at RAF Innsworth. I believe that it will lead to a greater and more beneficial production of medals for veterans, both Suez veterans and those

    3
    who are leaving our forces at present. I plan to make a statement to the House when it returns in September about the progress that we will have made during the summer.

    Local Regiments
    Chris McCafferty: What assessment his Department has made of the role of local regiments in encouraging recruitment. [184469]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin):: Local regiments play a significant role in encouraging recruitment through regional recruiting teams—I am sorry—through regimental recruiting teams. [Interruption.] Since their formal establishment in early 2002, those teams have contributed greatly to the Army meeting its recruiting targets. Potential recruits list regimental recruiting teams as one of the top reasons why they contact recruiting offices.
    Chris McCafferty: Given the very strong local ties that the Duke of Wellington's Regiment has with Calder Valley and Halifax and the impact that that has on recruitment to our armed forces, will my hon. Friend assure me that the Duke of Wellington's Regiment will retain its single cap badge? If he cannot give me that assurance, will he at least ensure that relevant officers in the Army are allowed to participate in any discussion about the future of their regiments?
    Mr. Caplin: I am pleased to hear of my hon. Friend's interest in her local regiment, and I can assure her that, in the coming days and weeks, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes his announcement, we will take her comments into consideration.
    Mr. Robert Key: Is the Minister aware that one of his very senior civil servants recently caused considerable offence by referring to cap badges as logos? Does the Minister understand that soldiers will die for their Queen and country and for their ideals and they may even die for their regiment, but they will not die for cap badges?
    Mr. Caplin: I am afraid that I am not familiar with the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I understand the point that he makes.
    Jim Knight: The Minister may be aware that there is concern down in Dorset at the possible demise of the Devon and Dorset Regiment and its merger with other west country regiments. Can he assure me that any such decision will be made by the Army and not by Ministers or accountants?
    Mr. Caplin: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that, when announcements are due to be made, they will properly be made to the House.
    Annabelle Ewing: I have a particular interest in this subject as the regimental headquarters of the Black Watch is in my constituency. The Minister will be aware that the regimental system in Scotland has
    4
    proven its worth time and again, not simply in terms of recruitment, but also in terms of retention and operational worth. Why then are the United Kingdom Government planning to scrap the traditional regimental structure in Scotland?
    Mr. Caplin: I do not think that the Government need to take any lessons about defence from the Scottish nationalists. I made the point on my visit to Scotland recently that recruitment is essential to keeping the Army in the public eye and it plays an important and continuing role in ensuring and nurturing applicants, particularly young people from Scotland, who have expressed an interest in joining our armed forces.
    Mr. John Smith: Given the enormous success of the relocation of the first battalion of the Welsh Guards to RAF St. Athan in my constituency, does it not make great sense to the cause of recruitment to locate even more units to regions such as south Wales that have such a superb recruitment record?
    Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend will know that it is for the first time in many years—certainly for the first time that I can remember—that that is occurring at RAF St. Athan. That decision was taken by this Government. I also point out that the regimental recruiting teams are an essential part of what we do in all areas, and there are 93 of them across the UK.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Are we to take the Secretary of State's convulsive reaction to the Minister's Freudian slip as confirmation that The Daily Telegraph had it right last Friday?
    Mr. Caplin: Perhaps I should say to the hon. Gentleman that believing all that one reads in newspapers is not the best way to pursue matters.
    Mr. David Stewart: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Highlanders, who have their headquarters in my constituency? By the end of this year, they will be the best recruited regiment in Scotland. Does he share my view that it is very important to have a strong regional recruitment base and that that is extremely good for the morale of our troops?
    Mr. Caplin: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Highlanders. He will be aware that although some regiments recruit on a regional basis, other regiments or corps recruit on a national basis, and some do both. There is room for all that.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister agree that the great strength for well-run recruiting efforts of the local regiments are their proud and often historic links deep inside the counties and cities from which they spring? Will he further accept that these regiments and all that they mean and have meant to our national life will, once disbanded or amalgamated, never again be recreated?
    Mr. Caplin: Perhaps patience will be a virtue for the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say more about these matters later in the week and in the coming weeks. I looked back at Hansard and I saw the quote:
    "The numerical strength of the Army should not be regarded as the primary measure of front-line strength. Its operational capability is of prime importance."—[Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 131.]
    Those are not my words or those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; they are the words of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) in 1995.
    Mr. Soames: Very prescient and admirable words they were, too. I want to press the Minister again, but thank him for his incitement for me to be patient. However, I would like a little frankness from him for a change. Can he confirm that there has not been a cap on recruitment targets for the Army in the training year 2004–05?
    Mr. Caplin: I can absolutely and categorically tell the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no freeze on recruitment to the British Army.
    Mr. Soames: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. May I suggest that he reads the latest report by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency, a copy of which I have obtained for greater accuracy? It says:
    "During the year under review, recruiting group have done well on recruiting against, it should be noted decreasing targets."
    Has the hon. Gentleman imposed a cap on recruiting targets to the Army?
    Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that he still agrees with his quote of nine years ago. [Interruption.] If he is patient, as I said, he might get the answer. I can tell him that the whole Army training strength has increased by more than 3,300 in the past two years. Retention is above average levels and recruitment is buoyant. To answer his earlier question, the Army Training and Recruiting Agency has outperformed against the mandated targets over both of the past two years.
    Mr. David Drew: To take us back to the main point behind the question, does my hon. Friend accept that the reorganisation that took place less than five years ago to put the Gloucesters in with the Berkshire and Wiltshire regiment has taken some time to work its way through? That is one thing, and we retain the name "the Gloucesters", but it would be quite different if a proposal were coming forth to merge us yet again into a Wessex regiment. I hope that my hon. Friend will take due note of the concern that was expressed locally about any recruitment if such a proposal were brought forward.
    Mr. Caplin: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's comments. I know something about the Gloucesters because of the regiment's involvement in Korea in the 1950s. I was pleased to meet members of the regiment when I visited Korea last summer for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the end of the Korean war.

    Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Bob Spink: How many UK servicemen and women are serving in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [184470]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The United Kingdom currently has around 1,000 service personnel committed to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    Bob Spink: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in sending to those troops the congratulations and thanks of the House on the courageous and professional job that they do in fiendishly difficult circumstances while peacekeeping in Bosnia? At the end of this year when the SFOR operation under NATO command comes to an end, will British troops be involved in the new EU-sponsored operation? Will he tell us how many troops will be involved then?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asks me to send a message of support to our troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina and I assume that he would extend that to those in the rest of the region. I can certainly do that because I visited those troops only a matter of weeks ago, when I was able to give our warm message of support to them. They are doing a magnificent job, and although there are still issues to be resolved in the region, we are making progress. The EUFOR mission will take forward the progress that is being made and yes, British troops will be involved—we will be leading that mission.
    Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what progress has been made on dealing with national caveats among some of our EU partners? Can he assure us that when the transfer from SFOR to EUFOR takes place, there will be no diminution of the effectiveness of the forces there in case there are further difficulties in the future?
    Mr. Ingram: As ever, my hon. Friend raises an important and key issue relating to the deployment of international forces. National caveats were discussed at the Istanbul summit. It is recognised that they need to be addressed and that solutions need to be found to any blockages that impact adversely on the successful conclusion and implementation of such missions.
    Hugh Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that no regiment, battalion or unit involved in operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or any active service zone, will return to this country to find that it has been cut? As I am sure he appreciates, rather than representing the grateful thanks of the country, that would be an awful kick in the teeth.
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave the message for today: the Secretary of State will make an announcement later in the week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be present to raise his concerns. I suggest that he waits for the full announcement because such issues are better addressed in the round and with consideration of the balance of judgments that have to be made. His party had to make such judgements when it was in government.

    RAF Museum, Hendon
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the support his Department gives to the RAF museum, Hendon. [184471]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The Ministry of Defence sponsors the RAF museum as a non-departmental public body and provides a grant in aid to meet the majority of the museum's running costs. Last year the grant in aid was £6.8 million. In addition, we have supported the museum with various development projects, and most recently we earmarked £1 million in capital funding for a new development at the Cosford site to house an exhibition of the cold war years.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision two or three years ago to find additional resources to enable the museum to allow free admission has been extremely successful? Visitor numbers have doubled, with 250,000 attending Hendon and a similar number visiting Cosford—half a million visitors between the two sites. Since the Milestones of Flight and the restored Grahame-White aircraft factory opened—
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take too long over this.
    Mr. Dismore: I was going on to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you might like to visit the museum yourself to see how well it is doing. I had expected to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to put his hand in his pocket again to enable some of the galleries to be opened, but I am pleased to say that the money has now come through, so the museum can be fully opened. The museum is grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional help.
    Mr. Caplin: As always, I am delighted to thank my hon. Friend for the brevity of his question. I very much enjoyed my visit to his constituency in February when we were campaigning in a local council by-election, and during my visit we drove past the RAF museum. The RAF is rightly proud of its heritage and, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree following his visit a couple of weeks ago, the museum provides an excellent showcase for that. The relationship with the RAF is mutually beneficial, since the museum actively promotes the Royal Air Force to the general public, as well as to aspiring airmen and airwomen. It is worth noting that the policy of free admission and access for all to both national museums and RAF museums is a policy of this Government, reinforced by the Chancellor's recent spending review. We are proud of that policy, but the Opposition continue to object.
    Mr. James Gray: While the whole House will be pleased to hear about the support that the Government are giving to the RAF museum, does the Minister agree that if the cuts to the RAF that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to
    8
    announce on Wednesday are as deep and damaging as we all believe they will be, the spending on the RAF museum will have to increase by an enormous amount?
    Mr. Caplin: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not hear the words—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not revert to a previous question in their supplementary.
    Mr. Caplin: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I was about to give the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) the same advice as I gave to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) earlier about not believing all the speculation.

    Iraq
    Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on the current situation in Iraq. [184472]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have to inform the House that a United Kingdom Puma helicopter crashed this morning at the airfield in Basra. I regret to report that there has been one British fatality. It appears unlikely that hostile action was the cause, although it is too soon to confirm any other details.
    Elsewhere in Iraq, the Iraqi Interim Government are well established, and are working to ensure that the conditions are right to hold full elections to a Transitional Assembly early next year. The task of preparing the elections themselves falls to the Independent Electoral Commission of the United Nations, which has been operating since May. I understand that arrangements for holding a National Conference to advise the Interim Government are also well advanced.
    Significant security challenges remain, but the Iraqi Interim Government have made clear their determination to confront them. We are providing support where necessary, and helping to modernise, train and equip Iraq's own security forces. There are now over 230,000 recruited Iraqi security personnel, including some 90,000 police. More than 20,000 reconstruction projects have begun, building and redeveloping schools, hospitals, bridges and roads across Iraq and providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
    Mr. Bacon: May I offer my condolences to the family of the Puma helicopter victim this morning. I am sure that other Members join me in doing so.
    The Butler report shows that the Government took the country to war on the basis of flawed intelligence. Was that because the Government did not know what they were doing, or because they knew what they were doing but tried to hide it? Either way, is it not time, rather than for promotions for people like John Scarlett, that someone took responsibility for the mess and resigned?
    Mr. Hoon: The Butler report was a thorough examination of the relevant facts. I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman looked at the report properly and comprehensively instead of seeking to select certain aspects of it, he would recognise that Lord Butler and those who joined him in producing the report did not criticise any individual member of the Government or, indeed, any individual civil servant. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to come to the House and make such attacks on an individual who does not have the opportunity to respond.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I also offer my condolences with regard to the tragic loss that the British Army has suffered today?
    My right hon. Friend paints a rosy picture about the Interim Government, but may I put it to him that the Interim Prime Minister of Iraq has agreed to an occupying force bombing the country's own civilians yet again in Falluja? We now hear that women and children were killed in that bombing. How can anybody have any faith in such a Government?
    Mr. Hoon: I was not, I hope, painting a rosy picture to the House. I recognise that there are still significant security challenges to be faced, but they are now being faced increasingly by Iraqis themselves. I hope that they, like the Prime Minister, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, are in the best position to judge the appropriateness of the action being taken. I am sure that the Iraqi Prime Minister is right to recognise that it is necessary to take action against those who will attack not only coalition forces, but, increasingly, the Iraqis themselves. It is not surprising, therefore, when the Iraqi Prime Minister authorises the sort of action that is necessary to deal with those attacks.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The situation is indeed still serious in Iraq, with the news of the car bomb this morning, and the shooting and downing of the Puma helicopter, to which the Secretary of State referred. We send our condolences to the persons involved.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever honest disputes we on the Liberal Democrat Benches and many on his Back Benches had about the decision to go to war last year, we all now want Iraq to be a stable country working towards the beneficial prospects of a democratic Iraq? We support the role of our forces and civilians in the responsibility that they now have, but what message does he have for those on some other Benches who now suddenly claim that they were misled into war? What is his opinion of their view now?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Secretary of State should air that view at the moment. There is a debate tomorrow on the Butler report. This question is about the current situation in Iraq.
    Mr. Hoon: I have made this point before, but I make no apology for repeating it: whatever views right hon. and hon. Members took of the decision to take military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein, the situation that confronts us now is the one that the hon. Gentleman referred to; it is vital that we rebuild the country, provide stability for the Iraqi people and
    10
    restore Iraq as a rightful member of the international community. Right hon. and hon. Members will, understandably and rightly, have different views of that decision to take military action, but surely we must all now unite in wanting to see Iraq restored as a stable, tolerant and ultimately democratic country.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: May I join colleagues from all parts of the House in what they have said with regard to my right hon. Friend's comments about the person lost in the Puma this morning?
    My right hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister praise the role of the Cheshire regiment, which is currently serving in Iraq. When I last saw the regiment, immediately after active service in Bosnia, I came across many young men who had faced very serious traumas and needed a great deal of support post that period. Will he assure me that, on their return, members of the regiment will get every possible support to ensure that the horrors that they faced do not live with them for the rest of their lives?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that vital point on behalf of not only the Cheshires, but all those who are currently serving with such distinction in Iraq and, indeed, other theatres around the world. I assure him that efforts have been made to learn the lessons of previous conflicts and deal with the stresses that arise as a result of the horrors seen by members of our armed forces. If those efforts are not producing the right results, we will re-examine the matter, but efforts have been made to learn the lessons.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Conservative Members also send our condolences with regard to the crew of the Puma. From previous questions, it is obvious that the British sector in Iraq is currently stabilised by the professionalism and bravery of the British armed forces. Given Conservative Members' experiences of talking and listening to members of the British armed forces, the Secretary of State should think very seriously about turning the British Army into regional regiments to deal with manning in Iraq. That would undermine the morale of regiments such as the Black Watch, the Royal Welch Fusiliers and others, which will turn into unloved regional regiments, rather like the unloved regional assemblies.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going back to Question 2.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: May I add my condolences on the helicopter crash? My right hon. Friend knows that the monitoring board was established in May 2003 to ensure that Iraqi oil revenues were not misused, but we now hear that a report prepared by KPMG suggests that as much as $1.4 billion may have gone to the American contractor Halliburton. If that allegation proves to be true, does he agree that that is a scandalous misappropriation and will he call for further investigations?
    Mr. Hoon: Those allegations are subject to investigation. It is important that we ensure that oil revenues are used properly for the purpose agreed by the United Nations.

    Procurement Contracts
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the criteria used in awarding procurement contracts. [184473]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our procurement policy is driven by the need to provide the armed forces with the equipment they require at best value for money for the taxpayer. As set out in the Government's defence industrial policy, acquisition decisions are driven principally by cost, operational effectiveness and affordability.
    Miss McIntosh: The Secretary of State knows that a £1.5 billion contract will be awarded for the Ministry of Defence support vehicle. I pay tribute to the work of our servicemen and women, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. They should get the best vehicle that money can buy, which should have been battle tested in Iraq and Afghanistan and proven to have the highest reliability and technical capability. Why have none of the four main bidders' vehicles been trialled?
    Mr. Hoon: A decision will be made soon on the support vehicle competition—the bids are in the final stage of their evaluation, and it would be inappropriate to say any more. As I indicated a moment ago, affordability is undoubtedly one of the key criteria for any equipment. No doubt the hon. Lady will make those representations to her Front Benchers, who propose to cut the defence budget by something in the order of £2.7 billion, which is rather more than the total cost of that project.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the average age of a skilled worker on the Tyne is more than 50, so there is a lot of hope in the north that the proposed aircraft carrier project will do something to rectify that? Can he assure me that the aircraft carrier programme will go ahead on time and as the MOD originally specified?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have set out in a written answer today our determination to proceed with the carrier contract. I am confident that the contract will provide a significant amount of shipbuilding work, not only for my hon. Friend's constituency, but for many other shipbuilding constituencies around the country.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the defence procurement budget is running at between £9 billion and £10 billion a year? Can he assure the House that the Defence Procurement Agency, which took over from the Procurement Executive in 1999, is meeting its main objective of buying weapons systems and platforms and delivering them on time, within budget, and to specific standards?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I regret to tell the House that, particularly in relation to some of the older contracts signed under previous Governments, there has been some slippage as a result of the poor financial standards that were
    12
    imposed—poor financial standards of the kind that we get used to, unfortunately, from the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues, who want to cut the total defence budget by roughly a quarter of the amount that he said was available for procurement. Perhaps he could ask them which particular projects they intend to cut.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: What are the implications of my right hon. Friend's opening remarks for the shipbuilding programmes that are under way at Swan Hunter and at Govan, and for the proposed extensions to that work?
    Mr. Hoon: We have a very extensive programme of new shipbuilding to provide the Royal Navy with the latest and best equipment for frigates and for carriers. Members of the Royal Navy are hugely enthusiastic about the forward programme, which, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), will provide significant job opportunities right across the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: May I ask the Secretary of State about military helicopter procurement? This time last year, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and I, under the auspices of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, spent the week with the joint helicopter force based at Basra airport, and learned at first hand how difficult it is to fly helicopters in the intense summer heat in that part of the world. What plans, if any, do the Government have to procure helicopters for use by the Iraq military, instead of by British and other coalition forces, so that they can patrol the skies of their own country without the need to use British helicopters?
    Mr. Hoon: Extensive programmes are available to Iraq to provide the right kind of equipment for its armed forces once the training that they are receiving is of the necessary complexity to enable them to operate sophisticated equipment such as helicopters. At this stage, I cannot say precisely when those helicopters will be delivered to the Iraqis, but I know that that is in the programme.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), when will my right hon. Friend come to the House to justify the continued existence of legacy projects that are running massively over-time and over-budget? We know that they were initiated under the previous Administration, but are they needed now, and at such cost?
    Mr. HoonI will not give the House a long list of the various procurement projects that are under way, but I can say that, even allowing for certain of the legacy projects that were subject to significant delay before this Government were elected, we will continue with those that meet a justifiable military need. However, we have tried to get them under control in terms of cost and time, because that is crucial in delivering their capability to our armed forces.

    Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
    Mr. James Paice: What plans he has to reassess the contract for the future strategic tanker aircraft private finance initiative. [184474]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): We are currently assessing whether placing a private finance initiative service contract with AirTanker Ltd. will provide the best value for money solution for the future strategic tanker aircraft project. No final decisions have been taken.
    Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can the House therefore assume that the question whether to go ahead with the project is still in the melting pot, as well as the decision on to whom the contract should be granted? If he intends to go ahead with the project, but is still considering who should do the work, I urge him to look again at the preferred option and to consider the alternative option of using refurbished aircraft adapted in Cambridge, in my constituency.
    Mr. Ingram: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House in January 2004, AirTanker Ltd. has been judged to offer the best prospect of providing a value-for-money PFI solution. However, several detailed issues remain to be resolved on this complex PFI project before a final decision is taken. We are resolved to proceed with it once that assessment is completed. Clearly, air refuelling is a key military capability and it is important to take the time necessary to make the right decision for the armed forces and the taxpayer. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman agreed with that. We shall make further announcements when appropriate.
    I am aware that Marshall of Cambridge and other companies have submitted unsolicited alternative proposals for future air refuelling capability. Our evaluation remains focused on securing a value-for-money private finance initiative contract with AirTanker Ltd. I hope that that answers the question.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: We are considering an important contract. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the location of the base, where maintenance will be carried out, is also important for supply and back-up to the fleet? I believe that Warton is the right place for maintaining and basing the aircraft.
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend can be assured of the importance with which we view the contract. The accompanying base and support mechanisms are clearly part of any solution, but my hon. Friend, like other hon. Members, will have to wait for the final announcement.

    Wind Generators
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: What discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry about the siting of electricity wind generators. [184475]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The Ministry of Defence maintains an extremely close working relationship with the Department of Trade and Industry on wind energy issues. Both Departments are members of the wind energy, defence and civil aviation interests working group, which also includes representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Air Traffic Service and the British Wind Energy Association. We also work jointly with the industry on round 2 offshore wind farm developments. Later this week, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and I will meet representatives of the wind energy industry.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think that a working group measures up to the scale of the problem. Does the Under-Secretary realise that wind generators are ugly, unnecessary, expensive and a threat to everything that flies? I do not simply mean birds and bats but aircraft, especially military aircraft. They also interfere with military radar. Rather than objecting on a case-by-case basis, will the Department create a presumption against any more of those gimmicky contraptions on the ground of good defence as well as that of saving the environment?
    Mr. Caplin: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that every proposal for wind farm development is considered on a case-by-case basis rather than according to an overall presumption. The Ministry of Defence does not have a policy of automatically refusing proposals and we encourage developers to work with officials from both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry to determine whether a mutually acceptable solution can be found. That is a sensible and practical way forward.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Under-Secretary knows both that we are delighted to hear that and that the Energy Bill had to be amended to include another clause to ensure that wind farms were not built in shipping lanes. Wind farms at sea pose a genuine problem for radar. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Ministry and the Department for Transport are consulting closely with the Department of Trade and Industry before making decisions that can be only inimical to defence and transport?
    Mr. Caplin: I give my hon. Friend the commitment that she seeks.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: RAF Shawbury trains pilots from all three services. What threats do the huge new turbines pose to inexperienced junior pilots who are undertaking training?
    Mr. Caplin: We have a proper, consultative process with the industry, which involves eight different tests, to ensure that such matters are considered before we agree to further negotiations about a wind farm. The Ministry of Defence is clearly committed to supporting the Government's renewable energy target of 10 per cent. renewables generation by 2010. We intend to play our part in that.

    Iraq (Detainees)
    Adam Price: For what reason no reference was made to the prohibition of hooding of detainees in Iraq in guidance issued to service personnel until 30 September 2003. [184476]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Ministry of Defence training makes it clear that the use of hoods during interrogation and tactical questioning is not permitted. However, hooding as a means of blindfolding where this is militarily justified—for example to prevent prisoners from viewing sensitive areas—has been routine practice in successive conflicts and is considered to be compliant with the relevant international conventions.
    Adam Price: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will know that the policy on hooding was changed in September as a result of the death of Baha Mousa, in which that practice was deemed to be a contributory factor. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the International Committee of the Red Cross had previously expressed concerns on the practice of hooding to the British Army? Having failed to act on that advice until it was too late, must not the Government accept their share of responsibility for Mr. Mousa's death?
    Mr. Ingram: I am conscious that, every time I answer a question from the hon. Gentleman on this matter, a misinterpretation of what I have said appears in either The Independent or The Independent on Sunday. Either he does not understand my answers or there is a deliberate practice of trying to read too much into them. I do not accept the premise in the opening part of his question, and I must point out that these matters are under investigation, although I understand that he might want to judge people guilty before due process has taken place. He also asked me to confirm that discussions had taken place with the ICRC. Again, I do not think that he has been listening to the answers that have been given in the House. The International Committee of the Red Cross makes it very clear that its dealings with and reports to Governments are confidential, so we cannot discuss the matter and I cannot comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he has been told something different by the ICRC, I hope that he will write to me and we can take the matter up with that body.
    Harry Cohen: Was hooding used following the operation by British troops in Majar al-Kabir in May? Have any complaints been received about that operation and, if so, what has been their nature? Will the Minister say what the proper procedure is following such military action? Is it to remove bodies? Is it to take prisoners if at all possible, and to keep them alive? How are the relatives of the deceased notified—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary question will suffice.
    Mr. Ingram: One of the issues that we have been dealing with is a report from another body, Amnesty International. I replied in detail on 1 July to submissions made by Amnesty across a range of issues, and all that material has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman refers to those detailed responses, and if he wants to write to me further on the back of the detailed examination that is taking place in respect of each of the known complaints and the way in which they are being conducted, perhaps we can get to an established answer that will satisfy him.

    Rosyth Dockyard
    Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on the future of Rosyth dockyard. [184477]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Rosyth royal dockyard has always carried out a significant element of Royal Navy surface ship refit work, and will continue to do so. I am pleased to announce the decision to award the upkeep contracts for HMS Edinburgh and HMS Walney to BSSL—Babcock Support Services Ltd.—at Rosyth. I pay tribute to the work force and management at Rosyth dockyard for their success in being awarded these contracts.
    Rachel Squire: I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for giving such excellent news to Rosyth and to Scotland, and for praising the Rosyth work force, who stand out for delivering ships at or below cost, on or before time and to the highest standards. Does he agree that the UK's defence industrial base will benefit from maintaining Rosyth's naval and maritime skills in the lead-up to its playing a major part in the construction of the future aircraft carrier?
    Mr. Ingram: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in supporting the case for Rosyth and has been in almost daily contact with me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the noble Lord Bach. Her hard work has paid off, and she is also right to pay tribute to the work force and management at Rosyth dockyard. As for Rosyth's future shipbuilding capabilities, it is one of the four yards named last year with the potential to be involved in the construction and assembly of the new future aircraft carriers. While I cannot confirm Rosyth's future involvement in the carrier programme at this stage, this is none the less promising for the future.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister accept that the future of both Rosyth and Faslane is bound up with that of the strategic nuclear deterrent? While appreciating that specific systems will be decided on in the next Parliament rather than in this one, can he send a signal of encouragement to the communities in Rosyth and Faslane that the Government still accept in principle that Britain should continue to possess a strategic nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Ingram: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper to get the answer to the latter part of his question. I am sure that he will understand that the life cycles of the nuclear deterrent and the boats that carry it last for long years, so the future for many years ahead is assured for those who carry out the support work. I reflect that not so many months ago, I announced the retention of about 1,000 jobs—I think that that is the correct figure—at Faslane for 25 years. We hardly got any recognition in the Scottish press for that statement. I just hope that they report the good news for Rosyth.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Although the Minister's recent announcement about orders being placed is welcome, may I ask him what steps he is taking to investigate claims made by the work force in Rosyth that the playing field is biased against them by unfair subsidies given by the MOD to their competitors? What steps is he taking to end the hunger-and-burst system of orders with the introduction of a best-value system that smoothes out procurement work?
    Mr. Ingram: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend heard my original answer, but this is good news for Rosyth. It has won the contract, not lost it, and I am sure that all the other yards may ask whether there is a level playing field in such circumstances. Obviously, if any dockyard or shipbuilder offers substantive evidence to prove bias, we must investigate it. The way in which my hon. Friend poses the question, however, is not based on fact.

    Front-line Personnel
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the implications of the comprehensive spending review for the number of front-line service personnel. [184478]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The spending review settlement will provide an additional £3.7 billion for our armed forces in 2007–08 compared with 2004–05, with average annual real growth of 1.4 per cent. It will allow us to take forward our modernisation plans, so that our forces are ready for the challenges of the 21st century. I expect to announce the detail of our plans to the House on Wednesday.
    Dr. Cable: The spending review suggests that additional funding for front-line staff will come by cutting 15,000 support staff. Is the Secretary of State in a position to say where those redundancies will occur and whether the staff concerned have yet been told?
    Mr. Hoon: Obviously, the precise details will be announced on Wednesday. The usual process of consultation will take place: indeed, I attended a meeting this morning with some of the trade unions to discuss with them the ways in which programmes will be taken forward. By and large, given the time scale of the proposals, we hope that it will be possible to ensure that those redundancies occur without involving significant harm to the work force—generally through natural wastage.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: But why are we so dependent on Commonwealth recruits, and particularly on recruits from Fiji? I have the figures in front of me, and it appears that the British Army could not function without Fijians? Will the spending review allow for more UK recruits to be attracted into the British Army, and what exactly is the problem with recruitment?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend responds in that way to the valuable contribution that citizens from Commonwealth countries are making, and have always made, to Britain's armed forces. Their contribution to our armed forces is tremendous, and long may that continue. He is also wrong to suggest that there is not an increase in the number of recruits coming from the United Kingdom—that is the fact, and it is revealed in the latest survey of where our recruits come from.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: We must wait until Wednesday to find out how large the cuts in numbers and in the training of our armed forces will be, but may I remind the Secretary of State that the last time the Conservatives held a big defence review, just after the Berlin wall came down, there was a war going on in the Gulf? May I suggest that this is no time to be thinking about cuts? Let us see the Iraq crisis through, and think about cutting afterwards.
    Mr. Hoon: The fact is that this Government are spending more on defence. We planned to spend more on defence in each of the last six years, and that will continue in the latest spending review round. The Government who directly preceded us could not make such a claim; indeed, they presided over a cut in defence spending of some 15 per cent. That was not during the period immediately after the cold war, but during a period following the Gulf war, when it was clearly necessary for us to improve our armed forces in the light of lessons learned. The hon. Gentleman's comment—which he will no doubt repeat on Wednesday—could be taken a good deal more seriously if he recognised the cuts imposed by Conservative Governments, and also recognised that this Government are significantly increasing our defence spending.
    Ms Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past 20 years this Government's spending round has provided more money for the armed forces than that of any other Government? In fact, the two Opposition parties are set to cut spending. Would my right hon. Friend not describe that as a testament to the Labour party? Is it not the case that defence is safe in Labour's hands?
    Mr. Hoon: I would have some difficulty in disagreeing with my hon. Friend, and let me say for the record that I do not intend to. As Conservative Members wind themselves up and as those in Conservative central office prepare the script for next Wednesday's announcement, they should recognise that we are seeing a sustained increase in defence spending over a longer period than was ever possible under the Conservatives in recent times. That is something of which we are proud, and on which Conservative Members should congratulate us.

    Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
    Tony Baldry: When he expects to make a decision on the future structure of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency. [184482]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): In the light of recent commercial developments, a decision on the future defence supply chain can be expected early in 2005.
    Tony Baldry: Does the Minister accept that a trading fund could both provide the Ministry of Defence with substantial savings in defence logistic procurement and ensure that Ministers retain the assets in their control? Does he appreciate that many people are keen for Ministers to retain those assets? If Margaret Thatcher were Prime Minister, she would not have lost control of crucial assets of this kind. I find it rather worrying when Ministers are moving further to the right than me.
    Mr. Ingram: I will not refer to past Tory Administrations. We have already had a good history lesson today about the impact of some of them, under Lady Thatcher and of course John Major, on the armed forces. We need only refer to the spending profiles. The hon. Gentleman should take stock before praying Lady Thatcher in aid.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether a trading fund was recognised as a possible solution. The answer is yes: it is one of the options, although it must be set against what the private sector is offering. We must get that right, so that we can ensure that the supply chain is robust, is there when it is needed, delivers on time and provides value for money.

    Defence White Paper (Procurement)
    Richard Ottaway: What assessment he has made of the procurement implications of the Defence White Paper. [184483]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The defence White Paper made clear that our future force development process is focused on capability and the need to deliver flexible, deployable and hard-hitting forces to perform a range of military tasks. Our procurement plans are configured to provide the equipment required to achieve that goal. I will be making a more detailed statement on Wednesday following the results of the 2004 spending review.
    Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. What proposals does he have to provide airborne early warning cover to the new aircraft carriers?
    Mr. Hoon: The way in which modern ships are provided with defence is quite different from the way in which the previous generation of ships were protected—I believe that is what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. A multi-layered approach will ensure the safety of ships on deployment.
    John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend give us an update on the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—project and the new ships that are going to be built?
    Mr. Hoon: I will send my hon. Friend a detailed account of that project and how it is proceeding.

Home Office Strategic Plan
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the strategic plan for the Home Office, "Confident Communities in a Secure Britain", which sets out our detailed plans for the next five years. It is linked to the joint plan for the criminal justice system that I published alongside a written statement earlier today.
Fundamental to our strategy is the need to build security, order and stability. Whether in our homes or neighbourhood, a sense of security is the basis of a civilised society, and is central to our economic prosperity and the regeneration of our most deprived communities. Security builds confidence and trust, removes the fear of difference, reinforces social cohesion and enables people to cope with rapid change. In the strategy, we set out plans for both preventive and tough enforcement action. Crucially, these measures are linked to strengthening the assets of the family and the wider community.
For decades, rising crime and insecurity seemed inevitable. By the mid-1990s crime had risen to the highest levels in the developed world, and fear of crime and antisocial behaviour rose as police numbers fell. Since 1997, we have demonstrated that a very different future is possible. Crime has fallen by well over a quarter, and the chance of being a victim is at its lowest for over 20 years. Since the late 1990s, asylum claims have, as we know, increased substantially—a trend seen across the developed world. In 1997, it took an average of 22 months to reach an initial decision, and only 9,000 failed asylum seekers were removed. Today, with security and immigration controls moved to the French coast, the use of new technology at borders, and the closure of the Sangatte camp, applications have fallen by 60 per cent. in 18 months.
By investing in communities we are encouraging a new spirit of civic engagement, as evidenced by the additional 1 million men and women who are involved in volunteering, compared with the number involved three years ago. We have put the sense back into sentencing. We have introduced tough minimum terms for murder and longer jail sentences for dangerous offenders. Tough and effective community sentences will replace ineffective short-term custody. Drug abusers are now offered a way out through arrest referral and treatment programmes. All of that is the result of sustained investment and reform, and I thank everyone whose dedication has brought about the transformation.
Yet challenges remain. International terrorists aim to undermine our freedom and security. Organised criminals build ever more sophisticated international networks. Antisocial behaviour, binge drinking and lower-level thuggery continue to blight the lives of too many people. Gun crime and domestic violence too often lead to serious injury and fear. Our solutions must be rooted in the community. We must change the culture of violence. Respect needs to be restored; responsibility and duty accepted; and parenting seen as an essential contributor to change.
22
Our task is to renew the relationship between the citizen and government by putting the interests of law-abiding citizens first, focusing support on individuals and families, and developing stronger partnerships between communities and public service. As part of this, we will re-examine the resources currently directed into local communities, whether in public services or in sustaining families. We will audit how this investment could be used more effectively to prevent, and not simply to ameliorate, poverty.
We will reinforce, and further invest in, the development of neighbourhood policing teams, complementing and not replacing the intelligence model. These teams will work alongside the communities that they serve, addressing the causes, as well as the manifestations of, criminality. That will contribute to a further 15 per cent. reduction in crime over the next three years. The teams will provide a visible and responsive presence in our communities. Our sustaining of record police numbers—they are up by 12,500 since 1997—will make this possible. We will supplement that by providing the equivalent of 12,000 extra officers on front-line duty and by a sustained reduction in bureaucracy, and as in the NHS and in schools, we are complementing the skills of existing professionals with new support staff. Since 2002, nearly 4,000 community support officers have taken up post.
I can announce today that, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are launching a new neighbourhood policing fund, which will be kick-started by £50 million of new money in this financial year—money over and above the spending announced by the Chancellor last Monday. As a result, we will be able to recruit the first tranche of an additional 20,000 community support officers from this autumn. Next year, we will add to this fund and combine it with the current crime fighting fund. That underlines our commitment to fully accredited police officers.
No Government have done more to increase police numbers, and we will seek to enhance the role of the constable by focusing effort back on to the front line. The development of the national intelligence model will provide the link between neighbourhood policing and the measures needed to tackle high-volume, serious and organised crime. The exchange of necessary information will be enhanced through the development of a new national information technology system for police intelligence. In addition, we will establish a policing improvement agency and thereby rationalise the relevant bodies. We will consult further on this over the summer.
Neighbourhood policing will go hand in hand with new approaches to targeting offenders. Some 5,000 repeat offenders are responsible for almost one in 10 crimes. That is why we are investing in a new prolific offender programme, which will use tagging and satellite tracking to enhance existing measures. In addition, for lower level offenders we can provide prison without bars, which, combined with mentoring, support, drug treatment and restorative justice, will contribute to reducing re-offending. We will also develop improved and intensified supervision and surveillance programmes.
In tackling antisocial behaviour, we will extend the current focus, in 12 areas of England and Wales, to a total of 50. That will be matched by the development of our new community justice centres, the first of which

23
will open in Liverpool next year. Additional investment in prison and probation services and in counter-terrorism will supplement the existing plans for next year.
To build confidence, we must also transform public access to the police. We will set out new consistent standards of customer service. By 2008, we will have a new nationwide non-emergency call number. We will give local communities new powers to require information and to trigger action when problems remain. I will publish our full proposals in a consultative paper later this year.
Victims and witnesses are at the heart of our policy. The no witness, no justice programme is already making a difference and it will be expanded across the whole of England and Wales. The victims commissioner will hold to account the agencies responsible and a new dedicated victims fund will add to the support available.
Immigration must not be a political football. Securing legal routes for migration and offering legitimate ways of employment is common sense. We need the skills and enterprise of those prepared to come here to work. To achieve that, we will reinforce existing rigorous controls at our ports and airports to prevent abuse of our immigration system. We will develop new electronic border controls, known as e-borders. That system of automatic tracking of travellers entering and exiting our country will provide monitoring and usable data. That innovative technology will clearly help us with counter-terrorism. Taken together with the introduction of biometric identity cards, these measures will help to ensure that only those legally entitled to be in our country will be able to work, to draw down on services and to have permanent residence here.
Global terrorism and organised crime require a new level of responsiveness. The creation of the serious and organised crime agency and additional resources for the Security Service and counter-terrorism police will help us tackle those who would destroy our democracy and undermine our well-being. Using the recovered assets agency, we will target those living on the proceeds of crime. Through a new incentivisation programme, we will return those resources to the communities from which they were stolen. From fixed penalty notices to severer penalties, it will be the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen, who pays. We are today laying orders to extend the offences for which a fixed penalty notice is available, targeting under-age drinking, lower-level damage and theft, and the misuse of fireworks.
The correlation between enforcement and prevention is crucial. We must invest in young people. In addition to the existing resources across government, I can announce today an expansion of the youth inclusion and early intervention programmes. Those will be doubled across England and Wales. From Sure Start to enhanced children's centres, from learning mentors to parenting orders, we will provide a route out of inter-generational disadvantage.
It is within the communities themselves that we face the biggest challenge. Nowhere is that more important than in race relations and equality. Community cohesion can be achieved only by an awareness of the need for comprehensive and active engagement with
24
faith communities and a coherent drive against racism. I will shortly publish an updated strategy on the way forward. Where those measures will help the most is in reinforcing confidence and belief in our own identity and citizenship. For those seeking naturalisation, the learning of English and citizenship and the ceremonies of celebration are reinforcing a sense of belonging.
We have a choice: to work together to overcome insecurity, instability and fear, or to deny the role of government; to match tough enforcement, with investment, support and powers for local communities or to do nothing to build respect and overcome alienation.
We on the Government Benches are clear. We will put the law-abiding citizen first. We will invest in the modernisation of policing and we will develop new forms of community engagement appropriate for the 21st century. We seek a partnership with all those willing to join in this critical task. That is why I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. James Paice: I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who could not be in the House today. I also thank the Home Secretary for an early copy of the statement.
From this morning's headlines and programmes, we could have been forgiven for thinking that the Home Secretary's statement would be entirely dedicated to dealing with antisocial behaviour. This morning the Prime Minister rejected the Labour Government of the 1960s and the actions of his mentor, Lord Jenkins. But for the ordinary people of Britain, there was no liberal consensus, as the Prime Minister suggests. They did not want political correctness stuffed down their throats. They did not want to be intimidated by young hooligans or to have to step over vomit in the streets. In the light of the Prime Minister's statement this morning, will the Labour party—and for that matter, the Liberal Democrats—apologise for all their bedfellows of the past 30 years, who told us that the criminal was the real victim? Or is it just another example of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary grabbing headlines without substance? Why should we believe this lot of initiatives? Why should we believe that they are any better than the 155 others that we have had since the last election?
We welcome the extra resources for our security services and for anti-terrorism measures. In principle, we welcome the resources for crime reduction, although they fall significantly short of our commitment to fund the extra 40,000 police officers necessary to achieve the quantum leap we need if we are to get real neighbourhood policing to work.
A year ago, the Home Secretary published his last strategic review. He was going to reduce crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. Today, he claims a reduction in crime that no one believes. That is not surprising because he is counting only part of the figures. His figures exclude illegal drug use, which is up 16 per cent.; retail crime, which has doubled; sexual offences, which are up 42 per cent.; and, most importantly, crime against young people, which is also up. The truth is that after falling for five years under the Conservatives, recorded crime is up by 800,000 a year under Labour.

25
Violent crime is at an all-time high and there was a gun crime every hour of every day last year. With the latest crime figures due out this week, is it not the case that violent crime will be up again?
Last year, the Home Secretary also set a target to ensure effective delivery of justice. That was a laudable aim, but the good intention has failed. The proportion of convictions and cautions compared with recorded crime fell to its lowest level for well over a decade. It peaked in 1997, and has fallen, year in year out, under Labour. Why?
Now the comprehensive spending review sets new targets, including to reduce crime by 15 per cent. in high-crime areas. Will the Home Secretary tell us specifically which the high-crime areas are? What are the baseline figures, so that we can judge whether he achieves his target? He pledges to improve the delivery of justice by increasing the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.25 million. That is another laudable aim, but the figure has not reached 1.1 million under Labour and is falling, so how does he expect to achieve it?
The Home Secretary pledges to reduce unfounded asylum claims—
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): He has done it.
Mr. Paice: Well, the Home Secretary pledges to do it in the future. The Minister should read the review that was published last week. What is the baseline against which he can be judged in a year's time? What is also obvious is the long list of targets that have disappeared. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether that is because he accepts our position that there are too many targets, or because virtually none have been met or have any chance of being met?
The Home Secretary refers to 12,000 extra police officers and says that the police can make 3 per cent. annual efficiency gains. They probably can, but not unless he lifts the yoke of central bureaucracy from their shoulders. So when he gets rid of 2,700 civil servants, how many forms, how many targets, how many ringfenced funds and how many Home Office units will go with them?
The Home Secretary refers to tagging. Will he clarify whether he considers the tagging of prolific criminals as part of their sentences? Is that an expansion of the early release scheme, which we were told last week would not be expanded, or is it a long-term protection for the public, especially from paedophiles? Is tagging really a sufficient punishment, or is it driven by prison overcrowding?
The Home Secretary pledges in his statement to develop new electronic border controls. He says that a system of automatic tracking of travellers entering and exiting our country will provide monitoring and data. Will he explain what he is saying? Is he today announcing the re-introduction of embarkation controls? If so, of course, we welcome that adoption of Conservative policy as an effective measure to control immigration.
The Home Secretary also says that he will give local people power to ensure that laws are implemented. What does that mean? I agree with him, of course, that
26
antisocial behaviour has many causes and that the community needs to be involved, but who is he blaming for not using the law—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or the courts system?
The Home Secretary has announced the extension of fixed penalties. Will they work? Does he really think that they are what people want? I suggest to him that people want a penalty that is both a deterrent and that provides a chance of rehabilitation. They do not want a minor penalty that becomes a badge of honour for some young oik.
The Home Secretary also refers to the increase in community support officers. Let me repeat our support for the role of civilians in helping the police. Our concern has always been about giving them police powers, especially the power of detention. So what has happened to the review of those powers, which we were promised at the time of the legislation, or the national evaluation that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), promised only last week, an hour before the Chancellor announced 20,000 more CSOs?
Will the Home Secretary tell us what discretion chief constables will have over the use of the money? Will they be able to spend it instead on full police officers? If not, what has happened to his drive for local accountability? What happened to his statement in last year's White Paper that
"Home Office research has found that delegation of resources and responsibilities can…increase responsiveness"?
The people of this country are fed up with units, targets and initiatives. They want a Government who do not confuse good intent with achievement. When a crime is committed, they want a police officer, not an incident number. What they have got is centralised control, 10,000 more bureaucrats, 40-plus units, overcrowded prisons, record crime levels and a Home Secretary who says that he has not got a clue how many illegal immigrants are in the country. What they are offered is a new public service target of reassurance—a new word for spin, a patronising word from a Government who know best. Does the Home Secretary realise that reassurance will come not from words or money alone, but from results: fewer crimes, quicker justice, secure borders and a Government on the side of the law-abiding? He cannot buy reassurance; it will come by itself when he delivers the rest.
Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his second appearance in two Mondays. The Opposition Front Bench is characterised this afternoon by no money, no policy and no shadow Home Secretary. I am almost beginning to forget what he looks like—he has been missing two Mondays running.
Let me take the questions that have been raised head on. Yes, when we have got in place the electronic border surveillance, we intend to reintroduce embarkation controls, which were abandoned 10 years ago, as hon. Members know, under the former Conservative Government. However, that was understandable because, without the new electronic surveillance and computer system, such controls were a complete waste of time. If we do not know who has come in, there is no point in trying to track who goes out. If we do not have identity cards, we do not know who is here anyway, so

27
we cannot know whether they are legitimate or not in terms of drawing down on services. I am glad that we are agreed on that.
We appear to be agreed that we should all be tackling antisocial behaviour. The hon. Gentleman asked me about fixed-penalty notices. Some 20,000 fixed-penalty notices have been issued, and they are effective and speedy. They contribute to the reduction in bureaucracy that the police service has been seeking. They ensure that, instead of four to five hours for arrest, a fixed-penalty notice can be issued within 30 minutes. That means that the police can go about their business rather than returning to the station. It means therefore that we can release people for front-line services and we can bring in civilian staff to undertake the backroom work. That, again, frees police officers to do their job. The 20,000 additional community support officers are available on the streets on a permanent basis. That frees the rest of the community beat team and their colleagues to target particular offenders, including prolific offenders, who cause so much havoc in the community.
Yes, the prolific offenders programme will involve electronic tagging and satellite tracking. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether that would be instead of prison sentences. No, it will be part of the new supervision programme that was passed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and it can really be effective as part of that programme only if we know exactly where people are and can track their movements down to the last few metres. This will be a major drive to prevent the scourge of prolific offenders, and often prolific victims. That is why our victims programme is so crucial.
On immigration, we have a record to be proud of. We have turned round a major problem in world movements and, from 18 months ago, we have reduced unwarranted asylum claims by 60 per cent. The baseline level is 2002, but we are actually saying that we will reduce unwarranted asylum claims year on year, so we will be reinforcing that message.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what baseline we would use and how we made a judgment on the areas with the greatest density of crime. For the first time ever, a baseline assessment is published on the website that shows a comparator force by force and command unit by command unit in terms of the crimes committed and therefore the density and proliferation of crime. We and the force at local level can target resources to make that happen.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would give freedom to chief constables. They already have it. We will, of course, provide the funding for the additional community support officers and, through the police grant and the amalgamation of the crime fighting fund, the retention of the record police numbers that we have put in place. They will have the freedom to use those resources sensibly. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is heckling from a sedentary position, as his colleagues did throughout my statement; they were not really interested.
Police chiefs will obviously be able to make decisions about deployment and they will not be rigidly told that they can employ only community support officers. When we passed the legislation to bring these in, both
28
Opposition parties said that police forces would not use them and that the police service would not welcome them. Well, every police force in the land is clamouring for them; neighbourhoods are clamouring for them. What people want is not more of one thing and less of another; they want more of both. They want uniformed constables and an intelligence model; they want community support officers; they want us to clamp down on organised crime; they want to treat drug users sensibly; and they want to reinvest in youth inclusion and overcoming criminality by young people.
In short, people want us to have the comprehensive overview, the coherent policy and the balance of prevention and enforcement that I have laid out this afternoon. No other political party, now or in the past, has laid out such a comprehensive and, in my view, balanced programme. In doing so, I am proud to be Home Secretary.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement. We agree with much of it. There is certainly a need to tackle the increase in unacceptable behaviour, although I am at a loss to understand why the Prime Minister is blaming the liberal culture of the 1960s for that because I would have thought that the culture of the 1980s might have more to do with it.
The Home Secretary's measures to increase numbers of community support officers are welcome, but does he agree that many of our police still spend far too much time stuck in stations filling in forms? Will he today commit to increasing the amount of technology, such as palm tops and mobile fingerprinting, that police have so that they can be seen much more out in the streets, where the public want them? He made no mention of his plans to have directly elected police authorities, so have they now been abandoned?
This morning, the Prime Minister raised the issue of holding some trials without juries. Liberal Democrats will oppose that. The Home Secretary will remember that, at the time of his heavy defeat on the matter in Parliament last year, he gave a commitment that no new measure would be introduced without cross-party talks. Does he stick by that commitment?
The Government said that they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. We have had much focus on tough-sounding measures, but little on causes. With that in mind, does the Home Secretary recognise the urgent need to do much more to tackle the terrible rates of reoffending, with up to 70 per cent. of 20-year-olds who leave prison reoffending? Is it not time for a greater focus on education and training, with a tough prison regime, to target those issues?
The Home Secretary again raises ID cards in his main document. Does he not agree that the £3 billion cost of introducing them would make our country safer much more effectively if it were spent on more police and more technology for them?
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that vote of confidence. I think that we all agree that we need to get police out of the station. We are spending £800 million on information technology in the criminal justice system and £500 million on the Airwave system. It is crucial that we develop the most extensive system

29
for using DNA in the world and ensure that people are trained to use such technology. The enhanced police national computer and the information intelligence model that I outlined in my statement are vital parts of achieving that.
We need to invest in avoiding repeated and prolific offending and in introducing restorative justice, so I was pleased that the Conservative shadow Minister agreed with that on the radio this morning. We are starting to get somewhere and agreeing what we need to do, although we are not all in agreement on whether we are prepared to raise the money for that. Labour Members are.
It is absolutely true that we will ask people to make a contribution towards biometric ID cards, but as I explained to the House at considerable length earlier in the year, the system will be associated with updating the security on passports, which we have to do. We will thus introduce biometrics on passports at the same time as ID cards, so it will cost an additional £4 per person, over a 10-year period, to issue the card rather than simply having a biometric passport. We do not have to spend £3 billion because, as people renew their passports, they will pay as they get the biometric cards. I thought that I should explain that at length so that people understand the system and realise that we are not diverting money from what we are doing elsewhere.
Let me be clear that we agree with the Liberal Democrats on many issues, such as training programmes in prisons. Some 50,000 prisoners are now getting basic education, but no systematic education programmes existed in 1997. We also agree that we should introduce work programmes, but we cannot spend the same money twice. We must all agree what resources are available and what they should be spent on. Last week, the Chancellor allocated to the Home Office for next year—not just for 2006–07—an additional £140 million for correctional services, and I want to spend that not only on expanding the prison estate, but on providing alternatives. If we can do that, we will turn round the dangers that exist in our communities.
The hon. Gentleman cannot tell people that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of clamping down on antisocial behaviour and crime, yet vote against such measures in the House. The Liberal Democrats cannot vote against closing crack houses, dispersal and curfew powers, expansion of antisocial behaviour orders, fast-track evictions—
Mr. Oaten: We did not.
Mr. Blunkett: When the Liberal Democrats vote against the Second and Third Readings of a Bill, they are voting against it. Week after week we will expose the duplicity in every way we can, so that at the general election those who mistakenly voted Liberal Democrat in Leicester, South and earlier in Brent, East will understand precisely what they voted for: open borders, open crack houses, open to exploitation.
Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at two aspects of antisocial behaviour that we need to tackle? One is to build on the record of intervention schemes that work.
30
We have a fantastic scheme in my constituency called Wheelbase. It has a remarkable record of intervening with youngsters involved in multiple car thefts, but exists on hand-to-mouth funding year in, year out. We have to try and break the cycle of game-show funding for the schemes that work. If he is looking for a source of revenue to pay for that, let us consider the commercial interests who fund the licensing problems of binge drinking that plague our inner cities and pour drink into young people before they are poured out on to the streets, leaving the local authorities and the police with the problems of clearing up?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We need not only investment, but consistent investment in programmes that are working. In addition to resources from the Home Office through the Youth Justice Board, we have the potential to put together the Connexions programme, the new community safety fund on which we will work jointly with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the expanded neighbourhood renewal fund. It is crucial that we do so. There is a major role for those who make a profit out of the industries concerned to contribute in return. That is why an expanded business improvement district programme should be the opportunity to get agreement on putting something back in for those who get something out.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Home Secretary explain to the House in simple Queen's English three or four things that my constituents and those of other hon. Members can expect to see during the next 12 months as a result of his statement today?
Mr. Blunkett: More police, more community support officers, more fixed-penalty notices, the expansion of the curfew and dispersal powers, the universal expansion of the justice care scheme for witnesses that I have just announced, and the youth intervention programme, which will be doubled. I announced all those things in my statement. I think that that is four.
Tony Lloyd: In hardpressed inner-city areas such as mine, people will be grateful for the comprehensiveness of my right hon. Friend's statement, covering everything from the most serious crime through to vandalism. May I draw his attention to the question of how we assess the performance of the police? For example, my police force—Greater Manchester police—is often near the bottom of most measures of police performance. The public in a city such as mine are entitled to know whether that is because we need better policing or whether, as Greater Manchester police claim, they are underfunded. It is important for the public to know that they are getting value for money from the police in Manchester and throughout the country.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. The increase in resources is important for the expansion of programmes and numbers, but the quality of policing, which has improved under the leadership of Mike Todd in Greater Manchester, is crucial as well. The assessment process now allows us to examine the

31
family of forces so that we can compare like with like, which seems perfectly fair. It is important to reinforce the improvement that is taking place in one area by spreading it to others, which is why the police standards unit, working with the inspectorate, is doing just that. Greater Manchester police, with considerable encouragement from my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety in relation to organised gang and gun crime, has shown substantial improvements. There is still a long way to go, and the process of accountability at local level, not necessarily with fully directly elected police authorities, but with revised democratically accountable functions at both command unit and force level, will drive that from the bottom up, as well as from the top down.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Home Secretary agree that excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for a huge percentage of violent crimes and antisocial behaviour? Is he willing to discuss with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills tuition in secondary schools on the nightmares that excessive alcohol consumption can cause? Is he also willing to look again at the consequences of 24-hour pubs?
Mr. Blunkett: Forty-four per cent. of all violent crime is alcohol-driven. It is necessary to provide education and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should undertake to do so. Of course, it is right that we should keep under review the changes—although people keep grumbling that they have made a tremendous difference, they have not yet been implemented—to the licensing laws. We have already made it clear that we would need to take action if we found that greater deregulation and flexibility were damaging.
Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, particularly with regard to the new neighbourhood policing fund, which will have £50 million. My constituency has four police reassurance wards, and I am willing to offer my constituency if any hon. Member does not want police community support officers or police reassurance teams. Will he look at the hours of operation of police reassurance schemes, because they currently end at 10 pm and we need to consider how to extend them?
Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend, who has done a sterling job in her constituency in mobilising the community and working with the police. We need to look at the working hours and we could open up that matter and discuss it with appropriate representatives.
Mr. James Clappison: May I gently remind the Home Secretary that all the issues that he has raised today in respect of antisocial behaviour were raised by his predecessor when this Government came to power in 1997? The fact that he is still talking about them today and that the Prime Minister is still sexing them up is the clearest possible proof that the answers that the Government claimed to have in 1997 have not been the overwhelming success that the
32
Government claimed that they would be. May I invite the Home Secretary to look instead at much tougher and more obvious and readily useable powers to deal with antisocial behaviour in the community, such as taking away tenancies from antisocial tenants, even though that may cost him the vote of confidence that he received from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), since the Liberal Democrats opposed it tooth and nail and kept antisocial tenants in place?
Mr. Blunkett: Of course we are building on measures that we put in place in our first Parliament. This is the same Government, and we are building on, reinforcing and learning from those measures. That is why we have introduced fast-track and interim antisocial behaviour orders and why we have learned from the problems in implementing curfews. I have revised the arrangements so that we have had dozens of curfew and dispersal orders since 1 April, when the measures came into force. It is also why we learned about what needed to be done with regard to crack houses and antisocial tenants, and why, both in housing and antisocial behaviour legislation, we introduced new forms of tenancy ensuring that permanent, secure tenancies can be reversed. Where people continue to behave in an antisocial fashion, they can be fast-track evicted. All those things build on what was there, expand it, learn from it and put in place measures to allow the community to drive the change. I would have thought that that was very welcome.
Liz Blackman: What further steps can my right hon. Friend take to persuade the very few chief constables left who have not done so, including the chief constable of Derbyshire, to take up community support officers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that they make a huge difference? The constituents of Erewash look across the border into Nottinghamshire and want a slice of the action. At the moment, we are experiencing some resistance. Can he help?
Mr. Blunkett: I suggest that my hon. Friend recommend that her constituents and those across Derbyshire write to the chairman of the police authority in Derbyshire demanding that the Derbyshire force take up the money that is available so that constituents, including me and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), can enjoy wonderful, peaceful weekends in the Peak district, including in Baslow, where my car was scratched on Sunday afternoon.
Annabelle Ewing: Asylum and immigration policy is one of the powers that the Home Secretary still has over Scotland. In the context of the five-year strategic statement, will he tell us his plans to expand Dungavel removal centre?
Mr. Blunkett: We have already announced the expansion at Dungavel, which is not for families and children, but for single men and women. The hon. Lady will recall her intervention one week ago and that she must tread carefully when she raises Dungavel with me.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and in particular his comments about the introduction of a non-emergency telephone number. In my experience, nothing undermines confidence in the police more than communication problems with the local police station. We should have not only a non-emergency telephone number, but adequate back-up staff and a procedure to ensure that such problems are gone for ever.
Mr. Blunkett: The best thing that I can say is, "Spot on." All hon. Members know that that is one of our constituents' biggest gripes, and we must get the issue right. The point is not only whether the phone is picked up, but whether the system can properly judge the weight and repetition of a problem. The new computerised system tracks such calls and makes sure that the police and community support officers get to the area as fast as possible. The system is about not only reassurance, but decent customer service, so my hon. Friend is entirely right.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Home Secretary accept that my constituents will not be impressed by his statement, because the police are hopelessly overstretched in our part of the Thames valley? My constituents rarely see a police officer, and one reason why so many of them have stopped reporting crime is because there is no point in doing so.
Mr. Blunkett: We have 10 per cent. more police and 4,000 extra CSOs compared with 1997. Using the same methodology, criteria and year-on-year comparators, crime has decreased by more than one quarter since 1997—sex offences are now counted, which is one of the few points raised by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that I did not answer. Given all that, why is policing so bad in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)? We must ask both the police and ourselves that question. That is why Peter Neyroud is so important in driving change in the Thames valley.
Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on community policing. At the last Greater London authority election, both the Liberals and the Conservatives pledged to cut the money that the Mayor is using to roll out community safety teams across London, so we will take no lectures from them. If the programme is to succeed, we must expand work with young people to divert them from crime in the first place, which is why I welcome the roll-out of the youth inclusion programme. Many initiatives in the local community are led by people from the community, including young people's parents, who want facilities for young people to be expanded to stop young people getting involved in crime in the first place. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that when the YIP money becomes available, local communities are engaged in finding solutions at the grassroots level?
Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree with that point. Last Friday, I saw a YIP working extremely well. It was turning around the lives and the hope of young people who had been involved in substantial criminality or who were in real danger of becoming involved in substantial
34
criminality—the issue is about the hope of a better tomorrow. We must ensure that YIPs are joined up with the extended school programme, weekend and after-school activities and the Connexions service, in which we are investing large sums of money. Getting the matter right is a matter of common sense, but it is also prudent, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, because in the long run it will save us a great deal of money as well as heartache.
Mr. Edward Garnier: In May 2001, no doubt following extensive Cabinet discussion and in order to speed up the criminal justice system, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of night courts. Can the Home Secretary tell me where I can go to watch one of those courts at work? In which cities are they, and what hours do they sit?
Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we introduced three pilot night courts, they were not successful and we did not pursue them. I have no problem at all in experimenting and innovating, and then being big enough to say, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, "This isn't working, so let's not waste any more time doing it."
Kate Hoey: I warmly welcome, as will my constituents, the extra resources that are going into policing and community support officers. However, will the Home Secretary bear in mind the special nature of inner-London constituencies such as Vauxhall, which contains high-profile security targets? That means that many of our extra resources are directed there, leaving community estates in the more deprived areas without the benefits of the extra policing. Will my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police Authority, consider a different way of policing the areas on the south bank just opposite the Houses of Parliament?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, the new chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Len Duval, and I will examine how best to do that. In addition to the money that I announced, next year there will be an additional £50 million for policing and counter-terrorism. It is right and proper that the particular pressures faced by the Metropolitan police are recognised and that a combination of additional community support officers and uniformed police can be deployed. Displacement is a problem not only for inner-city constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend, but for outer boroughs, whose neighbourhoods are left vulnerable when people have to be taken out of their normal duties for particular events. It is crucial to get the balance right.
Mr. John Redwood: What are these improvements in policing that the Home Secretary thinks he needs a quango to bring about? Does that replace the current policy of sacking top cops when he does not like what they are doing?
Mr. Blunkett: I have not sacked top cops and I never will. As I spelled out fairly clearly, we are trying to build on what is already in place. I am not entirely sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is for or against what we are doing.
Mr. Redwood: I am asking what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
Mr. Blunkett: I have already explained that we will discuss bringing together into an improvement agency the range of bodies at national level that deal with policing excellence, training and the like. I should have thought that hon. Members would warmly welcome a rationalisation that will bring major gains in administration and coherence.
Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, through all the vagaries of fashion in policing over decades, our constituents have continued to say that they want regular, uniformed patrols in their neighbourhoods? Is it not the case that community support officers have already been welcomed as symbols of the authority of the local community and its insistence that law and order be maintained? Will not the additional resources and numbers that my right hon. Friend announced reinforce confidence and optimism among law-abiding citizens?
Mr. Blunkett: They certainly will. That is the experience of the neighbourhood policing teams, which comprise uniformed police and CSOs working with them. They have demonstrated admirably that that is what people want. It is time to respond to that and I commend the retiring Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who was big enough to say that the change in policing a decade ago had not succeeded and that it was time to return to the community.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why did the Prime Minister announce that the Government would withhold housing benefit as a means of tackling antisocial behaviour only for them to abandon that proposal?
Mr. Blunkett: Because my right hon. Friend was trying to show that rights and responsibilities, duties and obligations go hand in hand. Any policy that reinforces that is worthy of examination. If we have ideas—not the sort of ideas that I heard on this morning's "Today" programme from someone who claimed to be the director of an organisation for ideas, but ideas that change people's lives—it is right to float them. Not only the Prime Minister, but other colleagues and I will continue to float ideas even if cynics keep knocking them down.
Mr. Martin Salter: The Home Secretary knows that all agencies have been in the forefront of the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour in Reading using the welcome new powers that the Department introduced. We have street crime wardens, drug action teams and ASBOs, as well as more police officers on our streets. All those measures have proved their worth in cutting crime but does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless the Government ensure that magistrates courts have more resources and that magistrates are properly trained in, and are aware of, the powers that are available to them, one important piece of the jigsaw will be missing?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes. That is the reason for the new public prosecutors who are directly linked to antisocial behaviour—currently in 12 areas but shortly in 50—and the introduction of specialist courts where there is intensive need. When antisocial behaviour courts need to be established as part of the existing system, we must do that. However, the ultimate message must be that magistrates and district judges have to clamp down heavily on breaches of existing orders. Otherwise, those who breach the orders will get the wrong message and the community will become disillusioned.
Mr. Eric Forth: If the proposal is all that good, why has it taken seven years to get around to it? Why should anybody believe the Home Secretary when he says, "Trust me, it will all be much better next year"?
Mr. Blunkett: I could say, "Trust me" because things have got a lot better in the three years that I have been Home Secretary. Even since 1 April, when measures under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003—whose introduction we had to fight through Parliament—began to take effect, a discernible change has occurred in those areas that have begun to implement the provisions. Anyone who represents those areas knows that that is true. Why has it taken seven years? Because we have been busy introducing all the other measures before getting around to the one that we are discussing. The idea that there is a year zero, that one day after an election we pass everything and life is okay and that we make a further judgment five years later is nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman used to be shadow Leader of the House. It is a good job that he was a shadow and that he no longer fills that position.
David Cairns: There is a clear link between crime and the ready availability of cheap hard drugs. It would therefore make sense to try to stop as many of those drugs as possible getting into the country. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that his strategic plan envisages closer working with his European counterparts to clamp down on trafficking hard drugs, especially the 95 per cent. of heroin on Britain's streets that starts life in Afghanistan?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes. It is a difficult issue that will form part of the forward programme for the Dutch presidency, the Luxembourg presidency and the United Kingdom presidency this time next year. It is difficult because we are dealing with sources and with tracking the organised criminals. That is why the serious organised crime agency, working not only from this country but with a revamped Europol, will be vital to achieve some real gains.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend knows that the prolific offenders programme kicks off in South Yorkshire on 6 September. I stress that it will work. It gives the opportunity of a gateway out of crime for many young people. However, we require residential units in South Yorkshire for those young people, many of whom have spent a life on the streets. Will funding be available for residential units?
Mr. Blunkett: I commend my hon. Friend, who, as chair of his community safety partnership, has been driving change in his constituency and across the metropolitan district. Yes, we need to look at forms of residential support. We put in our document that we also need to look at intensive fostering, because if we can get those in their teens away from the dangers and the peer group pressure that they face in their home environment, we shall be doing them a big favour. I think that that is the way forward.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I thank the Home Secretary for his recent announcement of £960,000 extra for Cambridgeshire police to deal with the policing of demonstrations against Huntingdon Life Sciences, many of which take place in my constituency? Is it part of his strategic plan to introduce further measures to protect the innocent people who work in scientific establishments and to deal with the animal rights terrorists?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes I will and we will introduce a new programme pulling together what has already taken place, which we will announce within the next three weeks. I am deeply sorry that those who have been involved with the programme in Oxford have felt, for a whole variety of reasons, that their viability was threatened. I make no bones about the fact that it is necessary to find alternatives to the use of experiments on animals where we can, so I make no apology for having supported humane research in the past. It is vital, however, that we bear down with everything that we have on those terrorists in our own community who intimidate, damage and scare away those who would invest in perfectly legal, legitimate, properly licensed and regulated research. We are all clear about that.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I share the serious concern of my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members about the effects of alcohol and their implications for crime and disorder. Does he accept that a major factor involved is the easy availability of oceans of cheap alcohol, that it is time seriously to consider legislation to insist on minimum prices for alcohol in retail and licensed premises and to restrict the floods of cheap alcohol coming in from the continent of Europe?
Mr. Blunkett: Two critical issues here are the need to step up our response to the smuggling of alcohol through Customs coming into the serious organised crime agency, and the price at which alcohol is sold on the street at a particular time. I and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had a very constructive meeting with representatives of the industry three weeks ago. If their code works, the pressure that they will be bringing to bear within the industry will reduce the incidence of happy hours and other promotions that damage the chance of avoiding the misuse of alcohol. We have made it clear to them, however, that if it does not work, we would be prepared to legislate.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I welcome the Home Secretary's proposals to use satellite tracking technology to keep tabs on prolific offenders and early-release candidates. Given the start
38
up costs of the equipment involved, why do we not also use it to show the public that curfew orders and banning orders will be rigorously enforced?
Mr. Blunkett: I believe that, as we manage to get the technology in place, and if we can spread it, we shall be able to do that. At the moment, however, we are keen to use it in two ways: first, with those who would otherwise go to prison for non-violent first offences; and, secondly, with those prolific and dangerous offenders who are on supervision. If we can get that programme in place quickly, it will be worth its weight in gold, and we can then extend it to ensure that the same policing methodology is not needed to keep track of those on curfew orders.
Mr. Wayne David: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement—indeed, it will be welcomed by millions of people up and down the country—and I particularly welcome the commitment that he has made to community support officers. There is no doubt that they have been an outstanding success. Would he consider introducing a modest extension to the powers of CSOs at an opportune time?
Mr. Blunkett: As part of the evaluation, it is our intention to review the powers available to CSOs. Without in any way threatening the clear distinction between those powers and police powers, we think that that would be very helpful.
Huw Irranca-Davies: May I, through my right hon. Friend, thank his Home Office ministerial colleague, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, for her visit to my constituency a week last Friday? I could have chosen to take her to Maesteg, where a brand new police station, six community support officers funded through the communities first programme, and some of the 300-odd new police officers in south Wales would have been in evidence. What joy can he bring to the community to which I did take her, Nantymoel, where people do not see the evidence of that programme being rolled out, and the priorities of the police or local authorities are not reflected? What provision has he made to extend the power of accountability to those communities so that they can take charge of their own policing?
Mr. Blunkett: First, in terms of the police reform and accountability agenda, at panel and forum level in the neighbourhood, as well as through the division, the voice of the community will be heard. Secondly, where there are additional resources, the community will be able to decide where those can be deployed and on what priority, as I saw this morning in Camden, where that has been extremely successful with the Metropolitan police. Thirdly, where there are major problems, the local community can trigger the necessary meetings and, if necessary, the snap inspection that I talked about in my statement. All those matters need to be handled with sensitivity for the reasons that I gave: we do not want vexatious activity; we want people collaborating in partnership.
Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is not so much the legacy of the 1960s as the legacy of the 1980s that was damaging to communities such as the one that I represent, which were decimated by policies introduced by a Government who said that there was no such thing as society, and that mass unemployment was a price worth paying for low inflation? His approach to try to rebuild confidence in those communities is therefore absolutely right. What can we do to make sure that the policies that he announces are introduced at that local level?
Mr. Blunkett: As I have made clear in broadcast interviews, I believe that the 1980s and early 1990s, with the massive increase in unemployment, the fall in police numbers and the individualisation and selfishness of society being reinforced, were a disaster for all of us, and we are reaping that now. That is why not only reinforcing citizenship and civic renewal but ensuring that powers exist at that level to command change is important. We also need to examine the idea of co-funding, whereby we put up resources, and local neighbourhoods have the power to raise and match spending. That is currently being done through regeneration budgets and it may be done where local residents wish to raise a levy. That occurs in relation to tenants and residents associations, and some parts of the country are keen for us to examine whether that could be done. Again, it would be targeted on the most deprived areas, so that it would not be the wealthiest—who could do it for themselves—but the most deprived who would benefit most.
Vera Baird: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the range and diversity of his plans, which hold much promise, not only for now but for our third term. Does he intend tagging to be used to tag domestic violence criminals out of premises where their victims live, as well as tagging other kinds of criminals to stay at home? Can I ask him to exercise care in the use of the restorative justice in domestic violence cases, where the imbalance of power and the emotional links between victim and offender can make restorative justice oppressive?
Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, it is true that we would not wish to use restorative justice in circumstances in which the victim feels threatened. It would be entirely wrong to do so. All of us, however, accept the responsibility for payments for children in that family. The first issue is an interesting one. One would only wish to track or tag an individual to maintain their presence in an area, or out of area, in the more serious cases, for obvious reasons, not least because it would be uneconomic to do otherwise. It is an interesting idea, however, which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), who is responsible for correctional services, will take away and reflect on.

Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
4.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson):: I beg to move,
That the programme order of 21st June 2004 in relation to the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords] be varied as follows:

Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

  Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading
  1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 (proceedings on consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
  2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
  The motion amends the programme order agreed on 21 June. The only changes are to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the original programme order, which made provision for proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: It might be convenient to the Minister to know that we are not going to oppose the motion. The sooner we begin our genuine debate, the better.
  Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I can therefore expedite matters. I believe that new clause 1 is next on the agenda.
  Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      INFECTION CONTROL STANDARDS
      '(1) For the purpose of the exercise of its functions under section 2(1)(a) and (b) the Agency may prepare and publish statements of standards.

      (2) The Agency must keep such standards under review and may publish amended standards whenever it considers it appropriate.

      (3) The Agency must consult the appropriate authority and such other persons as the Agency considers appropriate—

      (a) before publishing a statement under this section;

      (b) before publishing an amended statement under this section which in the opinion of the Agency effects a substantial change in the standards.

      (4) The standards set out in statements under this section are to be taken into account by every English NHS body, Welsh NHS body and cross-border SHA in discharging its duty under section 45 (quality in health care) of the Health and Social Care (Comunity Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c.43).

      (5) This section does not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Lansley.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.41 pm
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Bill has not been the subject of detail or aggressive controversy. We are all working towards one objective, which is to reach a point at which patients in the NHS, and the public generally, are protected to the maximum possible extent. A key part of that objective is securing good-quality infection control, not least in the NHS.
      It will not have escaped the House's notice that since the Committee stage there have been further developments in the control of hospital-acquired infection in particular—developments that have led Conservative Members to believe that one further change is required before the Bill completes its passage.
      The Health Protection Agency's function under the Bill is to promote measures to prevent the spread and promote the control of infectious diseases both in the community and in the NHS. New clause 1 provides that when standards are published for NHS bodies, the agency—as an independent body—would have power to publish those standards. English and Welsh NHS bodies would then have legal responsibility to have regard to them in the pursuit of their duties, and they would become part of the framework of health care standards that is intended to be the subject of inspections by the Healthcare Commission in due course.
      We would not have been minded to do this but for the particular nature of the Government's failure in regard to the publication and pursuit of standards relating to hospital-acquired infection. Last week the National Audit Office published its progress report on reducing the risk of hospital-acquired infection. Appendix 1
      42
      includes details of developments in the surveillance of hospital-acquired infection since its report on 2000. A number of actions had been taken before then, which are not described in the report but include the publication of work by the working party consisting of, among others, the Infection Control Nurses Association, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and the Hospital Infection Society. Those bodies worked together to produce guidelines for the control of MRSA infection, originally back in 1998.
      In 1999, controls assurance standards were issued, the first of which dealt with hospital-acquired infection. Given that standards against which NHS bodies were supposed to assess their performance were already in place, the regularity with which Ministers and their agencies have published guidance is astonishing. In February 2000, they published a programme of action. In May 2000, NHS Estates published standards for environmental cleanliness. In June 2000, "An organisation with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS" was published dealing with inspection control.
      Guidelines on preventing health care-associated infections were commissioned by the Department of Health and published in the Journal of Hospital Infection in January 2001. In April 2001, national standards of cleanliness for the NHS were published by NHS Estates, and the requirement for mandatory surveillance of rates for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was issued. "Building a safer NHS for patients" was published in July 2001 as a follow-up to "An organisation with a memory". In the same month, the Government responded to a report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, and in January 2002, the chief medical officer published "Getting Ahead of The Curve", in which he first recommended the establishment of the Health Protection Agency. In March 2002, national standards of cleanliness for the NHS were published by NHS Estates.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is rightly listing a wide range of reports, guidance and other documents published by the Government since the last NAO report. Does he share my puzzlement and disappointment that throughout those few years they have not undertaken the necessary auditing to ascertain whether any of their guidance has been applied on the ground? We therefore have a sense of déjà vu, as the Government continue to re-announce proposals.
      Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right—the publication of those documents is not the same as achieving enforcement or implementation. I shall, however, complete my argument.
      In August 2002, the National Patient Safety Agency initiated the "clean your hands" hygiene project, to which I shall return in due course. The chief medical officer announced a number of additional requirements on surveillance in June 2003, and revised standards of cleanliness were published by NHS Estates in August 2003. In December 2003, "Winning Ways: working together to reduce healthcare associated infection in England" was published by the chief medical officer. In March 2004, NHS Estates published "The NHS Health Care Cleaning Manual".

      43
      The Secretary of State published a document entitled "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection" last Monday, although it was not listed by the NAO, because it was not told about it until it had sent its report to the printers. The Healthcare Commission, following the consultation on health care standards, is due to publish detailed criteria later this year. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, one must consider why the issue has been revisited, but the NAO is to be congratulated on the thoroughness with which it has investigated those initiatives and reported to the House. It said that
      "the NHS still lacks sufficient information on the extent and cost of hospital acquired infection".
      The balanced score card that is used to assess the performance of NHS bodies refers to measures on cleanliness and infection control but they are no more than procedures. The question appears to be whether the requirements of "Winning Ways" have been met, not whether infection rates have been reduced, and the consequences for patient care. For example, the NAO report states that there has been
      "a focus on structures and processes, and a limited emphasis on evaluating changes in patient care".
      Let us consider some of the things that the Government said would be achieved, compared with what has actually happened. The NAO states:
      "Seventy-one per cent. of trusts are still operating with bed occupancy levels higher than the 82 per cent. target that the Department told the Committee"—
      the Public Accounts Committee—
      "it hoped to achieve by 2003–04."
      Fifty-six per cent. of trusts undertook risk assessment in respect of isolation facilities, but only a quarter had secured the required facilities. The NAO states that
      "it is impossible to quantify with any certainty if there have been any changes in NHS Trusts' infection rates."
      By that I assume that it means infection rates generally, as distinct from the very specific MRSA hospital-wide data that were published as a result of mandatory surveillance. The NAO went on to say:
      "There has been no progress in introducing a national post-discharge surveillance scheme as recommended by the Committee".
      There is clearly a substantial difference of opinion between the NAO and the Government on the question of the production of information and the way in which it is to be used. The NAO further states:
      "Feedback of specific local infection rates to clinical staff is vital".
      In its summary, which I shall quote at rather greater length as it includes several specific points, the NAO states:
      "The new mandatory national surveillance schemes do not currently enable clinicians to identify and reduce risks within their own specialty. In the absence of ownership and access to such data, hospital acquired infection is still perceived as a problem for the infection control team to deal with"—
      44
      so those in the NHS with clinical responsibility do not regard such infection as their own problem—
      "and consequently many of the issues identified as barriers to effective infection control practice in our original report still apply. Considerable improvements could therefore still be made in: the coverage of education and training in infection control to all groups of staff, particularly doctors; compliance with guidance on issues such as hand hygiene, catheter care and aseptic technique; antibiotic prescribing in hospitals; hospital cleanliness; and consultation with the infection control team on wider trust activities such as new build projects."
      Given that the Secretary of State doubtless had access to the NAO's findings, one might have thought that his purpose in publishing the new document last Monday was to demonstrate that—even though the chief medical officer had published previous recommendations in detail—he was taking personal responsibility to ensure that what the NAO said had not been done would be done. However, that is not what happened. That new document, entitled "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection", begins with patient environment action teams' assertions about cleanliness in hospitals. It states that these teams
      "have been assessing hospital cleanliness from a patient perspective since 2000 and have found consistent improvement".
      That is the position from which the Secretary of State begins, but how is that to be reconciled with the views of the Healthcare Commission? Two weeks ago, it said that
      "there is only weak agreement between cleanliness scores produced by official inspections of NHS Trusts and patient survey results on the cleanliness of the in-patient facilities of those Trusts".
      The National Audit Office also looked into the same issue and its report states that
      "only a third of infection control teams believe that standards have improved",
      where cleanliness is concerned,
      "in over half of the clinical areas in their trust over the last two years".
      There is no certainty, as the Secretary of State appears to believe that there is, about improvements in cleanliness.
      It is curious that the Secretary of State's document seems to be designed around the proposition that increased cleanliness necessarily leads to improved infection control. I do not think that any of us believes that poor cleanliness is consistent with good infection control—we view cleanliness and such control as complementary—but I do not think that anyone has any evidence to suggest that good or improved standards of cleanliness are a sufficient condition for good-quality infection control. If we examine the professional advice given to hospitals, it is perfectly clear that there is a requirement for a range of special measures associated with infection control that go beyond any patient's individual perception of what constitutes a clean hospital for this purpose.
      It is disappointing that the Secretary of State appears not to believe what the Department told him in the departmental report—effectively that common sense tells us that cleanliness and infection rates are related to one another, but that there is no hard evidence to show that that is the case. That is what the departmental report said only about three months ago. The Secretary of State, however, has clearly decided that, if he can

      45
      convince the public that they will have clean hospitals, he can also convince them that they will also have, by extension, low-infection hospitals. Clean hospitals are very important and it is necessary that we secure them, but the Secretary of State has started to push cleanliness and infection control together as if they were entirely the same thing.
      Let us examine the weight that the Secretary of State places in his latest document on the empowerment of patients and, in particular, on the hand hygiene project launched by the National Patient Safety Agency. It is mentioned on page 38 of the National Audit Office report that the project began at the John Radcliffe hospital, Oxford and that a range of pilot sites developed from that while the "clean your hands" project was being evaluated. It is due for national rollout this year.
      The John Radcliffe had 92 cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus between April 2001 and 2002; 114 from April 2002 to March 2003; and 127 from April 2003 to March 2004. Let us compare that record with some of the other pilot sites for the "clean your hands" project. At the Queens Medical Centre, such cases have increased from 58 to 77 over the last year; at the Royal Devon and Exeter from 36 to 50; and at St. George's Health Care NHS Trust from 75 to 93. No one would argue that there is no merit in the "clean your hands" campaign. Everything that it says is right and should be followed, but it is not sufficient. The Secretary of State appears to be treating it as if the process of trying to ensure cleanliness in hospitals is sufficient for infection control purposes. It is not.
      I was deeply disturbed by the way in which the Department, presumably for presentational reasons, set out just over a week ago to try to convince the public that the Secretary of State regarded this matter as a new issue and that he would take a hands-on approach and try to resolve it. He then publishes this document, but there are aspects of "Towards cleaner hospitals and Lower Rates of Infection" that make life even worse from the NHS point of view. Previously, it had the chief medical officer's document "Winning Ways", but things have been left out of the new document—and the NAO report referred to some of them, such as the importance of reduced use of catheters in intravenous drips and invasive procedures. That is in "Winning Ways" and is referred to by the NAO, but it does not get a mention in "Towards cleaner hospitals". The prudent use of antibiotics is also important and was mentioned in "Winning Ways". The importance of emphasising infection control in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula for doctors, nurses and other NHS professionals is in "Winning Ways" but is not referred to in "Towards cleaner hospitals".
      5 pm
      One might be forgiven for thinking that the Secretary of State, or others acting on his behalf, had cobbled together the document at a few days' notice—including a number of things that were due to happen anyway, such as the publication of standards, the roll-out of national surveillance and the National Patient Safety Agency's "clean your hands" campaign—and published it a couple of days before the National Audit Office
      46
      report to try to offset the range, depth and seriousness of its criticism of the Government's failure to achieve reduced rates of infection control.
      Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that both versions of the original PDF version of the document—it was placed on the Government's website, and I also had a copy emailed to my office—had blank pages where there were meant to be new initiatives.
      Mr. Lansley: That is very interesting. The hon. Gentleman may be able to speculate a bit more about that when he makes his contribution. My proposition may well be reinforced by that thought.
      I want to give others, albeit perhaps not that many, the opportunity to speak, so let me return to the failure of the 20 or so documents that the Government have published in one form or other. If it were possible to achieve improvements in performance in the NHS by publishing documents, that would have happened already, but it has not. Why not? It will not happen simply because somebody publishes a statement of standards. But it will happen—on this point, at least, the Secretary of State has belatedly accepted one of our propositions—if NHS institutions are increasingly required to respond to the demands of patient choice and are provided with the information necessary to enable patients to exercise that choice and incentivise their hospitals to respond.
      Unfortunately, it is not clear whether the information provided will be sufficient for that purpose. I am forcefully reminded by some of those who work in hospitals that the current hospital-wide MRSA data do not distinguish between infections brought into a hospital and those acquired in it. Now, that is not easy to do. As the best guidelines appear to suggest, there is sufficient screening in some clinical specialities to demonstrate the prevalence of infection in a hospital, but it would be a major task to achieve pre-admission screening across hospitals generally. But it can be achieved in some circumstances, and the National Audit Office report notes the successful impact of pre-admission screening at University College hospital in London.
      We agree with the Government that it is important quickly to reach the point—indeed, it should be done more quickly than they propose—at which data are introduced in a form that allows the relative importance of cleanliness and infection control to be demonstrated to patients so that it can form part of their decisions. However, the Government do not propose the kind of independent system that we need to back that up. At every point, one continues to see, for example, the imposition of Government targets, and they will, of course, have a new target for MRSA. However, as we learned from the National Audit Office report,
      "Many of the survey responses from trust senior management identified difficulties reconciling the management of hospital acquired infection with the fulfilment of government performance targets."
      Indeed, 50 per cent. of those responses singled out compliance with waiting times and, I suspect, bed occupancy rates and the like.

      47
      It should be for patients and hospitals to determine the balance between bed occupancy rates, waiting times and patient choice. Where patients regard a hospital as good, efficient, clean and with minimal infection rates, they will be able to make a trade-off between that and the waiting times with which they may have to comply to enter that hospital rather than another one. We shall arrive at that situation only when there is independence in the NHS system.
      Over the past few days, we have been driven to conclude that, through his latest intervention, the Secretary of State has only further demonstrated the Government's desire to interfere with the NHS for presentational reasons and to confuse the already confused picture concerning guidance. We are already to have a new set of criteria from the Commission for Health Improvement, in response to the new health care standards.
      The Secretary of State's document does not appear to build appropriately on "Winning Ways", published by the chief medical officer. Under the Bill, the Government propose to set up a body geared to the control of the spread of infectious diseases, yet the Public Health Laboratory Service, in the past, and the Health Protection Agency special health authority more recently have demonstrated their competence to understand the control of infectious diseases in a health care context, and have published guidance for that purpose. After reading the working party guidelines, I was far more informed about how a hospital would, in reality, manage infection control than by reading anything that the Department of Health has produced recently.
      If there are to be such standards for the NHS to respond to, everything points to their being produced by a more independent body, with the necessary competence. Such a body would be more likely to command support across the NHS in publishing standards that were not only practical but also evidence-based and peer-reviewed. They should form the basis for the NHS response.
      The Health Protection Agency needs a legal basis on which to publish a statement of standards relating to its responsibilities for infection—something that is part of the legal structure that NHS bodies must observe. New clause 1 would give the agency that responsibility and take it away from Ministers who have so transparently failed to tackle infection control in the NHS and have recently made the situation worse.
      I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Burstow: I support the new clause; it is useful and would improve the Bill. It also enables us to explore a little further some of the issues discussed outside this place last week, in conversations on the GMTV sofa and following the publication of the NAO report.
      In my intervention on the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), I referred to "Towards cleaner hospitals", because it struck me as symbolic of the true content of the document that neither of the two copies sent electronically to my office could be opened, so one could not see what was new about the Government's announcements. I fear that as we
      48
      examine that document in greater detail we shall find that there is almost nothing—if anything—new and that it was merely a ragbag of recycled announcements brought together to provide some cover in a particularly embarrassing week, before the publication of the NAO report last Thursday and, subsequently, of the latest MRSA figures. The figures were brought forward so that they could be published on the same day as the NAO report, thereby conflating them with it and obscuring their importance. I am, therefore, sceptical about what the Government proposed on Monday.
      My scepticism was reinforced by the fact that I understand that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire quite properly sought to secure an urgent question to enable the matter to be discussed, but that his request was declined for various reasons. Indeed, no written statement was made to the House. My understanding of the conventions—I may be wrong; if I am, I am sure I will be put right—is that new policy and substantive changes in Government policy must be announced first in the House, not on the sofa of GMTV. Therefore, one can only conclude charitably that the Secretary of State for Health has not announced a new policy to deal with the threat of hospital-acquired infections. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire gently discussed the reasoning and rationale behind the publication of the document on Monday, but its publication was very much about managing the fallout from a very negative report that examined the Government's progress since 2000, when the NAO first considered the issue in detail and made its comprehensive set of recommendations to the Government.
      I want to explore one or two of the issues in the report that fit very nicely with the standard-setting responsibilities that the new clause would give the Health Protection Agency. It is right that a body with a deal of independence from Government has the responsibility of becoming almost the critical friend when it comes to such issues. Only a couple of weeks ago the Health Protection Agency set out the scientific basis for some of its concerns and what it saw as the links between bed occupancy rates and hospital-acquired infections—something that is reiterated and borne out in the NAO report.
      The new clause picks up on an issue that I raised in Committee during debates on amendment No. 5, which I tabled and which said:
      "The Agency shall draw up and consult on a protocol with the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to collect and publish information concerning the performance of NHS organisations in controlling healthcare-acquired infections."
      The Minister said that that was unnecessary because it would be covered in the star ratings. The criticism in the NAO report, which relates to the Government's attempted rebuttal of my amendment in Committee, seems to be that the star-rating system is much more focused on process than on outcomes. In other words, people can tick all the boxes, adhere to all the guidelines and have wonderful policies lining the shelves of the infection control team's office, but whether or not people still pick up infections and get sicker in hospital would not count in awarding the star ratings. Surely that must be the litmus test of whether the NHS is getting to

      49
      grips with the problem of hospital-acquired infections, irrespective of whether those involved have ticked all the boxes and have all the manuals in place.
      The report "Winning Ways", which was published last December, shows that, according to currently available data, the Government have achieved only a small improvement. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that and say what will be done, in concrete terms, to change it. That small improvement was mentioned not only in "Winning Ways", the chief medical officer's report, but in the Commission for Health Improvement's findings. In its annual report, published in May 2003, the commission concluded that it
      "had seen few examples of notable practice in infection control; good policies did not always exist and, even when they did, they were often not followed sufficiently well to make them effective."
      The new clause proposes a mechanism to ensure that the standards are grounded in good practice across the NHS.
      The NAO refers at paragraph 2.21 of its report to the fact that it undertook a survey in February to evaluate the implementation of a number of aspects of the Government's policies. It found that trusts expressed concern that, for example, the only people who could undertake the role of the new director of infection control in hospitals were the existing infection control doctors. There still seems to be a great deal of uncertainty and lack of clarity on the ground about the precise remit of infection control directors. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on that.
      5.15 pm
      One of the most worrying findings was contained in paragraph 2.25 of the report. Almost one in four NHS trusts—24 per cent.—said that they had cut their budgets for infection control since the NAO last looked at the issue in 2000. That is an extraordinary finding, and I hope that the Government were sufficiently disturbed by it to make their own inquiries through the strategic health authorities and so forth.
      Another figure struck me when I read the NAO report, and its significance was reinforced by representations that I received last week from the Infection Control Nurses Association, which feels rather shut out from the Government's latest set of announcements about how to take forward the fight against infection. Paragraph 2.32 of the NAO report states:
      "Twelve per cent. of infection control teams reported that their recommendation to close a ward or hospital to admissions for the purpose of outbreak control was refused or discouraged by their chief executive. Two per cent. of teams also reported that their strategic health authority had refused or discouraged their recommendation."
      One of the points that the Infection Control Nurses Association strongly put to me was that it feels quite insulted by the idea that the best way to solve the crisis of infection within the NHS is to fly in experts from abroad when there are experts in our country who are not being adequately used, sufficiently consulted or given the authority on the ground to do the job. It is strange that, four years on, the NAO is yet again having to recommend in its report that it should be mandatory
      50
      that infection control teams are consulted on the letting of a range of contracts from cleaning and laundry to catering. It is disturbing that, when it comes to their judgment being applied with regard to the risk of infection and outbreaks, those teams are being turned down, presumably because of concerns about hitting targets.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the NAO report's remarks on chief executives. It said:
      "Almost 50 per cent. reported that waiting times for inpatient treatment had caused conflicts, one third that trolley waits in accident and emergency departments caused conflicts, and one in ten experienced difficulties in reconciling the management and control of hospital acquired infection with other targets."
      The truth is that the Government's obsession with targets—the targets and tick boxes that they have so many of nationally—gets in the way of, and conflicts with, the objectives of trying to contain and prevent infection. That is not my view; it is the view of NHS managers and staff articulated through the NAO report. It is no wonder that on Monday the Government were keen to do all that they could to cast a shadow over that report so as to obscure its findings.
      The report's findings on bed occupancy are also worth commenting on, and I hope that the Minister will address them. When the Government responded to the NAO report and the Public Accounts Committee on this matter in 2000–01, they basically said, "Don't worry; it will be sorted out because we will make a massive investment in the NHS so there will be more beds, more staff and bed occupancy rates will come down." However, we now know from paragraph 2.34 of the NAO report that the reverse has happened: bed occupancy rates have gone up. In answer to a parliamentary question that I asked, I learned that, according to the Department of Health's hospital activity statistics, whereas bed occupancy rates were 80.8 per cent. in 1996–97, they rose to 86.5 per cent. by 2002–03. That is a significant increase, well above that which the Health Protection Agency seems to think would be appropriate and certainly well above that which the NAO recommends in response to the representations that it has received.
      On the Bill's Second Reading, I raised some questions about surveillance, which go to the heart of how to ensure that standards really are bedding down and having traction on the problem. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), to outline the timetable for the roll-out of the surveillance of other types of hospital-acquired infection, because I understand that MRSA accounts for only 44 per cent. of such infections. Subsequent to that, the NAO report makes interesting reading, because paragraph 3.5 states:
      "Instead of developing mandatory specialty specific surveillance of bloodstream, surgical site and urinary tract infections whose information would be fed back to clinicians to improve practice, the Department focussed on trust wide surveillance of MRSA bacteraemias and other specific organisms, together with plans for mandatory reporting of orthopaedic surgical site infection."
      Although the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to say that it would be an engine for choice if people had information and a clearer idea of the worst hospitals for infection, surely the key is to

      51
      provide clinicians with information in such a way that they may identify how mistakes are made so that practice can be changed. The current system does not do that. Indeed, the scariest statistic from the report is that 18 per cent. of infection control teams fail to carry out any surveillance activities other than the mandatory MRSA bacterium surveillance. No other activity is going on in many of our trusts to find out which parts of hospitals are experiencing the worst rates of infection so that real feedback may be given to clinicians to enable them to change practice and save lives.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government, at long last, are ensuring that the succession of initiatives and announcements—recycled, re-announced and so on—are beginning to have a real effect on the NHS. Will she also tell us when the Infection Control Nurses Association will have the opportunity to meet Ministers to discuss its worries about Monday's announcement and the NAO's findings, and talk about how it may help the Government to crack the problem of infection?
      Mr. John Redwood: I rise to support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) because it is desperately important to tackle the problem as vigorously and objectively as possible. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have had seven years of initiatives—well-intentioned ones, I am sure—from Secretaries of State and Ministers in the Department of Health that have failed to deliver. Seven years on, and many circulars and directives later, we still have unacceptably high rates of infection in our hospitals. As we have heard, infection rates have risen dangerously in some hospitals over recent years, and there have often been no positive responses to the exhortations from the centre.
      I support new clause 1 because, like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have constituents who have paid a high price for the failure of a local hospital to control infection. I recently received a letter from one of my constituents who went to the local district general hospital for an operation at the end of last year. My constituent was told that a full recovery from the wounds that the surgeon had to inflict was very likely and that their quality of life would be much improved after the operation had been successfully carried out. Seven months later, my constituent is in more pain than that experienced before going to hospital to get the original problem sorted out. My constituent contracted a dangerous infection in the wound as a result of the hospital operation, and had to be readmitted twice so that the wound could be reopened and cleansed under hospital conditions. On each occasion, the process was not only painful but failed to overcome the obstinate infection that had got into the wound, presumably when the original operation was performed. My constituent had to spend a couple of months on antibiotics, but that has still not solved the problem.
      In a macabre way, I suppose that my constituent was lucky because they did not die—we know that all too many hundreds of people die as a result of severe infections contracted in hospital by one means or another. This Government are all too ready to tackle the
      52
      problems of death and serious injury on the roads, when perhaps as many as one in eight of all accidents are caused partly or wholly by speed. The Government are always dramatic in their moves to try to control speed on the roads, yet far more people die in our hospitals as a result of mistakes and infections contracted in our hospitals, where there is not the same sense of urgency.
      One of my objections to the way the Government legislate and respond is that if the problem lies in the private sector, the answer is regulation and legislation, often with criminal charges, penalties and prosecutions attached, but if the problem is in the public sector, the answer is exhortation and another quango, and not the same sense of urgency or seriousness. I see the Minister objecting, but she must see the justice of what I am saying. My constituents are very angry that there is still so much infection and danger in our hospitals.
      Of course, elective surgery has always been a risky process. It entails first wounding the patient in order to bring about a much better life for them in due course. It is worth taking the risk of having the skin and muscle cut through if the surgeon is skilful, as they often are, and if, as a result of surgery, a part of the body that will not work properly can be removed or a part of the body can be repaired. Many fine things are done by many brilliant surgeons around the country and many of us are grateful for their work. We hope we will not need it, but we will be very grateful should we need it ourselves.
      If the risk of a serious infection while the process is under way becomes too great, the entire question of what we are doing in hospitals is opened up with an entirely different balance of risk. If someone is told that they will probably have a substantial improvement in their quality of life if a non-threatening condition is tackled, they will say, "Well, I don't mind the pain for a few weeks from a flesh wound that will repair." But if they are told, "By the way, there is a danger that while you are going through that process, you might contract something that causes you permanent pain or that was even life-threatening in itself," that will lead people to ask, "Is that really what I want? Is this what we should be doing?"
      I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that one of the issues that need to be tackled in the new clause and in the Bill is bed utilisation. Bed utilisation in the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading, my local district general, is undoubtedly too high. I am someone who likes to use public money wisely and usually I favour great productivity, but there are limits. There must be enough time between one user of a hospital bed and another to ensure thorough cleaning and preparation of the bed and the ward or the room, so that the new patient is not likely to be at risk as a result of over-utilisation of the bed and perhaps some rushing of the procedures that should be undertaken to prepare the bed and the area for the new patient.
      I quite understand how managers and senior doctors in hospitals, faced day after day with the terrible problem that there are not enough beds and there are people in the corridors, people queuing and people needing treatment, say, "Let's just clear the bed and get on with it," but we must take some of the strain off them by offering enough beds in our hospitals and enough facilities so that we can have a more civilised regime, so

      53
      that there are not queues at the doors and so that there is adequate time between patients to make sure that all the right procedures are followed.
      As my hon. Friend said, the Secretary of State intruded into the debate in recent days, without the courtesy of a statement to the House of Commons, to say that he would be hands-on and would solve the problem of cleanliness in hospitals. I do not think that that will work. I do not believe it is possible for any man or woman, however talented and energetic, to be personally responsible for the cleanliness of every hospital and every surgery throughout the country, or simply by the magnetism or lack of magnetism of their personality to ensure that every one of the million-plus staff follows all the right procedures all the time to guarantee that conditions are clean enough.
      It may be, as my hon. Friend said, that the Secretary of State was going to be hands-on by way of washing his hands of responsibility. We certainly hope he will wash his hands thoroughly before taking responsibility and before intruding in this sensitive area. He seems to think that hand-washing is one of the most important routines that has not been properly observed in recent years.
      I will support my hon. Friend, as the new clause is a valiant attempt to bring about improvement and change in an important area. I hope the Minister understands how desperately important that is to many constituents contemplating operations or who have recently had operations, who want the reassurance from someone within such a mighty organisation that everything is being done to get on top of the problem and, more importantly, that infection rates are falling rapidly and not continuing to rise, as they have done in many places in recent years. Patients and constituents expect no less. They expect clean hospitals but, above all, they expect to have hospitals in which infection control is taken seriously and successfully implemented. It cannot be beyond the NHS, with all the money now at its disposal and all the people whom the Government say they are now recruiting, to control infection better. We owe it to our constituents, and I hope that the Minister will accept my hon. Friend's new clause in that spirit.
      5.30 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I shall try to address all the issues that have been raised, but I shall try also to relate my comments to the new clause, as Opposition Members have made little effort to do so.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) raised the question of standards and the work that is going on. I draw his attention to the fact that his proposals would lead to the HPA having power to set standards, but no responsibility to resource them. The reason why we do not support such proposals is that they would divorce responsibilities for standards from those for money. Under the new clause that he advocates, the agency would be able to set standards, but would have no responsibility to meet the bill. I do not think that it would take him much effort to work out why any Government of any political persuasion would think that that might not be a desirable situation. That is one of our three basic objections to his proposals.
      54
      On the question of standards generally and what we are doing about them, we have already issued standards, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was confident that we had issued so many and that we had regularly issued guidance. I was not sure whether he made those points as a criticism. They seemed to me to be a compliment, and I chose to take them as such. However, the issue of health care-acquired infections is a question not of dealing with only one component, but of bringing together a set of components. Indeed, I thought that that was the point that a number of hon. Members made in their contributions. That is why we need a multi-pronged approach that brings together the sort of issues to do with standards that need to be brought together, as well as the guidance that goes with them.
      Of course, we are following up the publications that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We do so through National Care Standards Commission work, through PEAT—patient environment action team—inspections and through the Commission for Health Improvement and its successor body, the new CHI. We follow up all those things.
      .Mr. Lansley: We are supposed to call it the Healthcare Commission.
      Miss Johnson: We are indeed. To help the hon. Gentleman, I shall be absolutely correct in these matters.
      We do not believe that there is any room for complacency. The nub of the issue has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, although they have not been as up-front as they should be about acknowledging it. The crux of the issue is implementing the standards. The overall guidance includes standards, and work continues to make sure that the standards are right. We must ensure that we get them right, which requires the compliance of all NHS staff. The guidance covers everything from estates to consultants and back again, and people must get standards right throughout the NHS.
      Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister give way?
      Miss Johnson: Yes, provided that the hon. Gentleman does not raise a point that he made earlier.
      Mr. Burstow: Heaven forbid. I agree with the Minister about the importance of compliance. In a written answer some months ago, she indicated that the Government were not minded to undertake and publish an audit of compliance with the published guidance to date. Do the Government still take the view that an audit to see whether compliance is being achieved on the ground is not necessary?
      Miss Johnson: We are making sure that the outcomes improve.
      The other day, the Secretary of State for Health made an announcement, and I am sorry the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was not included on the sofa at the television station—he obviously took it badly, and I regret that he did not get that opportunity. Had the Secretary of State's announcement raised any problems

      55
      in relation to the powers and prerogatives of this House, I am sure that they would have been raised and that the House would have opined accordingly.
      The proposals cover six main areas, many of which are based on the notion that we must improve compliance and implementation. Measures such as being open, displaying information about infection levels, involving patients, making sure that matrons control cleaners, including housekeeping buttons on patients' bedside phones and cleanliness inspections, the results of which will be made public, are all important in improving compliance and dealing with health care-acquired infection and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in particular.
      Mr. Redwood: Given that the most serious threat occurs in situations such as the one that I described, where the infection took place in the operating theatre when the wound was open, how will those procedures help cleanliness in operating theatres, where nurses and surgeons work, or in the preparation of patients before operations?
      Miss Johnson: It depends. All of us sympathise with any patient who experiences the same difficulties as the right hon. Gentleman's constituent. The risk depends on the procedures and the type of surgery. If one undergoes surgery to the stomach or gut, the risk of acquiring an infection is substantially greater than that in orthopaedics, where special provisions are made tightly to control infection and where those parts of the body are not directly involved. Different parts of hospitals clearly face different issues, and it would be wrong to make a blanket statement.
      A second area of difficulty is contained in new clause 1. We have consulted on key standards across a wide range of areas and are currently collating our response. Those standards will be linked to decisions on priorities and resources. That brings me back to what I said earlier about the importance of linking the two.
      As a service provider, the agency needs to consider how it can work with the primary care trusts and other NHS bodies as equal partners. That relationship would be undermined if, as envisaged in new clause 1, the agency had the unilateral power to specify standards for PCTs. Awkward tensions could arise between the agency and NHS bodies that it works alongside to support. The new clause would not bring about a desirable change.
      The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) asked about innovation in relation to infection control. On the whole, there are no amazing discoveries to be made about the subject—it is not rocket science. He criticised what we are doing in respect of cleaner hospitals for its lack of innovation. On that, and on star ratings, we are trying to encourage compliance in terms of audit outcomes. The hon. Gentleman suggested, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, that the star ratings are not important. That is an odd complaint, because they relate to whether certain processes are carried out. The hon. Gentleman nodded when I mentioned compliance; I think that he recognises that that is the core issue on which we need to
      56
      achieve improvement. That is why much of the Secretary of State's recent announcement featured compliance and related issues.
      Mr. Burstow: The Minister talks about auditing outcomes in terms of compliance. Will she undertake to start to collect and publish the outcomes of those audits so that the public, clinicians and others can see whether compliance is really being delivered?
      Miss Johnson: We are certainly saying, in relation to published information—[interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shrugs, but the audits carried out at a local level by patient forums, in line with guidance set by infection control experts, will be published quarterly. Such information is the best indicator of whether we are making the improvements that we should.
      As regards the director of infection prevention and control, of course people other than doctors can carry out that role. Some post holders may be senior nurses, who are extremely well qualified for the job. Indeed, the Bristol trust's director of infection prevention and control chairs the Infection Control Nurses Association.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman on staffing and expertise in the health service. The press notice that accompanied the Secretary of State's announcement made it clear that we are consulting our own experts as well as experts from abroad. Many individuals are leading substantial work to improve infection control in their trusts. Recent publicity in the media in the past couple of weeks has covered that. It is vital to use our expertise, which we greatly value, as well as considering what we can learn from abroad if we are to get the right control mechanisms to achieve the outcomes that we want on health care-acquired infections generally and MRSA in particular.
      5.45 pm
      I want to consider bed occupancy because we need to strike a balance between bed management and the risks of health care-acquired infection. "Winning Ways" covers that and the matter is being progressed. Although we need to ensure that the balance is right, we must also make sure that we use beds efficiently. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) continues to support efficiency because we should not ignore it. It is clear that we need to avoid risk to patients by ensuring that one patient is kept separate from another so that infection is not passed between them.
      Such passing on of infection may happen because the patients are in the same part of the hospital or because a health care professional passes from one patient to another. We need to ensure that, apart from the environment, the processes that involve individual members of staff who deal with patients are correct. For example, it is important that members of staff wash their hands. That might seem a small thing but we all acknowledge its importance. That is why so much emphasis was placed on it today and in the Secretary of State's earlier announcement.
      The new clause would not be helpful for all the reasons that I have outlined. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not support it. The Health Protection

      57
      Agency can, should and will make a big contribution to raising health protection standards. We want the agency to be an authoritative source of advice, information and support on infectious disease and other health protection matters. The Bill provides for that.
      However, the Secretary of State remains responsible for policy on health and health protection. That applies to the National Assembly for Wales for matters that are devolved to Wales. The policy therefore needs to take account not only of health protection issues about which the agency is well placed to advise but other matters, including judgments about affordability and competing priorities for the NHS and more generally.
      The current agency is an authoritative source of advice, which contributes to the policies of both the Secretary of State and the National Assembly. As I said earlier, a range of other bodies, including the Food Standards Agency, which I did not mention, the Healthcare Commission and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence also want to have an input into the advice and the work. They are well placed to help to put many policies into practice, for example, through their support for health protection services locally. I hope that I have answered the points and I commend the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for their contributions. I want to correct one point that I made earlier. When I referred to the National Audit Office, I used an example from University college hospital London. However, that was to do with post-discharge surveillance. The example of screening patients for elective surgery was from the Princess Royal hospital in Brighton.
      The Under-Secretary said that she had three objections to the new clause, but we heard only two. Neither were the ones that I expected and I believe that they are damaging suggestions. She said that standard setting would be divorced from resources. That is rather curious, because when we look at the consultation document on the setting of standards, we see that the detailed criteria will be set out by the new Healthcare Commission. The document states:
      "This relationship between the proposed standards and the independent Commission represents a significant step change between the approach to quality improvement in the future and the approach adopted to date".
      The Government are proposing that the criteria for standards should be published by an independent body that is not itself responsible for the provision of resources, so argument No. 1 from the Minister simply falls to one side.
      Argument No. 2 was that decisions on standards had to be linked to priorities. We know, however, that although the National Audit Office cannot be too specific, it has stated that the evidence is that effective infection control is a cost-effective measure that is likely to reduce the call on resources. No one is attempting to dispute that. However, the Minister appears to be arguing that the Health Protection Agency, the body that the Government are establishing to be responsible for the control of infectious diseases and for the
      58
      prevention of the spread of those diseases, will not be able to set standards, even though it has that responsibility, because it will not be able to take account of affordability and competing priorities. The core standards that the chief medical officer published included, under the heading "Safety", the requirement that the
      "risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors is minimised".
      There is nothing in the standards document to suggest that the achievement of a minimised infection environment for patients—which ought to be an absolute priority—should to be compromised by reference to affordability or competing priorities. It is clearly cost effective when the NHS achieves it, and the Health Protection Agency—as distinct from the Healthcare Commission—will have the expertise to specify the criteria involved, and it ought to be the responsibility of the agency to do so.
      The Minister has offered no argument against the new clause and, on that basis, I invite my colleagues to support it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 297.

      Division No. 230]

      [5:52 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Curry, rh David

      Allan, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Amess, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Bacon, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Baker, Norman

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, Nigel

      Barker, Gregory

      Fallon, Michael

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Barrett, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Flight Howard

      Bercow, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Goodman, Paul

      Brady, Graham

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Brazier, Julian

      Grayling, Chris

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Greenway, John

      Burns, Simon

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burnside, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Burstow, Paul

      Hague, rh William

      Burt, Alistair

      Hammond, Philip

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Hancock, Mike

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Heald, Oliver

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Heath, David

      Cameron, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Holmes, Paul

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Chidgey, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Clappison, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Collins, Tim

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Cotter, Brian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      59

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lamb, Norman

      Selous, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

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

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Loughton, Tim

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spring, Richard

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Streeter, Gary

      Maples, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Swayne, Desmond

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Teather, Sarah

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thurso, John

      Page, Richard

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Paice, James

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Paterson, Owen

      Walter, Robert

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Whittingdale, John

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Willetts, David

      Randall, John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Redwood, rh John

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Roe, Dame Marion

      Young, rh Sir George

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hugh Robertson and

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burden, Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Burgon, Colin

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Burnham, Andy

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale Darwen)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Cairns, David

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Baird, Vera

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Challen, Colin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Betts, Clive

      Blackman, Liz

      Clelland, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Borrow, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cohen, Harry

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Corston, Jean

      60

      Cousins, Jim

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Efford, Clive

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Etherington, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lammy, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lepper, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Follett, Barbara

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Grogan, John

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacDougall, John

      Hanson, David

      McFall, rh John

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Rhymney)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Healey, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hendrick, Mark

      MacShane, Denis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWalter, Tony

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      McWilliam, John

      Heyes, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Sefton E)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Miliband, David

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Miller, Andrew

      Urmston)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mole, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Morley, Elliot

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Illsley, Eric

      Mountford, Kali

      61

      Mudie, George

      Singh, Marsha

      Mullin, Chris

      Skinner, Dennis

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Finsbury)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      O'Hara, Edward

      Lunesdale)

      Olner, Bill

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Soley, Clive

      Organ, Diana

      Spellar, rh John

      Perham, Linda

      Squire, Rachel

      Picking, Anne

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lochaber)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pollard, Kerry

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Stringer, Graham

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      E)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prescott, rh John

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Purnell, James

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Trickett, Jon

      Rammell, Bill

      Truswell, Paul

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Kemptown)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Bellshill)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Anniesland)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Ward, Claire

      NW)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Rooney, Terry

      Watts, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      White, Brian

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Chester)

      C)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Salter, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Yarmouth)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Sheridan, Jim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Short, rh Clare

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 5

      CO-OPERATION
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 6, at end insert—
      '(2A) To facilitate co-operation the Agency shall consult with other bodies and publish protocols for co-operation.'.
      I want to speak briefly to this amendment, which concerns an issue that we explored in some detail in Committee. The amendment relates to clause 5, which deals with co-operation between organisations, including the Health Protection Agency, not only to enable that agency to deliver its functions but, in other circumstances, to enable other bodies to discharge some of theirs. There is a mutual duty to co-operate.
      62
      One of my concerns, which arose partly from a speech made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), and also from other hon. Members' speeches, is that the clause's drafting leaves open quite a few questions about how the duty to co-operate will be realised in practice. I tabled an amendment in Committee that was intended to include in the Bill permission for the HPA to draw up and consult on protocols on discharging the duty of co-operation with other agencies. In exchanges in Committee, the Minister resisted the amendment, because, in her words, it was both burdensome and prescriptive. It was far from my intention to create a burdensome and prescriptive measure. I sought assurance after the Committee consideration of the amendment about whether the wording could be construed as prescriptive or whether it could be more appropriately construed as permissive. I am advised—and have therefore re-tabled it for consideration today—that its character is more permissive than prescriptive.
      The intention of the amendment is simply to introduce a mechanism into the Bill that provides for the Health Protection Agency, when it must work with other bodies in order to discharge its functions, to consult on and draw up protocols. It is permissive, because reference is made to the body having the power to do that. I commend the amendment to the scrutiny of hon. Members.
      In Committee, we had a useful contribution from the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who raised a number of concerns about the need for such protocols, not least to deal with arrangements between the Health Protection Agency and other bodies, such as local authorities, in the event of radiological, biological or chemical attacks. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire expressed concern about the lack of co-operation at times between the Environment Agency and other bodies, particularly the Health Protection Agency.
      In Committee, I raised the issue of who took responsibility, and where the buck stopped, in the handling of outbreaks—particularly outbreaks that might involve zoonosis, or potential transfer from animals to humans. The Minister asserted several times that a protocol specifying who might, in certain circumstances, make the decision would be inappropriate and that it would be appropriate for that to be dealt with solely through co-operation. That, surely, is a recipe for chaos. Protocols can clarify such questions as whether a Minister or an agency will make the decision.
      The amendment is intended to improve the Bill and to provide, on a permissive rather than a prescriptive basis, a mechanism enabling the HPA, with partner agencies, to draw up suitable fit-for-purpose protocols at the least possible cost to the taxpayer and with the greatest possible benefit in terms of effective service with co-operation being the key.
      Dr. Andrew Murrison: I support this sensible amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) went to some trouble in Committee to outline his views on co-operation, especially in emergencies. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) talked about that as well.

      63
      The amendment sets out, in a reasonably prescriptive way, the arrangements that might exist between the HPA and other bodies. As the Minister will recall, I pointed out in Committee that those bodies were not specified in the Bill. She gave me a reasonable explanation, but it is a burden for the bodies that are expected to co-operate with the agency not to know who they are. The Minister and I discussed that in some detail.
      The amendment will probably help by describing the precise nature of the co-operation. That will be particularly beneficial when there is not enough time to make detailed decisions on any form of working arrangement. The work is being done before the emergency arises. I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Newark were present, he would strongly support a measure that would deal with some of the anxieties he expressed at length in Committee.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: As I explained in Committee, our 2002 consultation paper noted that the agency would need to co-operate with other bodies, and the responses supported that proposal. That is why clause 4 provides for the agency and other bodies exercising related functions to have a mutual duty of co-operation.
      Although the thinking behind the amendment is clear, it is not clear how it would work in practice. Let me explain a few things. First, the principle of imposing a duty of co-operation is not new. The HPA already has a duty to co-operate with other NHS bodies and local authorities. Section 26 of the Health Act 1999 imposes a duty on NHS bodies to co-operate with each other and section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 creates a duty of co-operation between NHS bodies and local authorities. Secondly, "co-operation" means just that: it implies not wholesale rewriting of each other's priorities, but sensible working together to ensure that the public are served to best effect. Thirdly, it is normal and sensible to leave the details of how co-operation will work in practice to the parties concerned rather than prescribing them in primary legislation. Different levels and forms of working together will be appropriate in different circumstances and with different bodies.
      6.15 pm
      I do not believe that anything will be gained by our writing into the Bill a requirement for the agency to publish protocols on co-operation with other bodies. Such a requirement has not been found necessary in other contexts. There is, for example, no requirement in legislation for NHS bodies and local authorities to produce protocols explaining how they will co-operate. In practice, the agency and some of the bodies with which it will co-operate might well want to produce protocols or other forms of agreement if they were regularly to involve each other in certain procedures, but there might be cases in which protocols would not be appropriate and would not be required. Judgments about operational matters are best left to the agency and its partners rather than being prescribed in legislation.
      It is difficult to assess whether the amendment is meaningful. I realise that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has tried to resist the
      64
      temptation to prescribe in detail what co-operation should mean, but my first objection is that he is doing that. He has suggested a general requirement to produce and publish protocols on co-operation. He explained in Committee that the requirement
      "is not intended to be prescriptive. It is intended to indicate a mechanism, a natural part of which I would expect the HPA to be undertaking."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 June 2004: c. 25.]
      The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. His amendment is prescriptive: it dictates to the agency and its partners that they should have protocols. If, as he has argued, that is a natural part of what we would expect the HPA to undertake, there is no need to dictate to it and its partners that they should have such protocols.
      If the amendment is not too prescriptive—although it certainly could be—it can equally be interpreted as being meaningless. In some circumstances in which it is reasonable in the circumstances, the agency could discharge a proposed duty simply by producing a protocol saying that there shall be co-operation in appropriate circumstances and by appropriate means. Nothing would be gained by such a meaningless requirement. As I said in Committee, a legal requirement to publish protocols would also ignore the fact that there could be good reasons against publication in some circumstances. For example, there might well be a need for the agency to co-operate with the security services, but it would not necessarily be desirable for the details of that co-operation to be put in the public domain.
      The amendment is generally far too prescriptive. It undermines the hon. Gentleman's recognition in Committee that we do not wish to prescribe such matters. The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) described it as "reasonably prescriptive". I am not sure what that means, but I think that it is far too prescriptive, because it writes into primary legislation a requirement to publish protocols in co-operation with other bodies, which we do not need to do. The arrangements are already in place. I have already specified the precedents that show that this is unnecessary. We should give the bodies a certain amount of flexibility, because in certain circumstances prescription would be inappropriate.
      I hope that the House will reject the amendment, because I do not think it would necessarily have the effect that the hon. Gentleman wants. Good cooperation and good work on protocols will continue. That, not prescription in primary legislation, is what will deliver.
      Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) for his support and to the Minister for her response. The debate turns on what is read into the word "shall", and whether in this context it becomes "must". That, at least, is what the Minister seems to be trying to discuss with us.
      I do not agree with the construction that the Minister places on those words. The amendment is about trying to find a fail-safe mechanism to be used when cooperation is not being secured in other ways—a mechanism that need not be used in all circumstances, but that shall be available. I am still not convinced that

      65
      clause 5 is sufficiently clear to ensure that all the bodies that could play a part in helping the HPA to discharge its functions are brought into its ambit. My amendment seeks to achieve that as simply as possible. I was not persuaded by the Minister's argument to withdraw it, and I shall press it to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made—
      The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 287.

      Division No. 231]

      [6:20 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Garnier, Edward

      Allan, Richard

      Gidley, Sandra

      Amess, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Goodman, Paul

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Grayling, Chris

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Bacon, Richard

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Baker, Norman

      Greenway, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Grieve, Dominic

      Barker, Gregory

      Gummer, rh John

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hague, rh William

      Barrett, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Hancock, Mike

      Bellingham, Henry

      Heald, Oliver

      Bercow, John

      Heath, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Boswell, Tim

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Holmes, Paul

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Surrey)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brazier, Julian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Inverness)

      Burns, Simon

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burnside, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burstow, Paul

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burt, Alistair

      Lansley, Andrew

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lidington, David

      Cameron, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

      Loughton, Tim

      Fife)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Barnet)

      Maclean, rh David

      Chidgey, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Maples, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Collins, Tim

      Atcham)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Cotter, Brian

      Mercer, Patrick

      Curry, rh David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Coldfield)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stamford)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Norman, Archie

      Dodds, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Öpik, Lembit

      Doughty, Sue

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Pickles, Eric

      Westminster)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Forth, rh Eric

      Dinefwr)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Randall, John

      66

      Redwood, rh John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      M-Kent)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Roe, Dame Marion

      Teather, Sarah

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Ruffley, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Walter, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Whittingdale, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      (Macclesfield)

      Steen, Anthony

      Wishart, Pete

      Streeter, Gary

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Young, rh Sir George

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Bob Russell and

      Syms, Robert

      Sir Robert Smith

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Chryston)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clelland, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Darwen)

      Cohen, Harry

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corston, Jean

      Austin, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Baird, Vera

      Crausby, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Cruddas, Jon

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cummings, John

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Berry, Roger

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Best, Harold

      David, Wayne

      Betts, Clive

      Davidson, Ian

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Borrow, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Wallsend)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burgon, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Cairns, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fisher, Mark

      Caplin, Ivor

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Caton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Follett, Barbara

      Challen, Colin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      & Rye)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Pentlands)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      67

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonnell, John

      Grogan, John

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McFall, rh John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hanson, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      McNulty, Tony

      Rhymney)

      MacShane, Denis

      Healey, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Hendrick, Mark

      McWilliam, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Heppell, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Heyes, David

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Michael, rh Alun

      Sefton E)

      Miliband, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Mole, Chris

      Urmston)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mudie, George

      Hutton, rh John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hatfield)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Plaskitt, James

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      E)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Prescott, rh John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Purchase, Ken

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purnell, James

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lammy, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lepper, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Bellshill)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Anniesland)

      Linton, Martin

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      NW)

      Love, Andrew

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Rooney, Terry

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      68

      Ruddock, Joan

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Chester)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Salter, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Truswell, Paul

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Dr, Desmond (Brighton

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kemptown)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Ward, Claire

      Finsbury)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Lunesdale)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      White, Brian

      Soley, Clive

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Spellar, rh John

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Squire, Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      C)

      Lochaber)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Worthington, Tony

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Yarmouth)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.33 pm
      Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Third time.
      I thank hon. Members for their contribution to the scrutiny of this Bill. The debate has been wide-ranging and has given Opposition Members the opportunity, for which I am sure that they are profoundly grateful, to debate a whole range of different aspects of the Government's public health policy. That the Health Protection Agency is relevant to so many public health issues is testament to how important its work already is and will continue to be.
      We have given the Bill a thorough examination during its legislative passage. Before today, the House had already spent some nine hours considering it: more than three and a half hours on Second Reading, and nearly five and a half in Committee. I appreciate that that might not seem like a long time compared with many other Bills, including most of the Bills that I have been involved with in my parliamentary career. None the less, generous time has been allowed for its consideration, given the degree of support from all parts of the House—I am happy to say—for its general principles and overall aims. Of course, it had already been considered for nine and a half hours in another place.
      The Government have been responsive to the points raised in the House and in the other place and have amended the Bill accordingly. A total of 16 Government amendments, made in response to points raised in the Lords, were accepted. Some 33 other amendments were accepted in the other place, but the Bill was well

      69
      prepared and those amendments did not raise new issues or set out new policies that were unforeseen at the time of its introduction.
      Dr. Murrison:One issue, the review of arm's-length bodies, was severely glossed over. As I recall, the Minister repeatedly assured the Committee that the Bill would not be affected by that review. The Minister was either incorrect or she pre-judged the review's outcome; which was it?
      Miss Johnson: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman draws that conclusion. I was neither of the things that he says, and I stick exactly to what I have said on the record previously about the relationship between the Bill, the HPA and the arm's-length body review.
      Six of the amendments accepted in another place affected the schedules, but they are concerned merely with tidying up.
      As a result of this work, we have got right the statutory basis for the HPA. It is doing an important job and it will need to continue to do so, in conjunction with the National Radiological Protection Board; indeed, I have set out the advantages of bringing those bodies together. I am sure that Members will wish the HPA well in its future work. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
      Dr. Murrison: Generally speaking, we welcome the Bill. Our proceedings in Committee were conciliatory throughout and I hope that the Minister appreciated the constructive comments made by all members of the Committee.
      I am a concerned about the review of arm's-length bodies. Clearly, that must affect the HPA; it would be extraordinary if it did not. Members raised education
      70
      with the Minister on several occasions in Committee, encouraging her to include a reference to it in the Bill. Of course, education is a salient part of the terms of reference of several of the bodies that are likely to be abolished as a result of this review, so it is surely desirable that the Bill reflect that fact, at least in part. I appreciate that its terms of reference are broad; indeed, I strongly suspect that they were drawn up that way to allow for incorporation of the functions of other bodies, if and when they are abolished.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made some important points on civil contingencies on Second Reading. I discerned in Committee that the Minister has perhaps not thought through that issue as well as she has other aspects of the Bill. She will of course have observed Operation Horizon, a very important exercise that took place in Birmingham over the weekend. I wonder what part the HPA played in it, and how that role might have differed if the HPA had been a non-departmental public body. It would be useful if the Minister commented on that issue or wrote to me about it, because it cuts to the heart of the transferring of this strategic health authority to the status of a non-departmental public body.
      We face a whole raft of public health challenges, and I have to say that I am more concerned about public health outcomes than structures. That said, I of course wish the new body well—
      It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Council Tax
  6.39 pm
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
  That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I remind the House that this debate lasts for only one and a half hours, so it would be very helpful if Back Benchers and Front Benchers were mindful of the need to share the time with others.
  Mr. Raynsford: I will try to confine my remarks to the minimum necessary to set out our decision in order to allow—as you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a good opportunity for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
  The order that I am presenting for the approval of the House today will be made under section 52F(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which was inserted by the Local Government Act 1999. It sets out the amounts that the 2004–05 budget requirements of the authorities named in the order must not exceed—namely, caps on their budget requirements. In my view, the provisions of the order are compatible with the convention rights.
  Six authorities are named in the order: Torbay borough council, Nottingham city council, Herefordshire district council, the Fenland and Shepway district councils and the Hereford and Worcester fire authority.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Bearing in mind the facts that the Lib Dems have spent 11 out of the past 14 years running Torbay and that it has been rated as a poor performance council, why are the Government making it worse by capping the council from £139.4 million to £138.8 million—only £0.6 million? Why are the Government also causing £100,000 to be spent on sending out letters to all council tax payers, telling them that there is a reduction of about £11 a year? Would it not have been far wiser to give credit of that £11 to council tax payers next year, bearing in mind the Government's—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is launching on a speech.
  Mr. Raynsford: I recall the hon. Gentleman's intervention in the debate on 29 April—I announced then our intention to designate specific authorities, including Torbay council—in which he welcomed our decision. We are simply proceeding with the decision that was announced on that occasion. I will explain the full circumstances in the course of my statement.
  Subject to the approval of the House, I shall make the order and issue notices to those authorities advising them of the maximum amounts. They will then be required to recalculate their budget requirements and issue new council tax bills—or, in the case of the Hereford and Worcester fire authority, to issue new precepts. The effect is that the authorities will have had their budgets and council tax capped.
  72
  I made a statement in the House on 29 April about authorities that had set excessive budgets for the current year. I welcomed the fact that the average increase in council tax in England this year was 5.9 per cent., which was less than half the previous year's increase and lower than many people had predicted. A large number of authorities set lower council tax increases in 2004–05 than they had originally proposed. That was in no small measure due to the Government's strong message that high council tax increases were both unacceptable and unnecessary.
  Some authorities' budgets and council tax increases were still too high, however, and imposed unreasonable burdens on council tax payers. I said then that the Government were designating seven authorities for in-year capping and nominating a further seven authorities with a view to taking action to limit their budget requirement increases in 2005–06. The designated authorities then had 21 days in which to challenge the maximum budget requirements that we said we were proposing to set. Those were the levels at which they would need to calculate their budgets in order for them not to be defined as excessive according to principles determined by the Secretary of State.
  As I said in the written statement that I made to the House on 8 July when the order was laid, all the designated authorities challenged the proposed maximum budgets. Ministerial colleagues and I met all seven of them as well as the seven nominated authorities. Having carefully considered the representations that they made, both orally and in writing, and having taken into account all relevant information, we have decided as follows.
  We shall set maximum budgets at the levels originally proposed for five authorities—Herefordshire, Nottingham, Torbay, Fenland and Shepway—and set a maximum budget for the Hereford and Worcester fire authority that is £1.044 million higher than we had originally proposed to reflect the savings that we judged the authority can reasonably be required to make. We shall cancel the designation of Telford and Wrekin and nominate it instead. I have proposed a notional budget for the authority this year at the same level as we originally proposed for the maximum budget, had we capped it.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: On Telford and Wrekin, the Minister has made a sensible move from designation to nomination on the grounds that the savings—only 68p—would be insignificant. In respect of Nottingham, given that the cost of re-billing will be more than the amount saved, why not adopt the same procedure there?
  Mr. Raynsford: In the case of Telford and Wrekin, the rebate was only 66p for band D property for the full year; in the case of Nottingham, it is £2.48—a significantly higher figure. [Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that when the authorities set excessive budgets, they took the risk of being required to re-bill. We made it absolutely clear that we would use our capping powers and that if authorities were designated they would be required to re-bill for a lesser amount. No authority can say that it acted in ignorance of the position. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, when

  73
  one sets principles—as we have; we announced them on 29 April—it is right that those principles should be applied, and they have been applied.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Would it not be sensible to set the bar at the amount at which it would not cost taxpayers more to re-bill than they would gain by having the rebate, so to speak? In that case, both Telford and Nottingham would easily fall beneath the bar.
  Mr. Raynsford: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but one of the difficulties is that the estimates of the cost of re-billing vary quite significantly from authority to authority. In the case of Nottingham, it is quite a significant amount—more than £2 per individual council tax bill. In a Committee debate earlier this year, the Opposition spokesman said that he thought that the cost of re-billing would, on the whole, average between 80p and £1 per household. If that estimate were correct and Nottingham were able to re-bill at that level, the cost of the re-billing would be less than the impact of the cap. One can only try to take account of such information, but as I said earlier, the important point is that the principles be applied in a rigorous and fair way.
  Telford and Wrekin was given 21 days in which to challenge its proposed notional budget, because it had been nominated for the first time and was in the same position as the other nominated authorities. Once we finally set the notional budgets, we will use those budgets rather than the authority's actual budgets to measure future budget increases for capping purposes.
  Alan Simpson: I want to follow up the Minister's comment about principle. Will he confirm that Nottingham does not object at all to the principle that it should adhere to the Government's spending limits? Is not the absurdity of it all putting the council into a position in which it is required not only to adjust this year's spend, but to incur greater costs in re-billing than it would cost to adjust the spend and the bills in subsequent years? Is that not the principle to which we should adhere?
  Mr. Raynsford: No. As I pointed out in response to the earlier question of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the actual cost of re-billing varies. We have seen significant variations in the estimates that we have had from different authorities and I have to say that Nottingham's is one of the highest. Another factor to which I must draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) is that Nottingham has the sixth worst collection rate of council tax of any authority in the country. It collects less than 90 per cent. of the total council tax due. In those circumstances, I have to say that it is incumbent on the authority to think about how to improve its own efficiency to collect rather more of the council tax owed to it. If it were successful in doing so, there would be less need for large council tax increases, which impose unreasonable pressures on council tax payers.
  Final amounts for the notional budgets will be determined once we have carefully considered any representations made by the eight nominated authorities. There is no parliamentary procedure
  74
  involved in setting notional budgets for nominated authorities. Therefore the draft order before the House today deals only with the maximum budget set for the six designated authorities. In laying the order, we are keeping our promise to act against high council tax increases. The Government have provided all authorities with above-inflation increases in general grant for two years running, and have increased funding to local government by 30 per cent. since 1997. In exchange, we made it clear to authorities that we expected them to budget prudently. There is no justification for excessive tax increases. I hope that the House will support the order.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: There was a time when capping was necessary; when it was the last line of defence for local residents against extremist councils determined to take on the Government; when Labour councils ordered taxicabs to hand out redundancy notices to staff; and when factory roofs were removed to avoid paying excessive local taxation. But those days have long gone. Such clashes changed local government for ever. There are no real rogue authorities trying to bring down the Government in the bunch arbitrarily selected for capping. They may rank from the excellent to the gorblimey, but they are no threat to the Government's medium-term financial settlement.
  Mr. Steen: The Liberal Democrat council in Torbay is certainly a gorblimey council. It has been a disaster and performed poorly. However, is my hon. Friend aware that sending out the council tax revision will cost £100,000? The Liberal Democrats have closed many of the public loos in the Riviera area, but they could open them all again with that money.
  Mr. Pickles: That would certainly be a more convenient solution. My hon. Friend is right about the management of Torbay.
  Capping these authorities—even Torbay, Shepway and Nottingham—is like breaking butterflies on the wheel. Surely the Minister was right when he talked some years ago of
  "the unfairness and unsatisfactory nature of the process."
  He was certainly right when he said:
  "We see a sad and sorry picture of the imposition of centralised diktats by Ministers who cannot possibly understand the intricacies and the detailed implications for local communities".—[Official Report, 24 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 344–46.]
  How haunted the Minister must feel by his almost youthful words! However, he is not alone in having bitterly to eat his past words.
  As recently as 12 months ago, councils that were deemed to be excellent or good by the Audit Commission were promised freedom from capping restraints—a promise that has now been broken. Herefordshire unitary district council was graded "good" in its comprehensive performance assessment of December last year. Telford and the Wrekin UDC was

  75
  graded "excellent" and Fenland was only two half points away from being graded "good". The Government's White Paper, entitled "Quality Public Services", stated:
  "Decisions on local taxes are a vital part of local democracy and accountability. They should be taken by the local authority, based on the costs it faces and of the local people's willingness to pay."
  An earlier Labour party document—"New Politics, New Britain: Restoring trust in the way we are governed"—said that reserved powers for capping should be used only "for extreme cases". So what has brought on the Government's blind panic?
  The principal architects of this state of affairs are not the councillors, officers or residents of Nottingham, Torbay, Herefordshire, Fenland, Hereford and Worcester and Shepway: they are the Government. For years they have used the council tax for a purpose for which it was never intended—to transfer expenditure from central to local government without sending the necessary income to cover the burdens. The council tax is the Government's favourite stealth tax.
  We need only look at the Audit Commission's report, "Council tax increases 2003–04: Why were they so high?" It said:
  "Slightly more than half the total increase is due to national pay and price inflation…The causes of increased spending by councils included…national priorities, such as the requirement to increase funding for schools by an amount determined by government or to meet national waste recycling targets."
  Above all, the Audit Commission cited grant redistribution:
  "We found a clear association between the size of grant increase a council received and their increase in council tax."
  With the exception of Shepway and possibly Torbay, those councils have been caught by the change in grant and the increased Government burden.
  There is more than a whiff of arbitrariness about the use of the capping criteria and threshold. Six uncapped unitary authorities have higher percentage budget increases than Telford and Wrekin, while five have higher percentage band B and D precept increases. But Telford and Wrekin has been nominated, while other authorities have not. In addition, some of the tiers of council that have been capped have higher increases but not high levels of council tax, while other tiers of council have the dual threshold applied.
  Let us take one example. Fenland has a precept increase in cash terms of just £27. In terms of their final bill, Fenland residents pay the lowest average council tax in Cambridgeshire—£904, compared with £973 in Liberal Democrat-run Cambridge. In Fenland, the precept, including the parish precept of £222 in 2004–05, is far less than that in many Labour councils. For example, the Prime Minister's district of Sedgefield levies a precept of £326 a year—the largest district precept in England and £104 more than Fenland. Why has the Prime Minister's district not been capped? I hope that the Minister's judgment in these matters has not been affected because the order coincides with the coming reshuffle, although, of course, we wish the Minister well.
  76
  The amount of money that will be returned is not even significant. It is £2.9 million, and the rebilling cost is estimated at between £1.1 million and £1.5 million.
  Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The reason why Sedgefield council has not been proposed for capping is that the increase in its budget requirement this year was 0 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that an authority that does not increase its budget requirement at all should be capped?
  Mr. Pickles: The Minister makes my point for me. Look at the size of the grant that Sedgefield received. I cannot help but feel that the good people of Fenland and Sedgefield will wonder why the Government regard it as acceptable for one authority to make people cough up an extra £104, but unacceptable for another authority to charge considerably less.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I have no idea about the background to the Sedgefield grant, but is it not the case that authorities that whacked up their council tax in previous years, when there was no capping, and have imposed small increases this year, have got away scot-free, while authorities that did not whack up their council tax in previous years and which have imposed reasonable increases this year are capped? Where is the logic in that?
  Mr. Pickles: There is no logic; my hon. Friend is right. As he suggests, the Government are in an absolute panic. As soon as we have a pensioners' revolt, they get into a blind panic, and they look to the Minister to get them out of the mess. He has cobbled the provisions together to the best of his ability, which will, I hope, be rewarded towards the middle of this week.
  Mr. Raynsford: Let me put the minds of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at rest. Fenland district council received a 4.8 per cent. increase in grant this year. Sedgefield council received an increase of 3 per cent. So it has nothing to do with the grant increase.
  Mr. Pickles: The Minister must understand that he changed the criteria under which grant was distributed. It is pointless looking at the figures on a one-year basis, because he fools no one—not this side of the House, his side of the House or, more importantly, local government.
  Most of what the Government want to achieve could have been achieved simply by nominating the authorities for next year. Anyone with a passing experience of local government will tell the Minister that cuts of this size in council budgets so late in the financial year will have a wholly disproportionate effect on council services. By the end of July, much council spending is committed and fixed. Such parts of the budget as can be released will bear a heavy burden indeed. Little wonder that the Local Government Association, on an all-party basis, has described the order as "inconsistent, unnecessary, unworkable" and lacking "a long term solution". For those reasons, we will oppose the motion.

  77
  The Government have constantly broken their promises on capping. First, they said that they would not cap good and excellent councils, yet they have done so. Secondly, they said that they would cap only in exceptional circumstances, yet these councils are not exceptional. Thirdly, they promised fairness in the system, yet sadly their capping is both inconsistent and partisan.
  The Government may have broken their promises but their actions are consistent. The change in grant distribution was vindictive and fiddled. This year's settlement was vindictive and fiddled. The capping decisions following that grant distribution were vindictive, fiddled, partisan and pointless. The order must be opposed.
  7 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I shall vote against the Deputy Prime Minister's order and in favour of my hard-pressed constituents and a new vision of where local government should go in future.
  As Josef K, the victim in Kafka's "The Trial" might have said, someone must have slandered Nottingham council, because one morning, without having done anything wrong, it was rate-capped. I must correct myself slightly. Nottingham council did something wrong: it went over what the Government later revealed to be its budget target by £180,000. On a total budget of £330 million, that represents an error of 0.054 per cent. recurring. There used to be a principle in law: de minimis non curat lex—the law is not concerned with trifles—but a recurring decimal is clearly not to be trifled with.
  The council immediately sought to amend its budget. Nottingham's MPs—my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and I—urged the Government to allow the council to come back into compliance, which it wanted, but we did not succeed. Instead, the council must now send new bills to all council tax payers—at a cost of £250,000—to save £180,000. At the same time my constituents, who are some of the poorest in the UK, cannot obtain £50,000 to save our drug abuse resistance education—DARE—project. I cannot get £30,000 from the ODPM to fund a study into why Nottingham, North is continually the constituency with the lowest educational attainment in the UK. There are many other small projects where I could find a home for that £250,000, but instead of allowing Nottingham to return to compliance, the Government, at the stroke of a pen, can blow £250,000 of local council tax payers' money—their money—on pointless re-billing.
  I fear that Nottingham city council was selected for this financial farce because it is a Labour council, and the Government wanted to add a Labour council to their list of the rate-capped. If so, that is the final touch of Kafka—a Labour Government penalising my constituents because they voted Labour; a Labour Government damaging the reputation of a council because it is Labour.
  The episode does not reflect well on any of those involved. The Government did not specify the budget they required from Nottingham until it was too late. They sent no warning letter to Nottingham, whereas they did to the other 65 councils. The Government office for the east midlands was kept informed at every stage, yet flagged up no problems for Nottingham's budget.
  78
  None of those involved, including me, could believe that once the errors had been discovered the Government would behave so irrationally. It shows how far the British disease of over-centralisation has gone, and how much our Labour Government have, I am sorry to say, been consumed by it. As Neil Kinnock might have said: "You start with concepts that local electors cannot be trusted, they are then pickled into a rigid dogma—a code; and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Labour Government—a Labour Government—using post office vans to scuttle round a city handing out re-billing notices to its own electors. I am telling you no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short-term egos, you can't play national politics with councils' reputations and with local people's services".
  The case for a radical reform of the relationship between central and local government has been eloquently made once again by this sad episode; not the tinkering with the council tax that has been trailed this week but allowing the British people what is commonplace in most western democracies—constitutionally independent local government. That local government will be free from begging for the 38 different income streams that come to Nottingham for priorities decided at the centre; free to raise whatever additional amounts it can justify to its electorate; free to respond to local needs with care and sensitivity, instead of the centre's one-size-fits-all mentality; free from the hypocritical rhetoric of "new localism" from those who, never having understood or even served in local government, none the less delight in pulling the levers from the centre; and, above all, free to make local decisions on behalf of local people.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: It might help the Minister to know that the hon. Gentleman sought guidance from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I have the honour to chair. Indeed, he attempted to appear before the Committee, as he felt that the Government's approach to the order, which we considered last week, went completely beyond their powers. The Committee wanted to deliberate on that very point, but sadly we were unable to act, as it was not a case of law but one of policy. However, the fact that a Member representing Nottingham should have appeared before the Committee gives some indication of the concern in the midlands—I, too, represent a midlands constituency—at the appallingly cavalier way in which the Government have handled the matter.
  Mr. Allen: Indeed, I attempted to ensure that the order was not considered until the city of Nottingham had made the fullest possible representations through a memorandum to the hon. Gentleman's Committee.
  I am afraid that in this case central Government have again shown themselves to be inflexible, clumsy and bureaucratic. Although, like all on the Labour Benches, I hope for a third term, I hope also for a realisation in Downing street that local decisions are best taken by local government—a free, independent and strong partner to the centre—rather than the hollow sham that we have seen demonstrated again in the order.

  79
  I will oppose the order. If the Opposition parties do not oppose it, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and I will call a Division, but I hope that all who want to build local democracy will oppose the culture that has permitted this order.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made an important and powerful speech. He made the case for local democracy extremely well and argued that the Government, in this measure as in others, are attacking local democracy, which is much to be regretted. Nottingham is my home town and I know that the people of Nottingham will be flabbergasted at the idea that the savings that the ODPM, in Whitehall, is demanding are less than the cost of re-billing.
  In responding to interventions on that point, the Minister argued that Nottingham is inefficient, that the billing costs are too high and that the council should improve its collection of council tax. Those points may be valid, but capping Nottingham is not the way to sort out inefficiency or a poor record for council tax collection; it is the wrong way, as the Minister should know.
  Unfortunately, the order is yet another attack on local democracy, and there have been quite a few recently. We have seen attacks on local police authorities and local education authorities, and unless there are some big surprises, tomorrow's statement will probably be the final nail in the coffin of new localism.
  The Minister has won many friends in local government by what he has said. He goes around councils and visits the LGA, and people feel reassured; but, unfortunately, he has come to the House to defend policy decisions taken by the Government—possibly in No. 10 or the Treasury, perhaps not in the ODPM, but he has collective responsibility for them—that amount to an attack on local government.
  The Minister, along with many of his colleagues, used to vote against capping when the Conservatives were doing it year in, year out. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, the Minister used to argue against capping. I hope that he realises the extent of the hypocrisy tonight. He knows that a lot of the trends that are happening under the Government are bad for local democracy. On the LEA point, he spoke strongly against that in May, so he realises that the Government are going backwards in their attempt to strengthen local democracy.
  I gave the example of Nottingham, but the Minister will not be surprised that I want to talk about two other examples. Shepway district council—a small council—is being capped tonight, and rebilling will cost it £93,000. Nottingham's budget is more than £300 million, but Shepway's budget is £15.5 million. Its rebilling costs will be almost £100,000, which is quite astonishing.
  The Minister claimed that, in deciding which councils to cap, he would take account of history and look at councils' records. Shepway's council tax is below average for a district council in Kent. In the past 10 years, the average rise in its council tax has been a mere 3 per cent. It is hardly a council with a high council tax.
  80
  Unfortunately, when the new administration took over and looked at the books, it discovered that not only did Shepway have a low council tax, but that it had no financial reserves. Indeed, there was a black hole: the council was spending more than it was raising or receiving from central Government. It had to take serious action to put the finances in order. That shows the local issue in Shepway, and centralised capping cannot take that into account.
  Shepway council must now cut severely. Council staff will be laid off. What effect will that have on the performance indicators and the requirements from Whitehall to improve performance in Shepway? It will undermine them. Shepway will have to remove backing for funding programmes in the local community that were receiving match funding from central Government to hit other performance indicators laid down by Whitehall. Many of the council's economic regeneration ideas, which involve long-term investment to gain benefits, will be hit. In an area of relative poverty, such as Shepway, tourism is very important, yet the cuts that Shepway must make will hit that industry badly.
  Torbay's increase was under 10 per cent. We know that that figure is relevant, and we have seen it in the press. Some of the referendums run by the local paper showed that people accepted the 9.9 per cent. increase in council tax because it would still leave Torbay with one of the lowest council taxes in the south-west—but the Minister in Whitehall knew better than the local council, the local paper and the local people: he decided that the council must be capped.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Is my hon. Friend aware that, taken over two years, the increase is lower than any of the other councils in the area and that, taken over three years, it is still lower than any of the others? Where is the justice in the proposal?
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, the proposal goes against the Minister's assurance that he would take account of recent history. He has clearly failed to do so. We thought that the Government had moved from crude capping, but it is still there. As my hon. Friend has told me in private conversations, Torbay council receives less in grant per capita than the average unitary authority. Indeed, it receives £26 per resident less than the average unitary authority. Not only does it have a recent record of low council tax, but it receives less support from the Government. One can understand why the people of Torbay support the council.
  Mr. Steen rose—
  Mr. Davey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder whether he will be consistent.
  Mr. Steen: I have urged the Government to cap Torbay, and I support that—it was the right decision—but I question something else. The Government have capped Torbay, but they will charge £100,000 for the postal distribution to achieve a saving of about £10 per person. I ask the Government to review that position. I have supported the Government's view, but I now think that they should not charge the £100,000, but give a credit next year. That is why I oppose the order.

  81
  Although I support the capping, I do not support the way that the Government are doing it. That is a different point.
  Mr. Davey: I very much regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that he would say his constituents pay higher council tax than the people of Torbay and that they would therefore love Torbay's council tax. I wondered whether he would be consistent, but we heard from his own lips that he supports capping and worries about the consequences of capping. I know that he likes to have it two ways most of the time, but I am afraid that he cannot do so when we are debating on the Floor of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman is right that rebilling will cost a staggering £100,000—10 per cent. of the required savings. There will be cuts in things for which the people of Torbay voted—for example, the flowerbeds. That may not seem important to some hon. Members, but it is very important to tourism in Torbay, in attracting visitors to the area and in ensuring that Torbay is a beautiful town that people want to visit. There will be cuts in the toilets that people want. There will be a lot of cuts that will hit the people of Torbay very seriously. What is the benefit? It is some 25p a week. I do not think that many people from Torbay will write to the Minister to thank him for that extra 25p, when they know that Labour Ministers are responsible for the cuts in the area.
  The order is particularly regrettable given that the LGA—a cross-party body of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and independent councillors—has argued long and hard against capping. It is extremely angry and disappointed about the Government's decision. Anyone who has read the LGA's brief, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred, will see the extent of that concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, the LGA says that capping is totally inconsistent with what Ministers have said in White Papers, in relation to the CPA process and in their speeches. Capping is inconsistent with stated Government policy.
  As the LGA says, one would have thought that capping was unnecessary this year. The Government cajoled, encouraged and bullied councils to reduce their council tax rates. The Minister was right to do so. The Government used the threat of capping for that purpose, and they were successful to an extent. So why do they need to go ahead with capping? Given that the average rise this year is one of the lowest since the council tax was, unfortunately, introduced by the Conservatives, one would have thought that the capping powers were not necessary.
  As the LGA also says, the proposal is unworkable. We have talked about the billing costs, but there is a much more fundamental point to make about prudent financial management. Councils must start to think long term. They must plan their council tax rates and budgets for the long term, and the Minister has recognised that. Last week, in the comprehensive spending review, we heard that, at long last, the Minister and the Chancellor will allow local authorities to have three-year settlements because they recognise the importance of long-term planning, but capping goes exactly in the opposite direction. Some of the services that the councils listed for capping will cut represent investment that they wanted to make to provide returns to the public in better
  82
  services and better value for money in a few years' time. The proposal constitutes exceedingly bad financial practice.
  Capping has never been and is not the solution. The solution is local democracy. Let the people vote. Let them vote out councils of whatever party when they do not like the services that they are given at the cost that they are charged. That is the solution.
  Tomorrow, we will be promised a solution—we will be given the bait of a solution. However, many of us doubt whether it will be forthcoming and whether the rhetoric that will come tomorrow will match the hyperbole that we heard at the start of the balance of funding review. Tinkering with the council tax will not deal with the underlying unfairnesses and the balance of funding problem. For some people and some councils, what may be on offer tomorrow might make the problem worse. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats will vote against the order to uphold local democracy and to support local people—whether they are in Nottingham, Shepway or Torbay.
  7.20 pm
  Alan Simpson: There are times in any Parliament when Members of the House have to come into the Chamber to make genuine and difficult decisions about issues of principle—issues of war and peace and the testing of their conscience. I do not pretend that we can expect to be here without having to address such issues. However, this is not an issue of enormous political principle. I shall vote against the order, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but more out of embarrassment than anything else.
  This issue should be consigned to the cock-up theory of history. My hon. Friend came up with a quotation that was used by Neil Kinnock at the time that the local authority in Liverpool challenged the Government of the day over its democratic right to make decisions in defiance of the Government. It was perfectly possible then, and it is possible now, to argue that, in principle, once a Government have determined what they will fund in local government services, what then constrains local democracy should be located between the polling station and the police station. It is for the police to be able to charge councillors when they misspend public money and for the voters to be able to sack councils when they feel that their priorities are wrong.
  In the current situation, we do not have a local authority that set out to defy central Government. We do not have a Nottingham authority that sought to provoke a head-on collision with Government policy. In fact, we have exactly the opposite. Nottingham has the 29th lowest average council tax in the country, and it set out to try to second-guess what the Government would do in setting a spending limit. It looked with considerable caution and interest at the early warning signs that were given. It was not one of the initial 65 authorities that received warning letters in respect of the budgets that they issued. It was not one of the 40 authorities that was then invited to come down to London to meet the Minister and his officials to have their budget adjusted.

  83
  In addition to that, the local authority approached all the local MPs and asked us, "Are we likely to be on the list? We do not want to be on anyone's hit list. Are we within the framework and unlikely to be capped?" Every one of us took soundings from Ministers and not one of us received an indication that Nottingham was anywhere near being on the capping list. It therefore came as an enormous surprise and disappointment to the authority to find that, somehow, it mysteriously appeared as a rogue authority.
  Following that, we then attempted to comply with the requirements that the Minister set out. On 13 May, Nottingham MPs set up a meeting with the Minister and his officials to try to say, "Okay; if we have to find a way of removing the £180,000 overspend on a £331 million budget, let us talk about the practical ways in which we can do that." Not a shred of the conversation at that meeting was about defiance. Everything in it was about compliance. The authority said to the Minister and his officials, "Just tell us which of the following ways we can adjust the spend this year and accommodate that formally within the budget for the year that follows." It was a practical and constructive response to a line that the Government had drawn.
  I do not want to go into too much detail about where the initial confusion lay. It is fair to say that a whole series of percentage increase figures were bandied about. I am prepared to accept that Nottingham, as a local authority, should accept some of the responsibility for the confusion. I also think that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should take a degree of the responsibility, because it would have been helpful if the submission sent to the office had been opened on the file. It was not; such is life.
  The response to the problem is to find a practical way out that does not breach the principle that the Government set out, which was a line of spending. We should look to construct relationships between central and local government that are constructive rather than punitive. The decision that is embodied in this order is nothing other than punitive.
  I cannot explain rationally why Nottingham should have been reincluded on the list when all the indications that we received in respect of every single representation made were that the city would not be on it. My only explanation is that the city was nobbled. I do think that it was necessarily nobbled by the Minister, but by Downing street. I think it was nobbled because, pragmatically, there was a feeling that a Labour authority was needed on the list to give a spurious sense of fairness and balance. So, in pursuit of the spurious, we now have the absurd position in which, for council tax payers in Nottingham to receive a rebate of what the city calculates to be an average of £1.83 per household per year, we will have to spend £250,000 to rebate £180,000, giving a grand total of £430,000 of spending for nothing. This is the politics of the absurd.
  I ask the Minister to consider the three options that face him and the House tonight. The first is to remove Nottingham from the order altogether. The second is simply to remove the requirement for rebilling. If there is a principle at stake and Nottingham's name should remain on the list, at least allow us to act in a way that incurs least cost and leaves most resources to be
  84
  deployed in the interests of the council tax payers of Nottingham. Those are two constructive ways out and the city council would happily comply with them. That is the way to embody both principle and pragmatism to address a solution to the line that the Government have defined.
  There is, however, a third way out, and it is one that have never raised in the House before. I have never questioned the tenure of office of anyone. However, I know that if such a decision had been taken by a local authority and had been raised in the House, Members of both sides would say, "We have to question the competence of this local authority and we ought to call on its members to resign or be sacked. We have to ask them to defend their right to occupy their positions in the face of decisions that are monumentally absurd." If we cannot go for either of the two initial options, the same questions have to be asked of the Minister.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He made an excellent speech in which he exposed the illogicality of the Government's position and their complete lack of principle in what they seek to achieve through the order. I speak on behalf of the district of Fenland in my constituency, and I have to say that, initially, I thought that we had been badly done by until I heard the stories this evening, particularly the story from Nottingham, which defies all logic and description.
  The Minister said only in April:
  "The Government therefore intend to take action against those authorities whose budget requirements they consider to be excessive."—[Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1019.]
  The key word is "excessive" but nobody, not least the Minister or the Government, have actually defined what they mean by it. It can mean one thing in Nottingham and another in Fenland, Shepway or Torbay. No one to whom I have talked in the Local Government Association or who has any experience of local government finance can find a common thread of logic in what the Government are trying to do. Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, I have concluded that they decided that they had to make an example of some councils and that they needed a spread of councils. When the Wrekin dropped out, they had to find a scapegoat Labour council, so Nottingham entered the frame. I think that Fenland is the scapegoat Conservative council.
  Let us consider what "excessive" might mean, to try to understand why the councils have suddenly been caught in the net. Perhaps the percentage increase was thought to be excessive—I thought that the Minister indicated earlier that that was his main criterion. However, Huntingdonshire district council, which is also in Cambridgeshire, increased its council tax by a larger percentage than Fenland this year, so that cannot be the criterion. Perhaps the Government considered whether there was an excessive increase in band D council tax levels, but the evidence shows that Fenland does not meet that criterion either. Perhaps it was thought that the spending per head in Fenland was out of control or too high, but it has the lowest such spending in Cambridgeshire and one of the lowest of

  85
  any shire district in the country. A further factor considered might have been the finite size of the budget, but as we can see from the order, Fenland's budget of £12.22 million is the lowest of any council in the list. Fenland does not meet any of those criteria, so we must find another explanation.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, it has been obvious for some time that the Government have used council tax over the past five, six or seven years as a stealth tax to draw more money out of tax payers to fund other things. They have kept grants low, and although they boast of a year-on-year increase, they do not explain that some 15 per cent. of the total grant money is kept on one side and ring-fenced for specific grants. The Government and the Minister decide where to spend that money and—surprise, surprise—it is targeted not at my constituency, that of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) or even those of Nottingham Members, but elsewhere. However, the top-slicing of 15 per cent. of the money for those specific grants means that there is less available to fund the basic services that we all want in our constituencies.
  Statistics show that the average total council tax bill in Fenland is the lowest in Cambridgeshire. The total bill is on average £83 a year per dwelling lower than the county average. The bill in Fenland is £60 lower than the average English bill and more than £130 lower than the shire district average. Fenland has a low tax base, with 85 per cent. of properties in bands A, B and C. That will come as a major surprise to many hon. Members in the Chamber because although those statistics smack of inner-city property values, my seat has been held by the Conservatives for the past 17 years—it was Liberal for a brief period before that. That means that every pound that Fenland adds to its council tax raises only £28,000, whereas every pound that neighbouring Huntingdonshire puts on its council tax bill raises double that amount—£56,000. An equalising measure should be built into any sensible formula calculation to compensate the parts of the country—mine is not the only one—with low tax bases because of their low property values. Fenland is penalised principally by its low tax base. It must increase its council tax at double the rate of its neighbouring council to provide the services that the Government demand of it, but that cannot be right.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am fascinated by his speech because, as he will know, Herefordshire suffers a similar social distribution and has received equally unfair treatment from the Government. Perhaps I am being cynical, but does he agree that the measure has been exclusively designed to score political points and that it has nothing to do with any impact on local people?
  Mr. Moss: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I tried to make that point earlier in my speech and concurred with the hon. Member for Nottingham. South that that was what the Government were attempting to do. They needed scapegoats and decided that they had to give the impression of being tough by bearing down on councils in which council tax was increasing above a certain level. However, they are being dishonest because council taxes throughout the country have been going up by double
  86
  the rate of inflation or more over the past six or seven years. Everyone's council tax has gone up because the Government have depressed the level of grant as a proportion of what they expect councils to do.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Moss: The Minister shakes his head, but my point is true. The fact that 15 per cent. of the total money is taken out for specific grants means that there is less money to go around for the provision of basic services.
  The situation gets worse for Fenland. For as long as I can remember—certainly this was true when I was a councillor 17 years ago—we have been asking for the same area cost adjustment for Cambridgeshire as that enjoyed by Essex, Hertfordshire and the south-east planning region as a whole. We had the incongruous situation of a school in Royston, Hertfordshire, getting almost double the per capita spend for education as a commensurate school just over the border in Cambridgeshire. That made no sense, so we tried for some 20 years to get fairness and equalisation in the system. To give the Government credit, they finally examined the formula about two years ago and decided to revamp the system by giving a form of area cost adjustment, albeit probably with a different name, to councils throughout the country. The county of Cambridgeshire and its shire districts were included in the revaluation of the amount of grant needed to deliver the right level of services.
  Instead of getting the money, however, we now find that the crazy policy of floors and ceilings has come into play. Last year, Fenland was short-changed by more than £500,000, while £420,000 was not given in grant this year, despite the fact that it was calculated under the new formula. Fenland is supposed to find £300,000 under the capping arrangement, but that is less money than we should be getting under the new formula. Where is the logic in that? I wish that the Minister would intervene to put me right because I cannot understand the situation at all.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Nor can anyone else.
  Mr. Moss: I thank the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) for his interjection.
  Some £420,000 has been withheld from Fenland this year to provide the level of services that it wants, but the Government have also come in with a pincer movement. They have set up the comprehensive performance assessment, but it probably costs our councils a large amount to pay for that because people come in and take up officer time for weeks on end, and councils have to jump through hoops set by the Government to get a comprehensive performance assessment grading. There are four grades: failing, poor, good and excellent.
  What does my poor Conservative council do? Foolishly, in my opinion, it decides to strive for excellence. I do not know why, but it decided to do that. It was a poor council two years ago, so the incoming Conservative group, under fairly able and aggressive leadership, cleaned out the old guard and brought in new ideas. Within two years it is two half-points away from being assessed as "good". On a different day it

  87
  would have scored those half-points, got 41 instead of 40 and been categorised as a good council. Why are the Government setting up these systems for councils to measure themselves and then kicking them where it hurts most for other sorts of reasons? Here is a council striving to measure up to the Government's standards, almost getting into the "good" category, and being carved up by an illogical decision by the Government.
  I do not think the Minister is responsible for that. I have clashed with him on many occasions and I have always had him down as an extremely sensible, practical, pragmatic Minister, but not for one minute can he justify what he is proposing tonight.
  Mr. Pickles: I did not want to let my hon. Friend's speech to go by without confirming what he said about floors and ceilings. Fenland, according to the Government, should be spending more. It has moved to a position where the Government say it should pay and it is being penalised for following Government guidelines.
  Mr. Moss: That is right. If one adds the £300,000 that the council now has to save to the £420,000 that it did not get, that is £720,000 out of a budget of £12 million. It is an enormous amount of money.
  The council has attempted to jump through the Government's hoops. It has even started on the Government's pet projects, such as recycling. That is not yet mandatory but it will be eventually, and we all agree that it is probably a good thing. So what is Fenland doing? It is spending £204,000 setting up a recycling scheme. The Government are also keen on e-government. The council is spending £100,000 on that. That is £300,000 on those two features alone, in which the Government are encouraging councils to become involved. That sum matches the saving that the council must produce.
  I am not usually spiteful, but I have said to my council, "Ditch at a stroke all these Government requirements. Just ditch them. Why should we play the Government's game and then find that we get kneecapped for doing it? It is ridiculous."
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South made three proposals to the Minister. I am not sure I could endorse the third option. It comes more powerful from the Government Benches than from ours. We ask for it all the time and get nowhere. However, the two other options are important. What is proposed is illogical. It makes no sense to anybody. It is a spiteful action. The case has not been made tonight or on a previous occasion, and no one to whom I speak who has any understanding of these matters understands why the Government are doing it.
  If the Government want to set a few councils apart and appear to be disciplining them, fine, but we will be two thirds of the way through the year when the new bills go out. There is only a 10-month direct debit system and the bills cannot be prepared and sent out until October, which will be about the sixth month of the 10. People will already have paid, so what is the point? Figures have been mentioned tonight—in the case of Nottingham, £250,000—for the re-billing. We think that in Fenland the figure will be about £80,000. That is an extra cost that the council tax payer will have to bear.
  88
  Why penalise people in low-value properties? We should be looking to support them, rather than adding further burdens to their council tax payments. If the Minister wants to make his point and rap a few knuckles, that is fine, but instead of going through the irresponsible and stupid procedure of re-billing, why do we not say to the councils, "Next year you will rebate the amount we calculate that you should save, or just have a zero rate increase in your council tax." That is not a problem. While he is at it, why does the Minister not pay Fenland the money that his Government, by their own formula, deem that it needs to deliver a standard service?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I always find it easier to attack a Government policy, or anything for that matter, if I understand the logic that lies behind it. I cannot begin to comprehend the logic that lies behind the order that we are considering tonight. I genuinely do not understand it. The Library has produced a helpful summary of the capping order and points out that the savings are tiny in relation to the budgets of the authorities being capped. Without doubt, Nottingham is the most bizarre case, with a projected saving of £180,000 out of a budget of £131 million. It literally defies description. I cannot understand why that is even being considered.
  I shall speak particularly of the Hereford and Worcester fire authority, which has one of the larger percentage savings, but even then, it is less than 4 per cent. of the budget. That is hardly the stuff of the heady days of capping under the last Conservative Administration, when real sums of money were being discussed. Whatever the merits of capping, real sums were then being discussed. One can make the case, and I made it at the time in private, that capping is a bad thing, because the folly of local authorities should be exposed. But there is no justification for such extraordinarily small percentage savings.
  On top of that, as the debate has so clearly highlighted, there is the folly of the costs of re-billing. Again, Nottingham is the most bizarre case, with the cost of re-billing being about one and a half times the money saved. My authority, the Hereford and Worcester fire authority, is the second most bizarre. The cost of re-billing will be half the sum saved, and that cost falls back on the authority and has to be found from its resources, magnifying the effect of the cap. I heard nothing from the Minister tonight that helped me understand the logic underpinning the order.
  The Minister alluded briefly to future issues that will arise, should maximum budgets for next year be imposed. Both my fire authority and my police authority are extremely well run. The police authority has led the way in civilianisation. It has been an outstanding authority, but we now hear of the possibility that it will be capped in future years. The Minister will shortly receive a letter from the police authority that tells him that, were that to happen, it could not deliver the Government's declared aims for law and order. That is the consequence of the other, unspoken part of tonight's debate.

  89
  It is true that we have seen massive increases in the portion of the council tax bill for West Mercia constabulary to meet the Government's objectives. I heard the Home Secretary today boasting from the Dispatch Box about the increased number of police officers. The only reason that we have increased numbers of police officers in Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire—the West Mercia authority—is that the council tax payer has to pay for them. The Government would not. No credit attaches to the Government for any of those officers.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Luff: There is no point in the Minister shaking his head. It is true. Both the police and the fire authorities are monstrously funded. What world is the Minister living in? [Interruption.] The real world, he says. I invite him to come and see the Hereford and Worcester fire authority for himself, and not to rely on the representations that he receives. He has reduced the amount of money that we have to save, so it is clear that he realised he had made a mistake. He went halfway to meet it but he could not go all the way. Again, saving face is the order of the day for the Government. Had he listened properly to those representations from the fire authority, he would have abandoned that ridiculous idea.
  The fire authority is required to cut about £1 million from its budget of £25 million. This is its first year as a precepting authority. It is worth recalling that the problem of the underfunding of the fire service in Herefordshire and Worcestershire has gone on for years—and I say this to be bipartisan—under Governments of both political persuasions. The response of Hereford and Worcester, which once formed a combined council but are now separate councils, has consistently been to spend above the standard spending assessment, year in, year out. When I was a young boy in this place in 1992 and 1993, representations were made to the then Conservative Government urging them to provide better funding for the fire authority, but it has not happened.
  Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend will be aware not only that my constituents will be rebilled for their council tax and police and fire authorities, but that a specific problem arises with regard to the Worcester fire authority. Although it is in an urban area, it is responsible for huge areas of countryside, so its cost base is very different. It is an extremely cost-effective authority and it did not need the order.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He might have added that there is a Labour chairman. If people are looking for a scapegoat, why pick on Nottingham? Why not just settle for Hereford and Worcester fire brigade and kill two birds with one stone?
  Let me refer to the detail of the cuts necessary in the Hereford and Worcester combined fire authority. Support budgets are down £372,000, the vehicle budget is down £164,000, there is a delay in an important new headquarters project, saving £81,000 and other minor capital projects are down £10,000. With regard to the integrated risk management plan, to which I understand
  90
  the Government attach great importance, there will be a saving of £475,000. The modernisation project, a declared objective of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that it regularly boasts about, has been abandoned with a saving of £151,000, and the various service delivery reductions amount to £245,000.
  To meet the cost of rebilling, £1.498 million must be saved. There will be no action on modernisation, deferral of the 2004–05 capital budget and no action on dealing with the comprehensive performance assessment recommendations. The authority now predicts a high probability of failure to meet performance standards. There will be no action on best-value programmes—another pet enthusiasm of the Government—and an increased failure to meet statutory requirements. There will also be a weaker support mechanism across the whole patch, including finance, member support, procurement and personnel and no replacement vehicles or equipment at all this year. There will be no action on equalities work—another Government issue—including necessary improvements to buildings, which I assume means that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will be ignored, or on building replacement and improvement programmes. There will also be a withdrawal from various local partnerships, a significant reduction in safety education programmes and no action on fire safety initiatives,. The list goes on and on.
  All those things will save the average band D council tax payer 7p a week, or £3.73 for the year. That is what all this turmoil will save. It is literally—this is a word that we often abuse—incredible. Like Victor Meldrew, I really do not believe it. It is not as if the fire authority's spending or council tax levels are out of line with shire county averages. The authority is in line with or just above or below all of them. There is nothing outrageous about the council tax requirements imposed by the Hereford and Worcester combined fire authority. A very important point is that its level of grant per citizen is the second lowest in the country; it is beaten only by Wiltshire. It is incredible that so many good and important things should be put at risk.
  The Minister may well say, if he gets the chance to do so in this very short debate, that I welcomed the announcement when he originally made it. I did so for the following reason, which he knows is on the record: I thought that the detailed representations that he would receive from a small number of authorities would force him to recognise that the root problem was the monstrous underfunding that the police and fire authorities receive. I hoped that they would force a realisation of that fact.
  Bob Russell: That is naive.
  Mr. Luff: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, although I prefer the words "trusting" and "rational". Indeed, I prefer all kinds of other words, but perhaps I was naive after all. There has been a partial and grudging acceptance of part of the fire authority's case, but there is still the lunacy of £500,000 in re-billing costs. It is literally incredible.
  I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, not to proceed. He does not have to proceed to a vote on this foolish order. He can say that he has listened to the

  91
  arguments, including the excellent speeches of his hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), and that he will not proceed with the order. That option still exists.
  I rushed out of the Chamber a few minutes ago because a thought came to my mind about a word that is defined thus in the "The Concise Oxford Dictionary":
  "amusingly eccentric…crazy or reckless. n. an eccentric person."
  The word is, of course, "madcap", and it is a word that we apply to the Minister for Local and Regional Government.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I have the good fortune to represent one of the main holiday and hospitality destinations in the United Kingdom. As tourism is the area's main industry, its local authority, whether as a district council or as a unitary authority, as it is now, has always been presented with big problems.
  The problem with local government in this country is that local councils are over-dependent on central Government for their income. The ratio in my area is 70:30, while the national average is 75:25. If an authority is that dependent on a paymaster, it is limited in how much it can do in its area. The calculation by the Local Government Association is that, to meet a 1 per cent. increase in costs locally, council tax has to be increased by 4 per cent.
  That gearing lies at the heart of the difficulties that all local authorities have in setting their budgets, but the authorities that we are discussing tonight have had particular difficulties this year. That is the basic unfairness about the order. It is this year on which the authorities are being judged, and not their performance over a number of years or over a given set of time in relation to the actual council taxes that they have set or to the increases. Of course, no account is necessarily taken of the amount of Government funding that they receive in any year, which itself can be different year on year, depending on the changes that central Government make to the formula.
  The problem of representing a fabulous constituency that so many people wish to visit and to live and work in, if they can find a job, is that we have to spend money to maintain that which attracts people. What we spend money on—illuminations, parks, gardens and toilets—is not statutory. For a unitary authority that depends on central Government for 70 per cent. of its expenditure, all the rules, regulations and targets that come down from above mean that very little is left for the non-statutory services, so they are the first things to be cut.
  Another problem with which many authorities have to cope, especially seaside resort authorities, is a transient population. Such populations tend to bring with them a number of social problems. We have a high level of educational statements—the authority of Torbay has more statemented children under the age of 10 than the entire city of Bristol. That is a cost that the local authority has to meet. We have rising numbers of kids in care. For a small unitary authority, the bill for one child, which can be almost £100,000 a year for 24-
  92
  hour care, can completely skew the social services budget. Torbay has a large number of people who have moved in from inner-city areas and an abnormal number of children in full-time care. We also have an ageing population. When those people present themselves to the social services, councillors cannot say, "We cannot offer you anything as we are making cuts." They have to pay that bill.
  Therein lies Torbay's problem. Some £1 million has been overspent in social services. There are also the costs of all the Government programmes that have been imposed, including audit costs and comprehensive performance assessment costs of some £2.5 million. In Torbay's case, the actual grant formula is £26 per head less than in the average unitary authority, which accounts for another £1.1 million. Torbay starts £4.6 million down, and the Government say, "You must spend another £100,000 on rebilling."
  There is no justice in the order for any of the authorities. Tonight, hon. Members on both sides of the House have made good cases for every area, but the Government have made the case for neither the justice nor the logic of the order.
  8 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: The debate has been interesting and I shall try to respond to the hon. Members who have spoken.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) began by saying that capping is not necessary at this time, although he accepts that it is necessary on other occasions. Against the background of last year's 12.9 per cent. average increase in council tax, it is difficult not to see the need for capping. A number of other hon. Members recognised that the significant reduction in this year's council tax increases is because the Government made it clear that we would use our capping powers.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we have reneged on a pledge not to cap excellent and good authorities, but that pledge stood in the year in which it was made—we did not cap excellent authorities last year, despite the large increases. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar should be ashamed of Wandsworth council, which had the largest increase—55 per cent.—in the country, but we did not cap it because we had made a pledge. In the autumn, the Government put all authorities on notice that we would use our capping powers.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman should pass the message back to Wandsworth. I have less than 10 minutes and a number of hon. Members made points to which I want to respond.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that capping should be used only in extreme cases. When he was in government, it was not a question of using capping occasionally, because it was used crudely and universally year after year. We have taken reserve powers, but we did not cap

  93
  in any of the previous five years and we capped for the first time because high council tax increases made it absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way. I made it clear that I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. If he intervenes, I shall have no chance to respond to points made earlier.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made sensible and fair representations on behalf of their authority. I am not endorsing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, but my hon. Friends made perfectly proper representations on behalf of their authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North argued that the increase in council tax above the excess level was only marginal in the case of Nottingham. However, a 9.8 per cent. increase, one of the largest in the country for unitary authorities, is not in my view marginal. [Interruption.] Perhaps it was 9.6 per cent., but it was certainly more than 9 per cent. [Interruption.] We have dealt with the issue of re-billing costs and the saving in earlier exchanges.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made the point that Nottingham had not been given advanced warning of being capped. When we sent out letters to individual authorities, the figures quoted by Nottingham city council did not put it in the danger zone. As soon as it became clear that Nottingham city council was considering an increase of the order of 7 to 8 per cent., a spokesman for my Department was quoted in the local newspaper as saying, "If the increase is of that order, it is in the danger zone." Nottingham received a clear warning.
  Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, because I must respond to other hon. Members. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The Minister is responding to the debate; let us have order.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) considered our proposals an attack on democracy, but democracy depends on responsibility. He is only too happy to defend a Liberal Democrat council that had the largest single council tax increase of any authority in the country this year. He did not say that 28.4 per cent. is an unreasonable increase, and he will not say that. It is an indication of the Liberal Democrats' departure from reality that they cannot bring themselves to condemn increases of that order, which are clearly excessive. Shepway council's 28.4 per cent. increase was the highest in the country, and, contrary to what he said, it was 50 per cent. above the average increase for district councils. He should know that that authority cannot be treated as a marginal case, because the increase was substantial.
  94
  The hon. Gentleman asked why we should cap when, in his words, Government threats were successful in reducing council tax to the lowest level for several years. Those threats were successful, and it is a pity that he did not welcome them, but some authorities did not reduce their council tax. Had we not used our capping powers, people would not have believed that we were serious.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) asked about our definition of "excessive" and claimed that we had not issued one. I issued that definition on 29 April when I made a statement about capping, and I shall repeat it to him now. The definition in the case of a district council is a budget increase of more than 2 per cent., a council tax increase of more than 8.5 per cent. and a band D council tax above the average for district councils. Fenland district council is being capped because its budget increase, council tax increase and band D council tax are above those thresholds—its band D council tax is about 50 per cent. more than the average for district councils.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Huntingdonshire, but he has obviously not been doing his homework. Huntingdonshire's average band D council tax is £95 and Fenland's is £206, which is why Fenland district council is in that particular position.
  The hon. Gentleman discussed Fenland having its grant withheld. He had the good grace to acknowledge that we reviewed the area cost adjustment and that Fenland, like Cambridgeshire, benefited from significant grant increases as a result. He knows that the operation of the floors and ceilings system is designed to protect authorities against unreasonable short-term fluctuations in their entitlement, but one cannot have floors without supporting the ceilings.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) had the good grace to recognise that his remarks were inconsistent with his comments on 29 April, when he said:
  "On balance, I welcome the Minister's comments about Hereford and Worcester fire authority and West Mercia constabulary".—[0fficial Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1029.]
  He does not understand the logic of capping. A budget increase of 19 per cent. and a council tax precept increase of 29 per cent. are massively above the figures for any other fire authority in the country, which is why Hereford and Worcester fire authority is in that position. He acknowledged that we have listened to the representations and made changes.
  The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) discussed his authority's dependence on Government grant. His authority received a good grant increase of 6.9 per cent. and we expect all authorities with good grant increases to budget accordingly.
  I recognise that hon. Members have considerable concerns about the issues, and we listened carefully to the representations from the authorities concerned and made changes to the original proposals. The action proposed in the draft order and the separate action that we are taking on nominated authorities is a measured and proportionate response to excessive increases. Our approach makes use of the new, more flexible capping powers, which we introduced in 1997. Although I understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members, the truth of the matter is that the arguments advanced

  95
  on behalf of individual authorities are, by and large, not unique—other authorities in similar positions did not set budgets that led to excessive increases.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 175.

  Division No. 232]

  [8:09 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  David, Wayne

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Darwen)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Denham, rh John

  Austin, John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Baird, Vera

  Dodds, Nigel

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bennett, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Berry, Roger

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Best, Harold

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Wallsend)

  & Rye)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Healey, John

  Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hesford, Stephen

  Chryston)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Sefton E)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Urmston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Illsley, Eric

  96

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Picking, Anne

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Prescott, rh John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Purnell, James

  Kidney, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rammell, Bill

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lammy, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Anniesland)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Lepper, David

  NW)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Linton, Martin

  Ruane, Chris

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Chester)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacDougall, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  McFall, rh John

  Short, rh Clare

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Singh, Marsha

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Finsbury)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Lunesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Southworth, Helen

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Martlew, Eric

  Lochaber)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Merron, Gillian

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Miliband, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mole, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moran, Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kemptown)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Organ, Diana

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Owen, Albert

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Perham, Linda

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  97

  Ward, Claire

  Woolas, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Worthington, Tony

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Watts, David

  Baillieston)

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Yarmouth)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  C)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allan, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Amess, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Curry, rh David

  Bacon, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Baker, Norman

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Barker, Gregory

  Stamford)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Barrett, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Bercow, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Boswell, Tim

  Westminster)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Forth, rh Eric

  Surrey)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brady, Graham

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Breed, Colin

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Gidley, Sandra

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Goodman, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Burns, Simon

  Grayling, Chris

  Burnside, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Burstow, Paul

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gummer, rh John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hague, rh William

  Cameron, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Hancock, Mike

  Fife)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Heath, David

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Barnet)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Chidgey, David

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, rh Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  98

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Inverness)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Selous, Andrew

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lansley, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

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

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Kincardine)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Loughton, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  McDonnell, John

  Spring, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, rh David

  Stunell, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Atcham)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mercer, Patrick

  Teather, Sarah

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Coldfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Viggers, Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Walter, Robert

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Ottaway, Richard

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Wiggin, Bill

  Paterson, Owen

  Willetts, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Willis, Phil

  Dinefwr)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Randall, John

  (Macclesfield)

  Redwood, rh John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Rendel, David

  Young, rh Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hugh Robertson and

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.

  Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
  8.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I beg to move,
  That the programme order of 17th June 2004 in relation to the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords] be varied as follows:

  Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

    Consideration and Third Reading
    1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.

    2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion:

    (a) at the moment of interruption at this day's sitting, or

    (b) one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order, whichever is the later.

    The Bill has received cross-party support, which was reflected in its smooth passage on Second Reading and in Committee. I hope that the motion will command widespread support, and I commend it to the House.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: We would normally object to a programme motion, because it is not the way in which to get the proper debate that measures need. However, under the circumstances and because we have found so much that is positive in the Bill, it is difficult to press for a Division. I shall therefore not object at this stage.
    8.23 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: Hon. Members who are in the Chamber for this important debate would like to hear a little more from the Under-Secretary about the reasons for rushing the measure through. It is not good for parliamentary debate when we have plenty of time—the evening is yet young—and the big business has already been tackled if the Under-
    100
    Secretary simply comes to the Dispatch Box and says nothing by way of introduction to what, I am sure, he regards as an important Bill for Wales. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Would hon. Members who do not wish to be present for the debate please leave the Chamber quietly?
    Mr. Redwood: To satisfy me that we can complete our proceedings in the specified time, it would be useful if, to avoid delay or a possible Division, the Under-Secretary would explain why he believes that the remaining issues can be tackled in the stated time.
    8.24 pm
    Mr. Touhig: I shall happily respond to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who had responsibility for Welsh matters in a previous incarnation. The Bill received detailed consideration in the other place. In Committee, I said to the right hon., I mean, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)—he is not yet right hon., but you never know—that the Bill was assisted by the comments and contributions of the Opposition parties. We completed the Committee stage in less than one day.
    Mr. Eric Forth: What?
    Mr. Touhig: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that that is outrageous. If he paid attention to the pre-legislative scrutiny, which is now custom and practice when we deal with Welsh legislation, he might not think that it is outrageous. The Bill was considered in Committee, with 40-odd amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster. They all received extensive consideration.
    Pre-legislative scrutiny also took place. The Welsh Affairs Committee produced a report, the relevant Assembly Committee produced a report and the Welsh Grand Committee debated the Bill a year ago. The measure has received much consideration and enjoys widespread support from all parties. I therefore hope that we can proceed to debating the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords]
    As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
    Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords]
      Clause 3

        STUDIES FOR IMPROVING ECONOMY ETC IN SERVICES
        8.25 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 30 at end insert—
        '(3A) In determining how to exercise his functions under this section, the Auditor General for Wales shall take into account the views of the Audit Committee as to the studies which he should undertake or promote under this section.'.
        The amendment would require the Auditor General for Wales to take account of the views of the National Assembly's Audit Committee in determining which studies to undertake or promote in the exercise of his functions under clause 3. That provision will enable the Auditor General to undertake comparative cross-cutting and forward-looking studies on value for money.
        The Auditor General's powers to undertake value-for-money examinations are currently retrospective, in that they relate to the way in which the Assembly and its sponsored bodies have used resources in discharging functions. Sections 100 and 145 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which relate to value-for-money examinations in respect of the National Assembly, Assembly-sponsored public bodies and national health service bodies in Wales, require the Auditor General to take account of the Committee's views. The amendment brings clause 3 into line with those provisions.
        In practice, the Auditor General would consult the Audit Committee on his proposals under clause 3. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who has apologised being unable to be present, remarked on the difference in approach during our debate in Standing Committee. I believe that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) also did that. I undertook to reflect on the remarks that were made. I have done that.
        Mr. John Redwood: Will the Under-Secretary assure us that, if the Auditor General believes that an important item needs investigating but could prove embarrassing to the Assembly, he would none the less proceed in the public interest?
        Mr. Touhig: The right hon. Gentleman knows from his ministerial experience that the Auditor General has always exercised such independence. In our debate in Committee and in another place, the Auditor General's independence was never questioned.
        In Committee, I undertook to reflect on the comments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, which were supported by the hon. Member for Leominster. That is the reason for the amendment.
        Mr. Bill Wiggin: I thank the Minister for introducing the Government amendment to subsection (3) of clause 3, which adds to the Auditor General's understanding of his abilities to comment on a body's objectives in considering their economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I am also grateful to the hon.
        102
        Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), and I am pleased that the Government have undertaken, following the suggestion that we made in Committee, to modify the wording of this subsection to allow the Auditor General to make the most constructive input possible without impinging on his independence.
        We do not want the Auditor General to be constrained in doing his work and we were concerned that, as the Bill stands, the provision would have discouraged him from commenting on policies that he might discover to be causing ineffectiveness or inefficiency. However, this arrangement is the same as the one that applies to the Audit Commission, which has caused no problems in the current audit arrangements. The amendment will allow the Auditor General to learn and seek advice from the Audit Commission, and that will further guarantee that he will not be constrained by the wording of the subsection. We therefore intend to support the Government amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        8.29 pm
        Mr. Touhig: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        The Bill was brought from another place on 12 May. It received its Second Reading on 17 June, was considered in Standing Committee on 29 June and has been considered on Report this evening. It is an excellent example of how the Government and the National Assembly are working together in partnership in the interests of the people of Wales. It will deliver a unified public audit body with responsibility for public audit standards in Wales vested in a single, readily identifiable head—the Auditor General for Wales.
        The Bill's objective has been widely welcomed by all who have been involved in its early scrutiny. That includes the stakeholders, most notably the Auditor General for Wales himself, the National Assembly, the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the Welsh Local Government Association. I also welcome the fact that the Bill's objectives have generally received all-party support during its passage through Parliament, both here and in another place.
        The Bill was first published in draft in April 2003. More than 200 organisations were consulted, and the Bill has been scrutinised by both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Committee of the National Assembly. Of the 41 recommendations for change or clarification made as a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation, 19 were accepted. This process has given further proof, if any were needed, of the immense value of pre-legislative scrutiny in refining and improving draft legislation before its introduction to Parliament. The draft Transport (Wales) Bill represents a further significant advance in the development of pre-legislative scrutiny, in that it was considered last month by a joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Assembly.
        In addition, further improvements have been made to the Public Audit (Wales) Bill as a result of amendments made during its passage through another place and in this House. A total of 32 amendments have been made. Apart from reflecting great credit on the Members of

        103
        both Houses who participated in the Bill's passage—they have made an important contribution—this process has also demonstrated the Government's determination to achieve a very high quality Bill in an open-minded, non-partisan way. It has demonstrated the House operating at its very best. A total of 23 amendments were made during the Bill's passage through the other place. Eight Government amendments were moved and accepted during its debate in Standing Committee, and I earlier moved a further amendment that resulted from that debate.
        In Committee, I also undertook to reflect on comments made by the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on the principle that the Auditor General for Wales cannot question the policy objectives of a body for which he has audit responsibilities. The hon. Member for Leominster suggested that the wording of clause 3 might be modified to enable the Auditor General to make a
        "constructive input without impinging on his independence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 June 2004; c. 12.]
        I promised to look at the wording of the clause and consider whether it was possible or appropriate to make any changes. I have done so, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the wording of clause 3 preventing the Auditor General from questioning the merits of policy objectives is consistent with the provisions already enacted in the Government of Wales Act 1998. It is clear and unambiguous and it reflects a well-established, acceptable principle. As I said in Committee, it does not prevent the Auditor General from expressing a view on the way in which organisations are working towards achieving their objectives. For this reason, the Government are of the view that the wording should remain unchanged. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concerns on that issue and that he is content with the explanation that I have given him this evening.
        The hon. Gentleman also expressed the view in Committee that the treatment of criminal sanctions in the Bill was inconsistent, and he urged the Government to reconsider those provisions. However, the Government remain of the view that their position in trying to preserve consistency in sanctions in the context of primary legislation is entirely consistent. If criminal sanctions in primary legislation are to be reviewed, it is right that that should be done on an England and Wales basis, and not on a piecemeal basis.
        In Committee, I announced that the Government intend to amend section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to drop the imprisonment sanction that currently applies to the unlawful disclosure of information under its provisions. It will also be deleted from clause 54 once the Bill is enacted and receives Royal Assent. I mentioned in Committee that the detail of repeal is still under consideration, but it will be done at the earliest opportunity. That is an excellent example of how the Government are prepared to consider and act on the issue of criminal sanctions in a structured and consistent way.
        In addition to announcing the criminal sanction repeal, I also reaffirm the Government's determination to proceed with orders that will bring both section 49 of
        104
        the Audit Commission Act 1998 and clause 54 of this Bill, once enacted, wholly within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The amendments will be made before the end of the year—I first made that pledge to amend clause 54 on Second Reading, I repeated it in Committee, and I reaffirm it now.
        I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee, to parliamentary colleagues, and to the National Assembly for the scrutiny that they conducted when this Bill was presented in draft. The Bill, and the public audit process that it heralds, have benefited considerably from their endeavours. I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for his chairmanship of the Standing Committee. He chaired proceedings in a good-humoured and thoroughly professional way, which is his hallmark. I know of his plans to retire at the next election—he will be sadly missed on both sides of the House.
        This Bill offers a single framework for public audit in Wales, with expertise brought together in a single body that will serve the whole spectrum of public sector bodies in Wales. That will complement the inclusive and cross-cutting way in which government works in Wales. A single audit body will also facilitate the development of and spread best audit practice. The Bill will ensure the maintenance and continuing development of the high standards of financial accountability and probity that already exist in Wales. Taxpayers have a right to expect continual improvement in the standards that underpin the spending of their money.
        The Bill will give the Auditor General the tools that he or she needs to meet the challenges that lie ahead: for instance, from the increasing complexity of financial management systems. It will enable him or her to be both an effective watchdog and a valuable adviser to the public sector in Wales. It will also enable the Auditor General and his or her staff to participate fully in the development of audit and corporate governance both within the United Kingdom and internationally.
        With those few remarks, I commend the Bill to the House.
        8.37 pm
        Mr. Wiggin: I have had an enjoyable day in Wales, at the Royal Welsh show. It is a shame that we are considering the Bill today, when Welsh Labour Members could have been at the show, along with the Prince of Wales. The Government seem to be keen to get Welsh business done this week, however, which is why the Welsh Grand Committee is sitting tomorrow, despite the fact that the report on which we will comment was released only at lunchtime today.
        We broadly welcome the Bill in principle, and believe that the consolidation of a single audit regime in Wales will benefit the people of Wales; the new Wales Audit Office has great potential to improve the best value use of resources in public services and government in Wales. The Conservatives have worked hard to improve the Bill as much as possible in both Houses of Parliament, and we owe our thanks to the noble Baroness Noakes and the noble Lord Roberts of Conwy, who contributed enormously to that improvement.

        105
        In Committee, we proposed 44 amendments to improve the Bill, while Plaid Cymru proposed only two. The Liberal Democrats put down not a single, solitary amendment. I therefore hope that they will not try to claim the credit, although I suspect that they probably will.
        Lembit Öpik: I noticed that, in Committee, the hon. Gentleman criticised me for not being present for its proceedings. Was he aware of the fact that I was not on the Committee? In the context of this Bill, would he like a private audit of his parliamentary knowledge, so that he does not commit the same gaffe in future?
        Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman should have read Hansard more carefully. We were critical of his press release, to the Delyn Chronicle, I think, in which he claimed full credit for all the amendments to the Bill, despite the fact, as he has just told the House, that he was not on the Committee. I am therefore grateful to him for intervening at this moment, and he is welcome to dive in whenever he feels like doing so.
        The independence of the Auditor General is paramount, as are transparency and consistency. Unfortunately, I did not agree with what the Minister said—I feel that the Bill falls down on at least one of those, with inconsistencies remaining throughout the Bill. Most of its contents are lifted from the current audit arrangements for England and Wales under the Audit Commission Act 1998. It should have been based on the principles of effective audit of public money in Wales. The Government have worked hard with us to improve it significantly, but the opportunity to give Wales the best possible audit regime has to an extent been missed.
        The Bill is an amalgamation of existing and new provisions, so there is an underlying theme of inconsistency. One of the inconsistencies that concern us most appears in clauses 5 and 11. We have brought it to the Government's attention on several occasions. It concerns the Auditor General's right of access. Clause 5 deals with registered social landlords and local government, and applies criminal sanctions for noncompliance, whereas clause 11 deals with rights of access to general information, but no criminal sanctions apply.
        The Government have created inconsistencies in Wales because of their insistence on keeping criminal law consistent with England, but even that argument is faulty, because the Assembly is given the ability to create criminal offences in clause 39. Any consistency in criminal law between England and Wales will be broken as soon as the Assembly uses that power. There was the potential for Wales to have a far more logical audit regime if internal consistency had been the focus. In simply regurgitating what already exists in England, the Bill represents something of a missed opportunity for Wales.
        We think it important for the Bill itself to be consistent, so that the people of Wales are not faced with the potential confusion caused by different rules for different people. Either there should be criminal sanctions for all, or there should be none. We have made it clear throughout that we do not consider criminal sanctions necessary.
        106
        Let me say something about schedule 2. As we said in Committee in connection with our new clause 1 and amendment No. 44, it is a shame that the Auditor General does not have power to extend his value-for-money studies to English local government. Under schedule 2 to the Audit Commission Act, the Audit Commission in England will be able to study Welsh bodies, but no such power is given to the Auditor General.
        I am sure we can trust the good will of the Audit Commission to co-operate if necessary, but the Bill should include a duty for the commission to co-operate in respect of the Auditor General's functions under sections 41 and 42 of the Act. I am sure that none of us would want Wales to be at a disadvantage, or would want the Auditor General's work to be hindered because he has no power to conduct comparative studies in England. It seems most unfair that the Audit Commission should have the equivalent power in Wales.
        In Committee we tabled some useful amendments on, for instance, electronic publishing, which I feel the Government did not take as seriously as I would have liked. We have the chance to create a new audit regime for Wales that is light years ahead, or at least a few steps ahead, of any other regime. I should have thought that that was in line with the Government's claim that they would make Wales a world-class place. The opportunity for Wales to lead the world in audit regimes has not been fully taken, and I think we should all regret that.
        I thank the Minister for what he has said today about clause 54, which is controversial. We welcome the removal of imprisonment from the list of criminal sanctions. It is a victory for whistleblowers throughout Wales, who no longer face the possibility of being put in prison for disclosing information about local government. Conservative Members have worked hard with the Government to improve the clause enough for us to be able to support it. Although the Liberal Democrats have tried to claim the credit, I think even they will have to admit that the further amendments are a result of pressure from the Conservatives and the Minister's hard work—although I doubt that that will appear in their press release. They are likely to skate over that important fact.
        The Government's proposals and assurances, however, have not gone quite as far as we might have liked to safeguard whistleblowers in Wales who disclose information other than the exceptions in clause 54(2). We still have no access to the wording of the promised amendment to the Freedom of Information Act. In Committee and again today, the Minister said that the Bill should not be enacted until 2005, and that by then we shall have been able to see the wording of the amendment. I hope that our trust in that promise will not prove to have been misplaced.
        Overall, the Bill is a welcome measure for the people of Wales, so it has our support. While amendments have been made to the controversial clause 54, which deals with restrictions on disclosure of information, we must all ensure that whistleblowers are not deterred from reporting corruption in local government audit. We have tried our best to improve the Bill, and the 23 amendments made in the other place were the result, as I said, of the hard work of Baroness Noakes and Lord Roberts of Conwy.

        107
        The creation of a single audit body for Wales will benefit the people of Wales. The Government have worked hard on consideration of our amendments, and the Bill is a better measure as a result. I was a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee when it began its consultation, so I know that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) has done a great deal of work, as have all members of the Committee. Their contribution was valuable because the Government listened to them, and that was the most constructive aspect of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is, however, a shame that the Government have chosen the short-sighted approach of simply importing current audit arrangements instead of grasping the chance to make Wales the beacon of good audit practice.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Roger Williams: I, too, support the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have backed an improvement in audit arrangements in Wales for some time, and the Minister will know that a number of local authorities are concerned about the nature of audit reports and their public availability. The Bill will strengthen the position of the Auditor General for Wales, ensuring that his work is more widely available and is used to better effect. Local government was once afraid of his advent, but nowadays he is seen as a "friend" who can assist local authorities' work by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of public service delivery.
        Combing two audit bodies into one organisation will bring genuine benefits to Wales. One of my constituents, for example, complained about the disposal of surplus NHS property and planning arrangements for the site. Unfortunately, one audit body looked at details of the disposal while the other was brought in to look at the remaining problems. As a result, my constituent felt that the overall issue did not receive the attention that it would have received from a single body. Arguments about who was responsible for amendments, including Government amendments, are not edifying, but we should put on record our thanks to my noble Friends in the other place for their contribution. Lord Evans made a commitment to deal with the problems caused by clause 54, but it was left to the Under-Secretary to deliver the details of the solution in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We accept his commitment to amend the clause by altering section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said that he did so because the Minister has an honest face but, in fact, the Minister is on the record as giving that assurance on at least three occasions.
        One of the Welsh Affairs Committee's concerns in taking evidence was that combining two bodies into a single body should result in lower overheads and costs. Work is going ahead to set up the audit body under the control of the Auditor General for Wales. He will surely ensure that his own business is run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and take the opportunity to reduce the associated overheads.
        Tribute has been paid to the work that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) has done as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Although
        108
        the process can never be important as the outcome, that process has pointed the way towards greater cooperation between this place and the Assembly. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's efforts to ensure that such co-operation has proceeded smoothly and productively.
        The work of the Welsh Affairs Committee is greatly appreciated, as was the Minister's willingness to table amendments to ensure that section 49 of the 1998 Act meets our requirements. As such, we will support the Bill.
        8.51 pm
        Mr. Redwood: I welcome the principle of a more streamlined audit in Wales, and welcome the idea behind the Bill that the Auditor General for Wales should be concerned about efficiency, effectiveness and economy—about value for money—as well as about regularity and ensuring high standards of accountancy throughout the Principality. I do not wish to be the party pooper tonight, given that there is much consensus between the major parties, but on Third Reading we should ask ourselves a basic question. Is it likely that the Auditor General, charged with the powers in the Bill—on the likely assumption that it goes through in its current form—will succeed in rooting out the waste and inefficiency that we know exists throughout government in Wales at all levels?
        We have been told by no less an authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom—on this occasion, he has probably underestimated the situation, but he is giving us a general truth—that there is more than £21 billion of waste throughout UK government as a whole. Tonight, we are interested in only the Welsh portion of that figure. According to a rough calculation, one would assume about £1 billion-plus of waste in government in Wales. If we allow for the fact that some of that waste will be accounted for by the UK Government's doing "Union things" in Wales, we probably arrive at a rough figure of about £500 million of waste and unnecessary expenditure—the Chancellor must have that figure in mind—in the devolved areas and local authorities, which the Auditor General should root out as his main task. The Minister is welcome to intervene if he has a more precise figure. I see that he is with me so far, because he is not seeking to intervene or to deny what I am saying.
        In his review, the Chancellor has greatly underestimated the extent of wasteful and unnecessary expenditure and flattered the public sector's efficiency and effectiveness; but better the sinner who repenteth a bit than the sinner who does not recognise that he is sinning at all. I am happy to start off by rooting out some £1 billion of wasteful expenditure in Wales, and I want an Auditor General who is capable of getting to grips immediately with the £500 million, which must be the devolved Welsh portion of the Chancellor's own figures.
        So how is the Bill going to help? We are told that the Auditor General will carry out studies to assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of various policies and institutions. The Minister has told us—I am sure that he is right—that the Auditor General will be fearless and independent. He will know that it is his job to root out all such problems in turn as he decides to

        109
        study them, and then to lay measures before the Assembly so that it can see for itself just how bad things might be.
        That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is where I wonder whether the Bill is strong enough to deal with the extent of the waste already identified by the Chancellor. My worry is that worthy work will be done in the first year or two—all sorts of studies will be commissioned and much money spent on investigating and assembling figures, listening to what witnesses have to say and so forth—but the end result will not challenge the underlying problem, which is a top-heavy bureaucratic structure. I fear that we will not hear that there could be much cheaper and easier ways of achieving things if policies were changed. It is difficult for an auditor, who is used to checking, reviewing and ensuring that numbers are accurate in his professional career, to move into the much more dynamic task of asking the big questions: is the money wisely spent; is the policy achieving its objectives; are there other ways in which an administration could achieve its objective? Much of what is assessed will be deeply political territory.
        What if the efficiency review reveals that a wholesale transfer of functions from the public to the private sector is the best way of lowering costs and improving the quality of the service? That would be very difficult in the Welsh context, given the political composition of those to whom the Auditor General would be reporting. What if the efficiency and effectiveness review revealed that a large number of public servants—over and above the 104,000 UK-wide losses so far identified by the Chancellor—would have to go? To the best of my knowledge, we have not yet had a breakdown of what the overall figures mean for Wales. That, too, could be extremely sensitive territory, but it is impossible for the Auditor General to do the job as described in the Bill's remit unless he or she gets into that sensitive territory and starts considering whether all the public sector workers in Wales have a worthwhile job that is being carried out in a way that delivers value for the Welsh taxpayer.
        I am suspicious of the function to review best value. I think that "best value" is one of those gross misnomers. A best-value regime has, in many cases, become a way of avoiding giving real value for the taxpayer and has generated a huge bureaucracy on top of what would otherwise be relatively sensible services. I do not believe that this particular philosophy in this Bill will cut through or dismiss best value because the Auditor General is invited by the Bill's language to go along with the best-value regime—a trumped-up method introduced by the Labour Government to avoid proper competitive tendering and contracting out. That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill, reflecting the flaw in the underlying policy that it is trying to review.
        I am also very concerned about a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). He was, perhaps characteristically, a little too generous to the Government in making his criticism and passing over it. The question is—have the Government got the balance right in the Bill for protecting the whistleblower? My hon. Friend has done some good hard work with colleagues in Committee to get across the need to protect the whistleblower. I am sure that the Government have moved some way and I am grateful that they have seen the point.
        110
        Although it is important to protect the whistleblower against some of the more extreme penalties and results that could occur, it is very difficult—it is not dealt with properly in the Bill—to protect a whistleblower from loss of promotion prospects or from a difficult working environment if they wish to carry on working in the same public body. The Auditor General can make progress only if there are honest whistleblowers in the different public institutions and levels of public administration in Wales who are prepared to come forward and say how scandalous it was that so much money was spent on this and that, or that money has not been spent with great economy or good purpose.
        I am sure that some people in Welsh public services have a high-minded belief in providing value for taxpayers and would love to tell their stories tonight, especially if they resulted in improved performance. However, they will not do so because they know that their working arrangements would become very difficult and that some of their colleagues who found the ineffective and uneconomic practices convenient would obviously dislike it very much if they had the whistle blown on them.
        Mr. Wiggin: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning whistleblowers. I completely agree with his point about protecting them not only from imprisonment, but further if possible. As I am sure he is aware, the Minister once introduced a Bill to protect whistleblowers, which is why we have been able to deal constructively with this Bill. However, my right hon. Friend is probably thinking—perhaps he would like to comment—about James Cameron, a whistleblower who was treated very cruelly by the Government when he revealed the scandal of Romanian people coming to this country when they should not—
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. We really ought to be discussing the Third Reading of the Bill.
        Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your sage advice, Madame Deputy Speaker. It is better not to get involved in individual cases outside Wales, although the general point affects Wales materially. I am glad that the Minister has some sympathy for the drift of my remarks, which is that I want more protection—I hope that the Minister will think about this when he legislates again—to be offered to those whistleblowers who are good public servants, who feel strongly about the public sector ethos and the need to provide a good service and who need to criticise one, two or three of their senior colleagues to make their point, but who are still deterred from doing that by the likelihood of the retaliatory action that can be taken in the public service.
        If the Auditor General is to succeed, he or she must create an ethos that enables people in the public services in Wales to understand the essential need to spend public money wisely and to run things efficiently. It must enable them to see attempts to explain to those in positions of responsibility how money could be better spent and how things could be better managed as part of good management and good husbandry, rather than as whistleblowing.
        That is one of the differences between parts of the public service and the private sector in Britain that is not entirely helpful to the public sector. In a good private

        111
        sector company, a chairman or chief executive would introduce a suggestion scheme inviting employees, however lowly, to put forward ideas that would save an extra 1 or 2 per cent. on cost. People would co-operate in the right spirit, and middle managers would not feel resentful because they would know that they were all engaged in a dreadful struggle to keep the business competitive.
        There is not the same sense in the public sector. There is much more resentment if someone junior tells people above them that things could be so much more efficient or effective if only they were done differently. That can lead to recriminations, retaliation, unreasonable discrimination, failure to promote, sidelining and all the other things that some good public servants experience. It can be more difficult to get to the bottom of such matters, given public sector secrecy and confidentiality. So my second main point is that we really need better protection for whistleblowers if the provisions are to work.
        In conclusion, I am not against good or streamlined audit. I agree with one thing the Liberal Democrats said: we must audit the auditor to ensure that the new arrangements are not only better, but cheaper. However, in the context of such streamlining, we might need to return to the provisions to strengthen the Auditor General's position so that he can protect whistleblowers better—a lot of his work will depend on that—and so that effectiveness, efficiency and economy studies can have some real bite. My fear is that, for all the good intentions, cross-party working and agreement that we have witnessed this evening—and, I understand, during the Bill's earlier stages—whoever is in government in two or three years' time will discover that the £500 million-plus a year of waste in Welsh public spending that the Auditor General should root out, and which has been identified in general terms by the Chancellor, is still going on. If so, our legislation will have failed.
        9.3 pm
        Mr. Touhig: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the debate.
        We have had another good but brief debate on the Bill. The outcome has confirmed the constructive and co-operative approach that the House has taken to the Bill since its publication in draft form in April 2003. I pay tribute to Government spokesmen and Opposition Members—in the other place, too—for the positive way in which they have responded to the Bill. I also welcome the support that hon. Members have given the Bill in Committee and this evening.
        The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) welcomed the Bill, and I am delighted that he did so—as he will know. He asked whether the Bill could be made more effective, as he was concerned that it replicated a number of existing practices. However, what is in place has been tested; it is proven. When things work, we should not change them merely to be new and different.
        The hon. Gentleman rehearsed some of the arguments about criminal sanctions that he made in Committee. I regret that we shall have to differ on those
        112
        points. He was also concerned about co-operation between the Auditor General for Wales and the National Audit Office. During the passage of previous Bills, we have stressed the importance of cross-border co-operation and we shall certainly see that under this measure.
        The hon. Gentleman had a little spat about press releases with the Liberal Democrat representative, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). The hon. Member for Leominster showed the Committee a Liberal Democrat press release in which the party claimed great success in securing changes to the Bill, but he topped that with a press release of his own that was worthy of a prize for fiction, in which he laid claim to what I described as the "Wiggin clauses". We take that in good humour, but we recognise the importance of co-operation and collaboration on the Bill.
        The Government acknowledge that there are differences in the matter of criminal sanctions. Where functions have been devolved to the Assembly, there is scope for secondary legislation in respect of criminal offences to diverge, but the Government take the view that, where possible, sanctions should be common to England and Wales, because we have common legal and criminal justice systems.
        The hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is unimaginative and a lost opportunity. Again, we have to differ. The main purpose of the Bill is to allow for a unitary audit structure, and it goes a long way to deliver that for Wales.
        The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about transparency. It is vital that any audit is as transparent as possible and that everyone can see that auditors' work on our behalf, scrutinising both public spending and the services provided for us, is open and transparent. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the changes we proposed to clause 54. I have given my pledge that the Government will continue along the lines that I indicated in Committee and this evening, although I am not sure whether I shall be able personally to see them through—that will depend on something that may take place shortly.
        The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke at some length about waste and inefficiency in Wales. Obviously, in all aspects of public service we have to examine whether we are getting value for money and ensure that we are not wasting the valuable resources at our disposal, whether in the Westminster Government, the Assembly or local government.
        Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows a lot about waste. In his time as Secretary of State for Wales, we saw the waste of mass unemployment in Wales. There was waste when our industries were being run down while his party was in power, but there was a thin red line of Labour local authorities protecting services from the ravages that he and his party were perpetrating on the people of Wales.
        Mr. Redwood: That nonsense is not worthy of the Minister, so I shall not reply to it. Will he tell the House what is the waste per person in Wales under the

        113
        Chancellor's waste watch? For every adult countrywide, £450 a year is being tipped down the drain. How much is it for every Welsh person?
        Mr. Touhig: The right hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. I am not able to give him or the House that figure. However, I agree with him that waste and inefficiency should be tackled. I certainly tried to do that in a previous incarnation when I was chair of the finance committee of my county council, again in opposition to the policies that he was pursuing in the Wales Office and which led to a great deal of waste and inefficiency in Wales.
        Audit practice has moved on. As I said when I was introducing the amendment, under clause 3 the Auditor General will have the opportunity to look forward, to look at policy development and public expenditure proposals. That is a benefit. We should not merely be looking backwards.
        I note the comments about whistleblowers made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. Of course, if I am not mistaken he had already left the Government in 1996, when I introduced a Bill to protect whistleblowers. Nevertheless, the Conservative party—I assume that he supported his party line—totally opposed that Bill and, in fact, left whistleblowers unprotected until a Labour Government were elected and did something about it, with the support and generosity of an Opposition Member.
        This Bill will rationalise public audit arrangements in Wales. In doing so, it will greatly help the public's understanding of the audit system. We all talk about audit and say, "Oh, audit is boring. Audit is uninteresting", but when things go wrong, the first people to whom we turn are auditors and we ask, "Why has this happened? Why has something gone wrong?" So it is important that we recognise the Bill's value.
        The Bill will vest overall responsibility for ensuring audit standards across the Welsh public sector in the hands of the Auditor General for Wales. It will bring a wealth of accounting and audit expertise within a single organisation and enable the Auditor General for Wales and his staff to build on the already generally high standards of public financial accountability that we enjoy in Wales. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House and those in the other place for the support that they have given to the Bill. We have worked together. That shows Parliament at its best, as I have said twice before. The Bill is hugely beneficial, in the public interest and has widespread support on both sides of the House. I am happy therefore to commend it to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I propose to put together motions 6 to 11.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together motions 6 and 7.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      EXTRADITION
      That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
      That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Repeals) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
      That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      EDUCATION
      That the draft Student Fees (Amounts) (England) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 153.

      Division No. 233]

      [9.12 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Chryston)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Clelland, David

      Darwen)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Austin, John

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Corston, Jean

      Baird, Vera

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Crausby, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cruddas, Jon

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cummings, John

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Best, Harold

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Betts, Clive

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      David, Wayne

      Borrow, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Browne, Desmond

      Denham, rh John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Burden, Richard

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Burnham, Andy

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Efford, Clive

      Caton, Martin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Etherington, Bill

      Challen, Colin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Flint, Caroline

      115

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Follett, Barbara

      McKechin, Ann

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      & Rye)

      McWalter, Tony

      Foulkes, rh George

      McWilliam, John

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Merron, Gillian

      Grogan, John

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hain, rh Peter

      Miliband, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mole, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Moran, Margaret

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Morley, Elliot

      Rhymney)

      Mountford, Kali

      Healey, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hendrick, Mark

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Heppell, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Heyes, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hodge, Margaret

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Olner, Bill

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Owen, Albert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Perham, Linda

      Sefton E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pick, Peter (Burnley)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Plaskitt, James

      Urmston)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Perntice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Illsley, Eric

      E)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prescott, rh John

      Jamieson, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Purnell, James

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Kidney, David

      Anniesland)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Roddock, Joan

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Lepper, David

      Chester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Salter, Martin

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Linton, Martin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Short, rh Clare

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Singh, Marsha

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      McDonnell, John

      Finsbury)

      MacDougall, John

      Soley, Clive

      McFall, rh John

      Southworth, Helen

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Spellar, rh John

      116

      Squire, Rachel

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Lochaber)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Ward, Claire

      Stringer, Graham

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Watts, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winnick, David

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Tipping, Paddy

      C)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Woolas, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Worthington, Tony

      Truswell, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Kemptown)

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Grayling, Chris

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gummer, rh John

      Bacon, Richard

      Hague, rh William

      Barker, Gregory

      Hammond, Philip

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hancock, Mike

      Barrett, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Bellingham, Henry

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Bercow, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Jack, rh Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burns, Simon

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnside, David

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Burstow, Paul

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burt, Alistair

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lamb, Norman

      Cameron, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Fife)

      Leigh, Edward

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cash, William

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Lidington, David

      Barnet)

      Loughton, Tim

      Chidgey, David

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Chope, Christopher

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clappison, James

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Maclean, rh David

      Curry, rh David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Stamford)

      Atcham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Dodds, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Doughty, Sue

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Fallon, Michael

      Coldfield)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Moore, Michael

      Westminster)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Forth, rh Eric

      Norman, Archie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Garnier, Edward

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Goodman, Paul

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Page, Richard

      117

      Paice, James

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Paterson, Owen

      Syms, Robert

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Dinefwr)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Randall, John

      Teather, Sarah

      Redwood, rh John

      Thurso, John

      Rendel, David

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Robathan, Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Roe, Dame Marion

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Ruffley, David

      Watkinson, Angela

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Selous, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Willetts, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Willis, Phil

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

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

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Kincardine)

      (Macclesfield)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Spring, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hugh Robertson and

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker:We shall take motions 10 and 11 together.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Age-Related Payments (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
      That the draft Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.

    WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108(1) (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
    That the Order of the House of 22nd June relating to sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee on Tuesday 20th July be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Tow o'clock and half-past Four o'clock' and inserting 'Three o'clock and hald-past Five o'clock'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

    ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. John Owen Jones be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr. John McWilliam be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    9.27 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion on sittings of the House was not moved. Are we to be given any explanation by the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House of the arrangements for Thursday? Has the Chair been given any indication yet—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the motion was not moved, we will not have any debate about it at all.
    Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the motion comes back tomorrow, is it possible that the Chair might say to the Government, "We would like to know on which Bills messages might be presented to the House", or is that to be a secret? Is the reason for not moving the motion to try to keep that information from the public and Parliament?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is hypothetical and not one that the Chair can deal with at this time.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I have dealt with that matter.

  PETITION

    Gidea Park Post Office
    9.28 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I present a petition on behalf of no less than 1,071 of my constituents in the Gidea Park area of Romford. The people of Gidea Park are outraged at the strong possibility that the local Gidea Park post office will be closed. They have asked me to present the petition to the House on their behalf this evening.
    The Gidea Park community contains large numbers of elderly people who depend heavily on their local community shops, of which the post office is a focal point. The loss of the Gidea Park post office would not only be a great inconvenience to all local people in that area of Romford, but would have a damaging effect on other local community shops.
    I wish to present the petition on behalf of all residents of Gidea Park and the surrounding communities of Heath Park, Marshall's Park and central Romford, all of which are very close to Gidea Park. The petition has been given strong support by members of the congregation of St. Michael's church, Gidea Park, parents from the Gidea Park primary school and the Gidea Park college, and particularly the shopkeepers in Main road, Gidea Park, and Balgores lane. It also has the full support of the local councillors for the Squirrels Heath ward, Councillors Eric Munday, Michael White and Eddie Cahill, and for the Romford Town ward, Councillors Wendy Brice-Thompson, Frederic Thompson and Andrew Curtin.
    The petition reads as follows:
    To the House of Commons,
    The Petition of the People of the Gidea Park area of Romford
    Declares that the Gidea Park Post Office is threatened with Closure. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do all in its power to keep the Gidea Park Post Office open.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table

  Child Trafficking
  Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  9.30 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I am very grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on child trafficking, an issue that has been of great concern to me for a considerable number of years. It has also been highlighted by a large number of organisations, in particular UNICEF, World Vision and Save the Children, which have all campaigned strongly over the appalling exploitation of children and young people through trafficking. My local women's institutes have also been very concerned about the issue and have lobbied me on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is also going to make some points, as he, too, has been active on this matter for a long time.
  I recognise that the present Government have taken substantial steps to deal with child trafficking, including measures in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, and the funding of the Eves project, as well as the Paladin Child project. I congratulate the Home Office and Metropolitan police staff who are working in Heathrow on that project and who do amazing work checking on the status and care arrangements for children coming into the UK. I was able to spend time with them and also with the immigration and nationality directorate staff at Croydon. I was impressed with the expertise, thought and care that they put into their very difficult work. I was very moved by some of the children whom I encountered and heard interviewed.
  The reason why I asked for this debate was that, despite the legislation and the very good work that has taken place at Heathrow, the reality appears to be that children and young people are still being trafficked into the country. When they emerge in the system, in schools, health services or in my advice surgeries in particular, there are real difficulties in getting their position resolved. Although I have a big interest in this matter as a policy issue, my main reason for raising it this evening is that it is a pressing constituency concern as well.
  I believe that there is a strong need to ensure that there is some real connection between the national and strategic work and the local work dealing with the individual child. We often get transfixed by some of the criminal issues that surround child trafficking, particularly with regard to sexual exploitation, whereas an awful lot of it is not so spectacular and is much more humdrum, relating to benefit fraud, private fostering arrangements and other such issues.
  I am concerned mainly with child protection rather than criminal issues. I have repeatedly dealt with cases in which children have been trafficked into the UK, but in which it has been exceptionally difficult or, as in most cases, completely impossible, to sort out their immigration status and get them essential support. There is a lot behind the children whom I have encountered that is not clear. In most cases, I do not know why they leave their country of origin, although I would assume that their parents want to get them out of countries that are being destroyed by conflict and poverty.

  121
  It is sometimes unclear how such children are being exploited. On one occasion, the exploitation involved domestic servitude, in some cases the sexual exploitation of older girls and women was involved and other cases included benefit claims and private fostering. Exploitation might even begin with the best of intentions and occur because of changed circumstances.
  It is clear that people are paid to bring children, who often change hands more than once before they get to Northampton, into the country. The relationship between such children and their carers is not always clear, and they are often moved about. I am not prepared to see those children continue to be moved about and treated in that way without the implementation of more robust arrangements to protect them.
  I first came across child trafficking back in the early 1990s, when I was a councillor in south London. I had to deal with a young Somali girl who had been brought into the country to marry a much older man and run a home for a series of children smuggled in on false papers. Her story was similar to those that I have heard repeatedly in recent years. Agents bring in children whom they usually pass off as relatives. The children are given papers, which are then taken back by the agent or destroyed—normally, the agent takes the papers back—and are sometimes taken to a community centre or similar in London before being moved on. It is hard to get more precise information and doubts always exist about the extent to which children are coached and the possibility that some of the children might be UK children who are being circulated around the system.
  I have met a reasonable number of such children and have got to know some of them well over the years. They have clearly been smuggled through immigration by being passed off as agents' children, and they end up in Northampton with no papers and no status. Trying to get their status sorted out is extremely difficult, especially for younger children, who are the most vulnerable and who often do not know where they have been and where they have come from.
  I shall give some examples. A young woman who was brought into the UK to start a better life ended up in domestic servitude—a church community helped her to leave her home. Two little boys, who are still waiting for DNA tests to establish their relationship with their father so that their status here can be resolved, were apparently brought in by an agent in November 2000, and they are still in a bureaucratic limbo—they are at school, but they cannot register with doctors because they do not have birth certificates. I have been in contact with the Home Office about them since early last year.
  Agents brought two young girls into the UK via Heathrow on 15 May 2002 and 7 September 2001, and the girls' status has not been resolved—a dispute seems to be occurring between two women over which of them is the girls' mother. A number of teenage girls who were brought in and moved around repeatedly are still without papers. Other cases have occurred, some of which were referred to people involved in the care of children in Northampton.
  Those children are not unaccompanied minors who claim asylum on arrival. Some 2,800 unaccompanied minors arrived last year and they are relatively well off compared with the children I am talking about. I am
  122
  discussing children who appear in the system without proof of identity, residential status and clear safeguards or protections. They are children such as Victoria Climbié, who was brought into the UK by being passed off as her aunt's daughter. I always have a great sense of unease when I deal with such cases and talk to the children.
  Those children need more protection, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for five things. First, I know that the Home Office is already training more staff to do the work undertaken by the team at Heathrow that stops and checks children being brought into the country when it has doubts about the arrangements. I hope that the training will progress quickly and that such teams will be installed at ports across the country. The work is remarkable and involves simple things such as discovering whether the relationship between the two people is what it is claimed to be by picking up the body language between an adult and a child and determining proper arrangements for the care of the child. When I was at Heathrow, the team picked up a mother and son, who were not in fact mother and son—the so-called son had a load of drugs in his little rucksack.
  Secondly, I ask that applications for asylum or immigration status from children are fast-tracked. Taking three years to process a claim for asylum or indefinite leave may not be a disaster for an adult, but it is an eternity for a boy of five or six. If a parent or adult with care agreed to a DNA test in 2003, it should not take 18 months to get it done in order that the relationship between the adult and the child can be established and the immigration claim properly assessed—it should happen much more quickly than that. In the meantime, the child cannot gain access to a range of services, including health services.
  Thirdly, some good joint working between national and local authorities and between the different local authorities is required to ensure that problems such as data sharing are properly resolved. If there have to be delays in inquiries into the exact status of a child, some thought must be given to liaising with the local social services and housing authorities to prevent repeated moves and to ensure that the child's school is properly involved and that other safeguards are in place.
  Fourthly, the Home Office needs to give some thought, in conjunction with the airlines, to how children's identity documents should be handled. That critical matter has been discussed at official level, in the industry and among concerned groups. Perhaps the documentation for certain children who travel on airlines should be kept by stewards or similar people on the plane, then handed over to the immigration staff when the children disembark.
  It is hard to describe how horrible it is having to ask a child about their identity when they do not know. I once talked to a child who, as was clear from having tracked back through the record of what had happened to her, must have originally left her home in Somalia when she was about four years old. When I asked her where she had come from and what it was like there, she did not know, not because she was trying to deceive me, but because she could not remember as she was too little. Once children forget, there is nothing on earth that one can do about it. As for the children themselves, they lose

  123
  their sense of themselves, who they are and where they have come from. I very much feel for the children who become lost in bureaucratic red tape.
  Tim Loughton: I am listening intently to the hon. Lady. Is it not sensible that, when a child arrives in the country with an adult, there should be some way of ascertaining that the adult has parental responsibility, either as a parent or a relative in place of parents, and that if that is not the case, there should, as in the ordinary way, be an involvement by social services or the authorities at the airport before the child is free to enter the country? Moreover, should not there be much greater involvement with international social services that deal particularly with those countries in west Africa from which most of these trafficked children still come? That still has not happened, even in the light of the Victoria Climbié case.
  Ms Keeble: Yes, I agree. Some thought must be given to how one identifies the children who are covered by the documentation that is provided. The children should be with parents or adults who have an established relationship with them, and the nature of the relationship should be absolutely clear. I would not expect genuine parents to be too worried about handing over their children's passports for safe keeping for the duration of the flight. However, the points that the hon. Gentleman made are critical because the impersonation of a relationship rather than the forged documents is the real problem, as, for example, in the case of Victoria Climbié. It is probably the bigger problem in all the cases with which I have dealt. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman, who had one of the homes in his constituency.
  Fifthly, I ask that children who are found to have no residential status be regarded as being at risk. They should be on the at-risk register and social services should treat them as being at risk until it is proven otherwise. One of the current problems is that, when children turn up without status or papers and efforts are made to get them on to somebody's asylum application or to get their residential status linked with an adult with whom there is no proven link, one has to prove to the local authorities that they are at risk. One has to try to get intervention on that basis. I believe that the boot should be on the other foot and that the children should be protected until it is clearly established that they are with people with whom they have a relationship and that they will be safe.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has on file many of the details of the individual cases that I have encountered over the years. I hope that he has considered carefully the lessons to be learned from them. I have not gone into them in detail tonight because they refer to individual children. However, I hope that my hon. Friend considers them carefully and puts in hand some of the steps, perhaps with colleagues in other Departments, that will bring those children out of the twilight world in which they live and give them the status and protection that they need. I seriously hope that he will examine that as a matter of urgency because repeated cases come through
  124
  my advice surgeries. All the national agencies are clear that the problem is substantial. We must protect those children and ensure that we have no more disasters.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on her tremendous work on such a serious issue and on her good fortune in securing the debate, especially when we have a little more opportunity than normal to discuss the matter. I also congratulate her on everything that she said, with which I heartily concur.
  I have nothing like my hon. Friend's direct experience of children who have been trafficked and the situations in which they appear in this country. However, I have spoken to several people and organisations that are involved in the issue and I am extremely concerned about what I have heard of the circumstances that they have come across.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who will reply to the debate. I am not sure of the collective noun for social workers—I am sure that it is not pejorative—but I took a gaggle of them to see him late last week with a proposal for a pioneering international approach to the subject and other associated problems. I was pleased with his positive response and interest.
  I have heard that trafficking in children affects children in a wide variety of situations, including those who have been trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation, domestic servitude and benefit fraud. Some of the examples that I have heard of children being trafficked for sexual exploitation sound like the very worst forms of child abuse and exploitation that there could possibly be. Reference has already been made to the work that has been done in the safe house in West Sussex to deal with children who came to this country not only frightened out of their wits by the real threats made to them and to their families back in the countries from which they came, but scared by tales of witch doctors, voodoo, juju and black magic that have been perpetrated on them. There is evidence of children being trafficked into this country for sexual exploitation, and being trafficked beyond this country to Italy, to work there as prostitutes to pay back the traffickers many times over the money that they expended on bringing the children here.
  There are many organisations working in this field. As well as the ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned, there is ECPAT, which stands for End Child Prostitution And Trafficking, and AFRUCA—Africans United against Child Abuse—an organisation rooted in the African community in this country that is doing sterling work and has access to information of profound importance. That organisation knows of children in domestic servitude and of children coming into this country to be brought into private fostering and involved in benefit fraud; we need to tap into that.
  This problem requires a multi-agency response. I believe that the Home Office is doing an excellent job in this regard, with legislation already being put in place to deal with the criminals who profit from this appalling trade. However, we also need very good relationships

  125
  between the immigration and nationality directorate, the police, and social services, all of whom must work coherently together. Operation Paladin has been a step in the right direction, but we do not know the extent of the problem. We suspect that it is a large one, involving appalling exploitation, but we do not know, and we do not have effective models or effective ways of working with children who have been trafficked. We need the organisations to work together and we need a range of resources to deal with those children. We also need to learn the most effective ways of dealing with them and we need international work to link with agencies back in the countries whence they came. We need a child-centred, international social work approach to this serious problem, and I hope that this debate will help us to move forward on a variety of fronts.
  9.53 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on securing this debate. I know that she has come across cases of trafficked children, or of children who are suspected of having been trafficked, in her constituency, and I commend her for the assiduous way in which she has brought the concerns of her constituents to the House. I hope that I shall be able to reassure her, in my response to this short debate, that the Government are taking the issue of child trafficking seriously.
  All too often, many important issues are discussed in front of a comparatively sparsely populated House of Commons because they are raised in the context of an Adjournment debate. What this short debate has lost in quantity, however, it has made up for in quality. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), whose reputation in relation to such issues, particularly child protection issues, stands the test against any other Member—and furth of this House—has been able to make a contribution. I shall come shortly to the meeting that we had last week, and what further contribution the delegation that he brought to see me can make with the Government in advancing public policy on this issue.
  I also want to mention the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Although his contribution was only through an intervention, clearly, he has a degree of knowledge on this issue, which is based, I understand, on some constituency experience. Even in that short intervention, he brought additional information to the debate, attention to which should serve us well in the future.
  Child trafficking is a pernicious crime. It violates basic human rights, and treats its victims as a commodity to be bought or sold, or to be bought, sold and abused in some circumstances. In a globalised society, it is also a crime that transcends national borders, and in some circumstances, organisational boundaries. The Government need to work together across agencies, and across Governments, if we are to tackle it effectively. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North for her opening remarks acknowledging the work done in this area of public policy by the Government, but I accept her advocacy of the fact that there is more to do.
  My hon. Friend referred to suspected cases involving trafficked children in her constituency, and I know that she had concerns that certain cases had not been
  126
  responded to either appropriately or speedily enough. I know that because in the comparatively short time that I have been the Minister with this responsibility, we have discussed those issues on a number of occasions. Indeed, we made arrangements to have a meeting later this week—I do not know whether this debate will serve to satisfy her request for a meeting, or whether the meeting should still go ahead. If she wishes it still to go ahead, I will be happy to meet her.
  Ms Keeble: I did not go into all the detail of the cases, because I knew that we would be talking about them later this week.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am glad that I will not have to take that meeting out of my diary. I was keen to have the meeting, to discuss her concerns and to give her the reassurance in private that I am not able to give in this debate for obvious reasons. I hope that I can reassure her that the necessary steps were taken to investigate the issues that she brought to the Government's attention, and I am sure that when we meet later this week—on Thursday, I believe—I will be able to satisfy her.
  I accept, however, that there were failings, especially in relation to the length of time taken to deal with her correspondence on those cases. I could have admitted that in private, but it is appropriate that I admit in public that there was such an error because, as a result of those failings, I ordered a review of the way in which correspondence relating to child protection issues was dealt with on receipt in the Home Office. I am pleased to inform her that processes have now been put in place that enable priority action to be given to letters such as those that she has written previously on such issues.
  I want to outline briefly the various stages in child trafficking, and how the Government are approaching those. As we go through those stages, I shall seek appropriately to interweave my responses to the specific requests made by my hon. Friend. I shall refer to the interesting international proposal, which was brought to my attention earlier this month, on which I had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and his gaggle of social workers, as he described them, recently.
  First, we need to do preventive work in source countries to stop trafficking happening in the first place. We need an effective enforcement response to clamp down on trafficking when it does happen, and we need tough sentences in place to ensure that traffickers are suitably punished. We need to do all that we can to support the victims of child trafficking, and to help them to overcome their trauma and to restart their lives where appropriate.
  First, I want to mention the ground-breaking work done by Operation Paladin Child.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Mr. Browne: Operation Paladin Child was led by the Metropolitan police in conjunction with the immigration service, social services and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It took place between August and November last year at Heathrow and was funded by Reflex, the multi-agency task force that tackles organised immigration crime.
  Although the operation did not find conclusive evidence that children were being trafficked into Heathrow—which was reassuring, to some extent—it threw up child protection issues that might not otherwise have come to light. Its report made a number of recommendations on how the police, the immigration service and social services could work together more effectively. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in the recommendations, and I think her call for closer co-operation mirrors them to a significant degree. As she told us, she visited Heathrow to see what was happening for herself. I am grateful to her for her appreciation of the work that was being done there, and will ensure that her remarks are passed to those who were responsible for the operation.
  I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. We are considering the recommendations, and will be responding to them. I hope to be able to do that by the autumn. I recently met my right hon. Friend informally, and we have agreed to do the preliminary work during the summer recess, with a view to a meeting in the autumn to deal with this and other issues in which we share an interest.
  Mr. Dawson: Can my hon. Friend assure me that he and our right hon. Friend the Minister for Children will want to apply the lessons of Operation Paladin Child to all ports throughout the country?
  Mr. Browne: That was a timely intervention. I was about to say that a child protection officer is already based at Heathrow, and that the immigration service is developing a proposal for social work teams to be based at major ports of entry. I cannot guarantee that that will include ports of entry throughout the United Kingdom, but it will follow a risk-based assessment, and will involve all ports where there is evidence that such behaviour might take place.
  Let me say something about the Government's work with source countries, which is very important. This will, I think, partly answer my hon. Friend's point about travel documents and children. Our work is vital if we are to tackle trafficking at its root. We have a number of initiatives overseas. Some, for example a new Home Office project in the Czech Republic, are intended to build the capacity of our overseas partners to tackle trafficking. The twinning project, funded by the European Commission, is being run in conjunction with the Netherlands Centre for International Police Cooperation and the Czech Ministry of Interior. The aim is to strengthen the republic's capacity to combat trafficking into, within, and out of the country. I travelled to Prague last month to attend the launch, and was able to see at first hand that it is a genuine partnership between three European Union countries committed to working together on this important issue.
  128
  We are also committed to working with overseas partners to raise awareness of trafficking. Bilaterally and through international organisations, we are supporting projects in a number of countries, including those thought to be key source countries for child trafficking. We have given support to Anti-Slavery International for its work with child rights organisations across west Africa to increase awareness of the dangers in trafficking for domestic work. Through the International Labour Organisation, we are supporting a project to reduce the trafficking of women and children in the Mekong region of south-east Asia.
  From the information gleaned from those projects, Operation Paladin Child, and my own research following visits to ports of entry and discussions on unaccompanied children with immigration officers, I have come to the conclusion that we need to work not only with other countries and agencies but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North suggested, with the carriers, whose involvement should not be limited to ensuring that children's travel documents are secure. Hon. Members will be aware that the Asylum and Immigration Bill (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, includes provisions on the protection of documentation. Under the powers available to the Home Secretary, the Home Office and the Government, carriers will be required to copy documentation, but we must also work with them to ensure that they are aware of the risks of their actions. I was astonished to learn on a visit to Heathrow terminal 3 that a carrier—I will not name it, because it would be invidious to do so without giving it prior notice—recently carried 17 unaccompanied children on one plane, and that that was not an unusual event. They could have been 17 perfectly innocent journeys, and those children could have been well protected, but the fact that the carrier had a history of carrying children in such numbers suggested that something was amiss. When I explored the matter further, immigration officials told me that suspicions were aroused by the children's behaviour and that they and others had had to take action, confirming that there was a problem.
  I am not saying that the practice of carrying unaccompanied children, inadvertently or by omission, into dangerous circumstances is restricted to one carrier, but international carriers with the power to transport young children thousands of miles across the globe in a comparatively short period ought to take their responsibilities seriously. Some carriers do so, but it is incumbent on Government Departments to ensure that all carriers approach the issue with the seriousness that it merits. Their principal focus should be the protection of the children they carry, and it is my intention, in consultation with fellow Ministers, to seek to ensure that that objective is met by carriers who carry children into UK ports of entry, insofar as it is consistent with international law.
  Trafficking does not take place in a vacuum, and we have good reason to believe that it is closely linked to other forms of organised crime, such as drug trafficking, gun crime and prostitution. I recently read a sensationalist newspaper account in which an immigration officer in a trial for trafficking was reported as saying that some organised criminals had turned from drug trafficking to people trafficking because it was more lucrative. It was implied that that was the fault of

  129
  the UK Government or the Home Office, because they had created the trafficking, but nothing could be further from the truth. The number of people trafficked to the UK, while worrying, pales into insignificance next to the number of people trafficked around the world and the appalling number who die on those journeys. Many of them do not get anywhere near the shores of the developed western world——their objective—before they perish. Given the amount of money that people are prepared to pay to try to make those journeys or be carried by traffickers, I am not at all surprised that criminals are turning from drug trafficking to people trafficking. As a developed country, and given the resources at our disposal, we have a responsibility to interdict such behaviour wherever it occurs in the world. The people at risk from such behaviour are some of the most vulnerable, and as a result of it they are dying in significant numbers.
  International co-operation and joint working across agencies are absolutely essential if we are to combat trafficking. In the UK, we have achieved this through the establishment of Reflex, a taskforce that brings together the police, intelligence agencies, the immigration service, Government Departments and the Crown Prosecution Service to tackle organised immigration crime, which includes people smuggling and trafficking. The UK Government are supporting the important work of Reflex with £20 million of funding per year over the next two years. Only through this kind of genuine partnership will we bring together all the agencies that need to be involved in putting a stop to trafficking.
  We are seeing excellent results from this multi-agency approach. Between April 2003 and April 2004, 38 organised crime groups involved in organised immigration crime were disrupted. In the same period, 38 convictions were secured for related offences, the most high profile of which was the conviction of a ruthless criminal who had trafficked young girls into prostitution in London. Seven young women from Romania and Moldova were identified, the youngest of whom was only 17. Each victim thought that they were being taken to the UK for employment, but they were forced into prostitution, and beaten and raped by the traffickers. The Metropolitan police and Reflex did a tremendous job on this operation, and I would like to pay tribute to their skills, which resulted in the principal defendant being sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment.
  Our work on enforcement goes hand in hand with tough new offences on trafficking. The UK was closely involved in the UN protocol on trafficking. We have also signed the EU framework decision on trafficking for labour and sexual exploitation, which has committed us to introducing criminal sanctions covering these forms of trafficking. Sexual offences legislation that came into force in May introduces comprehensive offences covering trafficking into, out of and within the UK for all forms of sexual exploitation.
  We have also responded to increasing concern about trafficking for forced labour, slavery or removal of organs. A new offence covering trafficking for these purposes is part of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill, which is currently before the House. We have taken steps to ensure that our legislation criminalises trafficking in both adults and
  130
  children. Indeed, we tabled an amendment to that Bill on Report on 1 March, to ensure that children and vulnerable people were covered. When this last set of offences comes into force, we will have strong and comprehensive laws that send a clear message that we will not tolerate trafficking.
  I want to outline what we are doing to support victims of child trafficking, the human cost of which is very high. Being trafficked is a terrifying and traumatic experience. Victims can be forced into domestic service or into the sex trade, as we have heard, and we need to ensure that systems are in place to protect them; only then can we help them overcome their experiences. Of course, we want them to be confident enough to help the police in bringing the perpetrators to justice.
  It is the local social services departments that will provide support for victims of child trafficking. Such children are likely to be in need of welfare services and, in many cases, protection under the Children Act 1989.
  Ms Keeble: Will my hon. Friend spell out carefully what he expects social services to do? One reason why I asked for such children to be considered as "at risk" is that social services would then be immediately obliged to help them. At the moment, it is very hard for children to get that help.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Given that we have discussed this issue, she knows that social services have a duty to safeguard and to promote the welfare of such children following an assessment of their circumstances. Social services departments will undertake needs assessments, and they will provide services in the light of the outcome of those assessments. Such services will be tailored to the individual needs of the child, just as they should be for any child in need.
  We recognise that there is a real danger that victims returning home will fall back into the hands of traffickers. That is why we will remove unaccompanied children only if we are satisfied that the family has been traced, that adequate reception arrangements are in place and that there will be adequate longer-term care for them. If they have been victims of sexual exploitation, their communities may refuse to welcome them back, and we need to help victims reintegrate into their communities and to deal sensitively with some of the cultural assumptions that can prevent that.
  Ms Keeble: Will my hon. Friend deal with the need for data sharing? Children move around frequently and sometimes social services will not help them or will say that they cannot find them. It is a pressing issue to provide the safeguards that are needed.
  Mr. Browne: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment, I will come on to the issue of fast tracking and data sharing. At this point, I want to deal with the meeting that I had last week because it represents what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to as a pioneering international approach. It also relates to the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about contact with social services in the originating countries.

  131
  In my view, the concept of adopting an international approach through professionalised social services is a very attractive proposition. It presents a significant challenge to the Government to generate co-operation with other countries with a view to putting in place the level of co-operation necessary to ensure that appropriate standards are applied across international boundaries. The proposition put to me last week was substantially the work of Lawrence Chester, whom I know from other work that he has done with refugees. He has a significant reputation not only in respect of social work, but of refugees. He was supported by the British Association of Social Workers, represented by Ian Johnston and John Metcalf, and by the Children's Legal Centre represented by George Lane.
  It was an exciting and interesting proposal that will require further discussion in government and across government here in the UK and with interested non-governmental organisations. We will need to develop the approach in the UK before we can consider taking it further internationally, and it may be some considerable time before the exciting proposal becomes a reality, but it is worthwhile work and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and others for bringing it to me. I will take it as far forward as I can, which might provide a vehicle for taking forward some of the points raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
  May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that I am indeed aware of how important speed of decision making is to children? As she rightly says, a comparatively short wait may not be a long time in an adult's life, but it may be an eternity in a child's life. I fully understand that. Taking decisions about children with appropriate speed is part of the process of dealing with children sensitively and appropriately. That is what I expect the immigration and nationality directorate to do.
  My hon. Friend must accept, however, the requirement to balance the obvious need for a speedy decision in cases of applications made by children against ensuring that any areas of concern about the child's welfare are fully explored with the relevant agencies before the decision is reached. Having spent the best part of a quarter of a century of my professional life—before I became a professional politician—working in child law matters and child protection, I am very much aware of the dangers of taking decisions about children far too quickly. Unfortunately, there are some outstanding examples of that in the history of child protection in the UK. Not enough time has been taken fully to explore with the relevant agencies the appropriate issues on child protection.
  My hon. Friend can rest assured that I am conscious of the need for that balance and for the need for speed—appropriate speed when dealing with children. I ask her to accept my assurance that the Home Office and the immigration and nationality directorate are working to ensure that the desire for speed does not operate against the best interests of the child.
  132
  My expectation is that the immigration and nationality directorate will carry out that work to the standard of the duty of care towards children that arises from our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child. Although the UK has a reservation in the convention enabling us to apply such legislation as we deem necessary in the interests of immigration control, we have regard to the convention in the formulation of policy and practice relating to children arriving or resident in the UK. The key obligations are to act in the child's best interests, to take all appropriate steps to protect the child from all forms of abuse or neglect, and to provide special protection and assistance to children deprived of their family environment, for whatever reason.
  My hon. Friend asked me to reassure her specifically that social services will ensure that data are shared appropriately. In cases relating to children, I have met agencies whose approach has seemed to be more about data protection than about child protection. In my view, when a balance must be struck between the protection of the child and the protection of data, the obligation of an agency is to err on the side of the protection of the child. I would expect that, insofar as I have responsibility for issues relating to child protection, those who are directly accountable to me will apply that rule at all times. I am not responsible for other areas of Government policy, but I would be astonished if other Ministers took a different view. I hope that that reassurance is sufficient for my hon. Friend.
  Tim Loughton: I am greatly encouraged by the Minister's comments about data. He mentioned working on a joint international initiative, which is essential. It is now more than four years since Victoria Climbié came to this country from the Ivory Coast and more than five years since we had a spate of girls coming from Nigeria and Sierra Leone into west Sussex through Gatwick airport, who were subsequently adopted into the sex trade in northern Italy. What has happened in the past two years to ensure that international social services are working to ensure that those children do not get on the plane in the first place? If there is a problem with sending children back, are international social services working with the communities in those countries to make it safe for them to go back? If there is any question of those children being used for illicit purposes in this country, their best home must be with or close to their families and communities of origin. I would have hoped that a bit more had been done by now.
  Mr. Browne: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the challenges and priorities. I have set out the extent of my knowledge about international co-operation. I do not have detailed knowledge about that other area of Government responsibility, but I will undertake to have his questions answered appropriately and I will write to him. I do not know off the top of my head just how robust international social services are in the areas that he mentions. He is entitled to a response to those questions, but it is not the Government's responsibility to construct social service support in other parts of the world. It is our responsibility to ensure that those people who come to our shores receive an appropriate response and that the necessary risk assessment is made. I hope

  133
  that I have been able to reassure the House that significant progress has been made in the legislative structure and in the practical operation of that protection, but challenges remain and there is still work to be done. That work will be carried on not only by me, in the Home Office, but by other Ministers who share with me responsibility for children in the UK. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a written response from me on those issues, and I shall lodge the letter in the Library.
  I have outlined briefly the Government's strategy to combat trafficking, but it must be accepted that we cannot do that work alone. We need to continue to work across traditional organisational boundaries. We must work with our EU partners and beyond the EU. We
  134
  must work with the voluntary sector and with communities both in this country and abroad to address some of the wider cultural issues behind trafficking.
  I hope that through innovative operations, such as Operation Paladin Child, and by bringing together professionals from different backgrounds and organisations we can continue that work. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North for giving me this opportunity to set out—at some length, due to the extra time available—what the Government are doing in this field and I hope that she is reassured by my remarks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  British/Spanish Fishing Fleets
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the size of the(a) British and (b) Spanish fishing fleet (i) is and (ii) was in 1997; and what estimate she has made of the size of each fleet in 2006. [183340]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information available is given in the table. No estimate has been made of the anticipated size of the UK fleet in 2006, and an estimate for the Spanish fleet is also not available.

  Number of vessels

  Gross tonnage(tonnes)3

  Engine power (Kw)

  UKfleet1:

  As at 31 December 1996

  8,667

  274,532

  1,054,927

  As at 31 December 2003

  7,271

  234,037

  918,258

  Spanish fleet 2:

  As at 31 December 1996

  18,244

  603,249

  1,537,453

  As at 31 December 2003

  14,579

  489,002

  1,200,712

  1 Data for the UK fishing fleet incorporate estimates for the fleets of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

  2 Analysis of EC Fishing Vessel Register data provided by EUROSTAT.

  3 Tonnage data for the UK fleet incorporate the effect of the remeasurement of vessels onto a Gross Tonnage basis from other methodologies.

  Departmental Costs
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of refurbishments to the fabric of the Department's buildings in each year since May 1997. [184379]

  Alun Michael
  Expenditure on fabric refurbishment each year since the Department's creation in 2001 was:

  £

  2001–2002

  850,000

  2002–2003

  3,525,000

  2003–2004

  2,464,799

  Diagnostic Techniques and Equipment
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to reverse the amendments to EU Regulation 1774–2002 which prevent the import of by-products for use in development of diagnostic techniques and equipment. [183348]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government fully supports the intention of EU Regulation 1774–2002 to provide effective control on the use and importation of animal 2W
  by-products. However, we recognise that in the case of certain products of particular importance to the development of diagnostic techniques and equipment, the rules on import may not be fully justified by the risk to animal or public health presented by the products.

  Following a meeting with industry representatives on 1 July, we have written to the European Commission asking them to reconsider the application of the current import requirements to these products. Officials attending the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 14 July will also raise the issue.

  We are keeping industry contacts informed of progress.

  English Nature
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for judicial review were made against English Nature in the High Court in each year between 1997 and 2003 by(a) individuals, (b) non-governmental organisations and (c) corporate entities. [181514]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There were no applications for judicial review made against English Nature between 1997 and 2000. Details of applications made between 2001 and 2003 are as follows:

  Individuals

  Non-governmental organizations

  Corporate entities

  High court

  2001

  1

  None

  11

  2002

  1

  None

  None

  2003

  None

  None

  11

  1 English Nature were co-defendants with the Secretary of State

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many judicial reviews brought against English Nature in the(a) High Court and (b) Court of Appeal between 1997 and 2003 (i) were successful and (ii) resulted in an order for costs being made against the applicant; and what costs were awarded in each case. [181522]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  English Nature has been successful in all proceedings brought between 1997 and 2003. Details are as follows:One application for Judicial Review was made to the High Court, against English Nature, by an individual (2001). This was unsuccessful and no costs were awarded against that individual.
  One Judicial Review heard by the High Court, brought by a company against English Nature as co-defendant with the Secretary of State, was successfully defended (2001). English Nature were awarded £117,500 (inc VAT) for their part of the costs. There was no appeal made to the Court of Appeal.

  Two further cases have been heard in the High Court:
  One was brought by an individual against English Nature. The action was successfully defended. However the individual concerned appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was granted in 2003, but the case was not heard until 2004. English Nature won that case. English Nature incurred costs of £250,000 (ex VAT). In reaching its decision the Court awarded costs to English Nature. It is still possible for the aggrieved to petition the House of Lords.

  3W
  The other was brought by a company against the Secretary of State and English Nature in 2003. The action was successfully defended. The company concerned has now appealed to the Court of Appeal and the case will be heard later this year. Costs are, therefore, still accruing and the outcome of the case will determine the costs issue.

  Fishing Families
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to assist fishing families suffering hardship. [183353]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have taken substantial measures in recent years to address the issues facing those affected by the state of the fishing industry. £85 million of grant has been available to the UK industry in 2001–04 under the Structural Funds programme plus further amounts for specific schemes in various parts of the UK. This has included funds to promote increased competitiveness in the industry and enable vessel owners to leave the industry by decommissioning their vessels.

  The Prime Minister commissioned his Strategy Unit to recommend action to create a stable future both for the industry and for the communities which depend upon it. We are now preparing to draw up an action plan with stakeholders to take forward the recommendations in the Unit's report "Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing".

  Regional Development Agencies, local Business Links, Learning and Skills Councils and Job Centre Plus provide expert support to communities affected by the depletion of fish stocks.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 1997. [182950]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was established in June 2001, at which time Defra was responsible for 57 NDPBs1 Since then the number of NDPBs established and abolished are as follows:

  NDPBs established

  NDPBs abolished

  June 2001—March 20022

  1

  3

  Apirl 2002—March 2003

  2

  2

  Apirl 2003—March 2004

  3

  3

  1Number includes 2 public corporations

  2 These figures are sourced from "Public Bodies". In "Public Bodies 2001" a DTI sponsored NDPB was included in Defra's return and our two public corporations were listed as an Executive NDPB and a Nationalised Industry. These were printer's errors and the figures above are correct even though they do not directly correlate with "Public Bodies".

  Rural Proofing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she proposes to strengthen rural proofing at regional level. [183913]
  4W
  Alun Michael
  The application of rural proofing principles at all levels of government, both in policy formulation and delivery, makes an essential contribution to our aim of building sustainable rural communities. The rural teams in all the non-London Government Offices play a leading role, as the latest Countryside Agency's Rural Proofing Report makes clear and will continue to bring rural proofing into all major policy workstreams at regional and sub-regional levels, including those of the Regional Development Agencies. Joint publications by the Regional Development Agencies show how they are approaching their work with a clear focus on Sustainable Development.

  The Regional White Paper 'Your Region, Your Choice' makes rural policy one of the functions of the proposed Elected Regional Assemblies, and Regional Housing Boards are required to rural proof their policies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many hospitals there are in Iraq; and at what capacity they are running. [184272]

  Hilary Benn
  According to the May 2004 Iraq Humanitarian Assistance Report, there are 240 hospitals and 1,200 primary health care clinics employing over 100,000 health workers. There are no statistics available showing what capacity these hospitals are running at. Preliminary indicators that are available show a doctor to population ratio at five per 10,000, which is satisfactory, but a severe shortage of nurses with only an estimated total of 12,000 active in the health sector.

  There are many challenges facing the health sector in Iraq. DFID's main support to date has been to help ensure that the Ministry of Health can call on expertise to help them restore essential services. DFID has provided £5 million to the World Health Organisation to enable them to work with the Iraqis on these issues. Additional DFID support is being channelled through the multi-donor World Bank and United Nations trust funds, to which DFID has made an initial contribution of £70 million.

  EU Development Spending
  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much and what percentage of the UK aid budget was committed to EU development spending in each year since 1990. [184772]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table provides the information from financial year 1990–91 to 2002–03, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Percentage of UK aid budget to the European Commission (EC)

  £ million

  European Commission

  EC percentage of total DFID programme

  1990–91

  317

  19

  1991–92

  413

  21

  1992–93

  464

  22

  1993–94

  516

  23

  5W

  Percentage of UK aid budget to the European Commission (EC)

  £ million

  European Commission

  EC percentage of total DFID programme

  1994–95

  599

  26

  1995–96

  677

  30

  1996–97

  620

  29

  1997–98

  543

  26

  1998–99

  735

  31

  1999–2000

  739

  29

  2000–01

  700

  25

  2001–02

  724

  25

  2002–03

  851

  26

  Source:

  Statistics on International Development. Prepared by: SRSG 14/07/04.

  International Aid (UN Target)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list those countries which meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product on international aid; if he will list those countries which have set a date by which they will do so; and if he will make a statement. [184135]

  Hilary Benn
  Countries that already meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent. of gross national income on official development assistance are:

  Denmark

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Sweden

  Other countries that have set a date by which they will reach the 0.7 per cent. target are:

  Belgium

  Finland

  France

  Ireland

  Spain

  On Monday 12 July, as part of the 2004 Spending Review, the Chancellor announced that UK ODA would reach nearly £6.5 billion a year by 2007–08. Total UK ODA as a proportion of GNI will rise from 0.34 per cent. (provisionally) in 2003 to 0.39 per cent. next year, 0.42 per cent. in 2006–07 and to 0.47 per cent. in 2007–08. The Government wishes to maintain these rates of growth in the overseas aid ratio which on this timetable would rise beyond 0.5 per cent. after 2008 and reach 0.7 per cent. by 2013.

  The Chancellor's proposal to establish the International Financing Facility provides an additional means of significantly increasing investment in international development to address the funding gap. If the International Finance Facility (IFF) succeeds, total UK aid flows based on estimated disbursements from the IFF, excluding the debt service elements, could achieve the equivalent of 0.7 per cent. ODA/GNI earlier, by 2008–09.
  6W

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the travel costs were of civil servants in(a) his Department and (b) its related agencies in each year since 1997. [183893]

  Hilary Benn
  The figures reflect domestic and overseas travel. All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in DFID's staff handbook, which reflects the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code. Figures for earlier years are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for travel costs within administration costs budgets for years for which information is readily available are as follows.

  £

  Amount

  2001–02

  2,358,000

  2002–03

  2,645,000

  In 2003–04 DFID introduced new procedures to capture administration costs, which had previously been recorded on the programme budget. This included travel expenditure, previously incurred by overseas offices, which constitutes the bulk of official travel. These changes will increase transparency and enable DFID to manage administrative costs more effectively, but means that 2003–04 figures are not comparable with earlier years.

  £

  Amount

  2003–041

  10,715,000

  1Provisional

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to meet regional planning guidance targets for affordable housing provision in the South West; and why the Housing Corporation is planning to fund fewer new homes per year for 2004 to 2006 in the South West than the 2001 Regional Planning Guidance target. [185181]

  Keith Hill
  The policy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3)—is not to set region-wide targets or quotas for affordable housing. Targets are more appropriately set at the local level as they are, necessarily, derived from local circumstances and assessments. The figures set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) are, therefore, not a target but an indicator against which the provision of affordable housing can be monitored. Although better quality information than currently available is needed to assess how we are progressing against this indicator, we do know that we are not yet providing sufficient affordable homes. That is why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted Kate Barker's recommendation that there should be a step-change in housing supply. Over the coming months, we will be consulting on a package of proposals designed to
  7W
  achieve this, including the provision of independent advice to the Regions, which should improve significantly our ability to deliver and monitor the provision of affordable homes.

  The office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also committing more resources to the delivery of affordable homes—the 2004 Spending Review will allow us to increase new social house building by 50 per cent. The Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) for the financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06 is worth £188.2 million and will deliver approximately 6,000 affordable homes in the South West. However, the ADP is not the only means available to deliver affordable housing. The planning system also provides local authorities with other tools to deliver affordable homes.

  PPG3 requires that Local Planning authorities should plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable and special needs housing. The provision of affordable housing is a local authority responsibility and should be made on the basis of robust local assessments of needs. Where need is clearly demonstrated for affordable housing, this should be taken into account in formulating development plan policies and in deciding planning applications involving housing.

  Coalfield Enterprise Fund
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress is being made in the take-up of the Coalfield Enterprise Fund, with particular reference to south Yorkshire. [184109]

  Phil Hope
  The Coalfields Enterprise Fund is a venture capital fund aimed at investing in small and medium-sized companies with growth potential in the former coalfields. The Deputy Prime Minster announced the Fund on 26 March this year.

  The fund manager has embarked upon a comprehensive marketing and promotional programme to establish the fund across the former coalfield areas including south Yorkshire.

  As at the 13 July 2004 the Fund Manager had received a total of 27 applications for investment, of which 12 are in the former Yorkshire coalfield areas. Of these, four have been rejected as not fulfilling the Fund's investment criteria and eight are receiving further consideration.

  Councillors' Allowances (London)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total amount paid in allowances to councillors was in each of the London boroughs in 2003–04. [184281]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The setting of local allowance levels is a matter for each local authority, taking into account its local circumstances and the views of its independent remuneration panel.
  8W

  House Prices (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the percentage change in house prices in Portsmouth was in each of the last five years. [184351]

  Keith Hill
  The annual percentage change in residential property prices in Portsmouth for each of the last five years is tabled as follows:

  Average price (all dwellings)(£)

  Percentage change over previous year

  1999

  71,185

  + 8.9

  2000

  185 85

  + 20.0

  2001

  95.911

  +12.3

  2002

  117.161

  +22.2

  2003

  137,435

  +17.3

  Notes:

  1. The figures exclude any transactions believed to be below market value;

  2. Over the period 1999–2003 the average number of property sales included in the figures was about 5,400 per annum.

  Source:

  Land Registry

  Housing (Right to Buy)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will make an assessment of the success of the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003. [184609]

  Keith Hill
  Reliable information on the effect of the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003 on Right to Buy sales is not yet available. Many sales in 2003–04 resulted from applications made by tenants before the order came into effect on 27 March 2003. The Government are keeping the question of maximum Right to Buy discounts under review.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to expand into new areas the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003. [184610]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to lower the maximum discount available to tenants under the Right to Buy scheme in any other areas, but we are keeping the question under review.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003. [184611]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a number of representations on this order, from individual tenants, social landlords, and other organisations. Some have criticised the Government's decision to lower the maximum amount of discount available to tenants under the Right to Buy scheme in 41 areas under the greatest housing pressure, while others have supported it.

  Housing Investment
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Treasury on boosting affordable housing investment in the South West in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2004. [183991]
  9W
  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement to the House on 13 July. By 2008, we will have more than doubled spending on new affordable housing in England since 1997, reaching £2.25 billion in 2008. This will be funded through direct investment, the private finance initiative programme and efficiencies in procurement.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be looking carefully at how the funds for direct investment, including the additional funding for 2006–07 and 2007–08 for high demand areas, are split between regions. This needs to reflect the pattern of needs between regions and the Government's national priorities and targets. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking to complete this work by the end of the year.

  Housing
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much additional brownfield land he expects to be used for home building as a result of his announcement of 13 July. [184827]

  Number of local authority new lettings made in Northampton area

  Type of tenancy

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–041

  New secure

  1,316

  1,186

  1,295

  1,218

  1,080

  —

  Introductory

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Other (e.g. licence)

  12

  14

  13

  8

  2

  —

  Total

  1,328

  1,200

  1,308

  1,226

  1,082

  —

  1Data not yet available for 2003–04.

  Number of RSL new lettings made in Northampton area

  Type of tenancy

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Fair rent (incl. secure)

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assured

  222

  184

  239

  208

  176

  192

  Other

  41

  13

  13

  5

  9

  1

  Assured shorthold

  11

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Licence agreement

  1

  8

  25

  3

  0

  0

  Starter tenancy

  0

  0

  2

  14

  12

  23

  Total

  276

  221

  279

  230

  197

  216

  Source:

  ODPM'S Housing Investment Programme returns and Housing Corporations CORE return

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in housing waiting lists in the South West Region in the last year; and how he intends to reduce the waiting lists. [185184]

  Keith Hill
  Social housing waiting lists and the reasons for changes in them are a key part of the evidence considered by local housing authorities while carrying out assessments of local housing need. These assessments are used by the authorities in developing their housing strategies and should also influence local planning policies for the provision of affordable housing.

  The provision of new affordable housing is the number one priority of the South West Housing Body who will be investing £188 million in the financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06 to deliver approximately 6,000 affordable homes within the South West.
  10W
  Keith Hill
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" sets a national target that by 2008, 60 per cent. of additional housing should be provided on previously-developed land and through conversions of existing, buildings. In the Spending Review statement published in the House on 12 July 2004, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the 60 per cent. target. The provisional estimate for 2003 is 66 per cent.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many lettings have been made by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in Northampton in each of the last five years, broken down by category. [184843]

  Keith Hill
  Information on the number of lettings to new tenants made by local authorities and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in the Northampton area, broken down by category excluding any transfers and mutual exchanges, is tabled as follows:

  Key Workers (Housing)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many key workers have received(a) equity loans, (b) higher value loans, (c) help with shared ownership and (d) help with intermediate renting in (i) each scheme zone and (ii) each English region from the Key Worker Living scheme, broken down by key worker group. [184141]

  Keith Hill
  The following table sets out details of the equity loans paid under the Key Worker Living (KWL) scheme between it going live on 1 April and the end of June. No transactions involving higher value equity loans have been finalised at this stage. The shared ownership and intermediate renting schemes available through KWL are on newly built properties and will be coming on stream gradually during the life of the programme.
  11W

  Key worker group

  Zone

  Region

  NHS>

  Teacher

  Police

  Other

  Essex

  East

  2

  2

  1

  —

  South East Consortium

  South East

  18

  25

  3

  11

  East London

  London

  2

  —

  1

  —

  North London

  London

  2

  —

  1

  —

  South East London

  London

  5

  2

  3

  —

  South West London

  London

  —

  —

  1

  —

  West London

  London

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  30

  30

  11

  1

  1Social worker.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) budget, (b) funding from his Department and (c) funding from other Government Departments is for the Key Worker Living scheme in the current financial year. [184142]

  Keith Hill
  £690 million (including Zone Agent administration costs) will be spent through Key Worker Living, of which around £25 million is being contributed by participating employers. Discussions are also ongoing with employers and other Government Departments about additional land contributions and access to accommodation on the NHS Estate.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been(a) budgeted for and (b) spent on (i) administration and (ii) consultants' fees by each of the zone agents in the Key Worker Living scheme. [184143]

  Keith Hill
  Four products are available under the Key Worker Living programme: market purchase 'Homebuy'; new build 'Homebuy'; new build shared ownership and, intermediate renting at subsidised levels. NHS owned units are also being made available more widely. The zone agents (ZAs) act as a one-stop shop by providing information for all such schemes as well as administering market purchase (MP) Homebuy. The ZA administration cost for each completed MP Homebuy case is expected to average £2,218.

  Although directly linked to market purchase Homebuy, the fee covers on-costs incurred by zone agents e.g. consultancy, to operate the full one stop shop service, including directing key workers to new build schemes and rental accommodation.

  Landfill (Expansion Areas)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultation there is between his Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on landfill in expansion areas. [184751]

  Keith Hill
  There is close working across Government Departments on matters relating to the growth areas, including on the sustainable management of waste.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government will be taking to ensure the Review of Old Mineral Permissions is not used to co-locate landfill with development of 4,500 homes at the Wixams, formerly Elstow Garden Villages in Bedfordshire. [184750]
  12W
  Keith Hill
  Mineral planning authorities are required, under provisions in the Environment Act 1995, to undertake initial and periodic reviews of old mineral planning permissions in order to secure improved environmental and operating standards at mineral sites.

  It is understood that Bedfordshire county council is currently considering an application for new planning conditions to apply to the restoration of former mineral workings at Elstow South. The hon. Member should make his views on the application known to the authority if he has not already done so.

  Local Authorities' Performance Indicators
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place the unaudited data from the Best Value User Satisfaction Surveys 2003–04: General Survey Initial Topline Report for the 14 best value performance indicators for each of the 377 authorities available in the Library. [184975]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her previous question on 12 July 2004,Official Report, column 868W.

  National Housing Federation
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the National Housing Federation's booklet The Evidence Update; and if he will take account of it in making future housing investment decisions about the South West region. [185183]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the work that the National Housing Federation (NHF) have done for their recent reports on housing needs in the, South East and South West. The general picture on housing pressures and the affordability of home ownership is in line with our analysis which under-pinned discussions of funding for affordable housing in the 2004 Spending Review. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be meeting with the NHF shortly to discuss these reports.

  The NHF South West is represented on the South West Housing Body Steering Group and as such they will play a key role in the development of the region's new Regional Housing Strategy (RHS) due for publication in early 2005. The RHS will reflect all relevant evidence from a variety of sources and will form the basis for the Housing Body's recommendations to Ministers on the distribution of housing resources within the region.

  Regional Government (West Midlands)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will hold public meetings in Herefordshire to discuss proposals for a West Midlands Regional Assembly. [184018]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Ministers soundings about the interest in holding a referendum on whether to establish an elected regional assembly showed that the level of interest in the West Midlands is low. We therefore have no proposals to hold a referendum in the West Midlands during this Parliament and see no merit in holding public meetings in Herefordshire.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) affordable homes and (b) homes for rent have been built in Portsmouth in each of the last five years. [184313]

  Keith Hill
  Figures for affordable homes built and homes for rent built are not available centrally.

  Number of local authority new lettings made by Portsmouth CC1

  Type of tenancy

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–042

  New secure

  1,131

  1,159

  988

  947

  853

  —

  Introductory

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Other (e.g. licence)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Total

  1,131

  1,159

  988

  947

  853

  —

  1These figures include any lettings made to the 5,300 dwellings that Portsmouth CC own in Havant.

  2 Data not yet available for 2003–04

  Number of RSL new lettings made in Portsmouth area

  Type of tenancy

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–411

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Fair rent (incl. secure)

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assured

  264

  251

  240

  251

  213

  136

  Other

  0

  2

  38

  5

  6

  9

  Assured shorthold

  31

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Licence agreement

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Starter tenancy

  0

  0

  2

  3

  8

  16

  Total

  300

  287

  280

  259

  227

  161

  Source:

  ODPM's Housing Investment Programme returns and Housing Corporations CORE return

TRANSPORT

  A21 Upgrade
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on local communities of the delays in announcing his preferred route for the upgraded A21 at Hurst Green. [184652]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: No assessment has been made of the impact of delay in the announcement. I am aware of the local concern over the delays however, this section of the A21 is particularly sensitive and I have asked for further advice from the Highways Agency. When I have received their report I will make an announcement

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his preferred route for the A21 at Hurst Green. [184653]
  14W
  Based on data reported by Portsmouth council and the National House-Building Council, the number of registered social landlord and council dwellings that have been built within Portsmouth in the last five financial years are as follows.

  Number

  1999–2000

  37

  2000–01

  92

  2001–02

  76

  2002–03

  88

  2003–04

  78

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many lettings have been made by(a) the local authority and (b) housing associations in Portsmouth in each of the last five years, broken down by category. [184314]

  Keith Hill
  Information on the number of lettings to new tenants made by Portsmouth city council, and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in the Portsmouth area; broken down by category excluding any transfers and mutual exchanges, is tabled as follows:

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: I have asked the Highways Agency to carry out further work on this scheme including a review of alignment, road standard and value for money. When I receive their report later this summer I will make an announcement.

  Airport Security Act 1982
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are in place for the resolution of disputes between police forces and airports designated under the Airport Security Act 1982 regarding the costs to be included within the re-charge arrangements. [184900]

  Mr. McNulty
  Section 26(3) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 states that this is a matter for agreement between the manager of the designated airport and the police authority in question. Failing agreement, the Secretary of State for Transport will arbitrate. Following Sir John Wheeler's review of Aviation Security, this system is being reviewed with a view to
  15W
  making appropriate use of the Multi-Agency Threat and Risk Assessments (MATRAs) currently being undertaken at airports as a basis for agreement and, where necessary, arbitration.

  Airports
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will issue guidance to airport operators regarding the airport master plan referred to in paragraph 8.38 of the White Paper, The Future of Air Transport. [183762]

  Mr. McNulty
  Guidance on the Preparation of Airport Master Plans was published jointly by the Department for Transport, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland on 12 July. Copies have been placed in the House Library and can also be downloaded from the DfT website www.dit.gsi.gov.uk.

  Congestion Charges
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the health impact of the implementation of traffic congestion charges in cities where there is experience of their operation. [184388]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Mayor of London introduced a scheme to reduce congestion in central London in February 2003. Early indications suggest that congestion charging has resulted in a significant reduction in road traffic in central London. The First Annual Monitoring Report by Transport for London (TfL) considered the direct effect of the congestion charge on air quality would be relatively modest. TfL's Second Annual Report estimated small decreases in both PM 10 particles and nitrogen oxides in the charging zone. It is too early, however, to assess fully the air quality changes and thus to calculate the implied impact on health. GLA/TfL estimated that congestion charging would result in between 150 and 250 fewer reported accidents, involving injury, per year within Greater London. TfL's Second Annual Report highlighted that the recent pattern of decreasing levels of accidents within the charging zone is continuing, and there is no evidence of detrimental change in road traffic accidents within or around the zone.

  Dangerous Goods (Safety)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department(a) has put in place and (b) plans to put in place regarding the implementation of the Dangerous Goods Safety Advisors scheme throughout the transport industry. [184590]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The requirement for the appointment of Dangerous Goods Safety Advisers stemmed from EU Directives 96/35/EC (June 1996) and 2000/18/EC (April 2000). Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 257 implemented the requirement into national legislation—The Transport of Dangerous Goods (Safety Advisers) Regulations 1999 (as amended). The 1999 regulations were later subsumed into Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 586—The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004.16W
  This legislation implemented the requirements of the EU Framework Directives for Rail and Road, which required member states to align their national legislation with the international requirements for the transport of dangerous goods by rail and road. Similar legislation is in place in Northern Ireland.

  The EU requirement to appoint safety advisers applied only to the transport modes of road, rail and inland waterways.

  Diabetic Retinopathy (Driving Licences)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many diabetic retinopathy sufferers have had their driving licences revoked in each of the past three years; how many appealed against the decision; and how many had their licence subsequently returned. [184633]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on the total number of revocations over the last three years for drivers who have diabetic retinopathy is not available without incurring disproportionate costs. When a licence is revoked, the driver is always offered the opportunity to provide fresh evidence, which in such cases would normally be in the form of further visual field charts. If the new fields satisfy the standard, a licence will be reissued. No information is readily available on how many drivers have their licences returned on this basis.

  Since 2001, 18 drivers revoked because of diabetic retinopathy have formally appealed to a magistrates court in England and Wales or to a Sheriff Court in Scotland. Three went to a full hearing and of these two were dismissed and one was upheld and a new licence was issued. The other 15 appeals were withdrawn and eight have subsequently been issued with licences following the submission of fresh visual fields which met the required standard.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's policy is on driving and visual disorders as they relate to people with diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [184635]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The visual standards and assessment procedures applied in relation to drivers with diabetes are those to which all drivers are subject, regardless of their medical condition.

  Fishermen (Working Time Directive)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what exemptions or derogations are applicable to fishermen in respect of the Working Time Directive; whether they are(a) temporary and (b) permanent; and when those that are temporary will expire. [184717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea Fishermen) Regulations 2004, which comes into force on 16 August, the Secretary of State may grant exceptions from the limit on the maximum weekly working time and the minimum periods of daily and weekly rest for objective or technical reasons or reasons concerning the organisation of work, provided he has consulted those concerned and the exception is subject to such conditions and limitations as will protect
  17W
  fishermen's health and safety. He may alter or cancel any exception on reasonable notice and after consultation with those affected.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Working Time Directive is in force in relation to its application to commercial sea fishing activity.[185196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea Fishermen) Regulations 2004 were laid in Parliament on 13 July 2004 and come into force on 16 August 2004. The Regulations implement the European Directives on working time in respect of workers engaged in sea fishing.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles using the UK's roads were heavy goods vehicles in each of the last three years for which figures are available; how many road accidents involved

  Road accidents involving HGVs

  People killed in road accidents involving HGVs

  People injured in road accidents involving HGVs

  Number

  Percentage of all road accidents

  Number

  Percentage of all road fatalities

  Number

  Percentage of all injured road casualties

  2001

  14,160

  6

  578

  16

  18,738

  6

  2002

  12,894

  6

  532

  15

  17,058

  5

  2003

  12,643

  6

  530

  14

  16,758

  6

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many licensed heavy goods vehicles there were in the UK in each of the last 10 years. [184333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of heavy goods vehicles licensed at the end of each of the last 10 years in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Number of heavy goods vehicles

  1994

  430,500

  1995

  434,200

  1996

  438,000

  1997

  440,600

  1998

  439,500

  1999

  439,900

  2000

  443,300

  2001

  449,100

  2002

  453,000

  2003

  455,600

  International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the training being given to ship security officers will train them in all 25 of the topics given in Part B of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. [184598]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency approve training providers against the training specification for ship security officers which covers 23 of the 25 topics identified in Part B of the ISPS Code. Those concerning the layout of the individual ship are covered by the ship security officers' professional knowledge, and those concerning crowd management and control techniques are covered by other professional qualifications 18W
  HGVs in each year; how many people were (a) killed and (b) injured in such accidents; and what percentage these figures represent of the total in each case. [184302]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The latest available figures are for 2001 to 2003 when the number of UK-registered heavy goods vehicles on the roads was:

  Number of heavy goods vehicles

  2001

  449,000

  2002

  453,000

  2003

  456,000

  In addition, it is estimated that between 50,000 and 70,000 foreign-registered HGVs use roads in Great Britain.

  The information requested about road accidents involving HGVs in the UK, and casualties arising from these accidents is shown in the table.

  Motorcycles and Mopeds
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crashes involving motorcycles and mopeds resulting in death or serious injury there have been in(a) the UK, (b) East Sussex and (c) Eastbourne in each of the last 10 years. [184304]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Fatal and Serious road accidents involving TWMVs1 by area: 1994 to 2003

  East Sussex

  Eastbourne

  UK

  1994

  82

  4

  7,029

  1995

  79

  4

  6,906

  1996

  95

  5

  6,434

  1997

  80

  5

  6,729

  1998

  91

  9

  6,721

  1999

  76

  5

  7,163

  2000

  77

  3

  7,711

  2001

  86

  8

  7,670

  2002

  98

  7

  7,835

  2003

  90

  3

  7,951

  1 Two wheeled motor vehicles, mopeds, motor scooters and motorcycles.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he bill list the laws and regulations affecting pillion passengers of less than 16 years of age on motorcycles and mopeds. [184305]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following legislation affects all pillion passengers irrespective of age:

  Only motorcyclists who have passed a motorcycle test can carry passengers. (Regulation 16 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999)

  19W

  The machine must be equipped with suitable supports or rests for the feet of the pillion passenger. (Regulation 102 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986)

  Pillion passengers must be capable of sitting astride a proper seat securely fixed to the motorcycle. This may require specific adaptations to accommodate young children. (Section 23(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988)

  A pillion passenger must wear a safety helmet. (Motor Cycles (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998)

  The decision to carry a passenger on a motorcycle remains with the rider, who is legally responsible for ensuring that the passenger is safely supported. (Section 23(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988)

  Any passenger must be carried in a manner so that no danger is caused, or likely to be caused, to any person on the vehicle or on the road. (Regulation 100 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986)

  It is an offence to use a vehicle when the number of passengers, or the manner in which they are carried, is such that it involves a danger of injury to any person. (Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1991)

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pillion passengers on motorcycles and mopeds have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in each of the last 10 years in (i) the UK, (ii) East Sussex and (iii) Eastbourne. [184306]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Severity

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England

  Fatal

  437

  433

  486

  539

  501

  532

  598

  Serious

  5,132

  5,165

  5,462

  5,804

  5,822

  5,955

  6,093

  Somerset

  Fatal

  3

  8

  7

  10

  11

  8

  6

  Serious

  61

  47

  43

  59

  44

  56

  57

  Taunton Deane

  Fatal

  0

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Serious

  14

  10

  8

  8

  5

  16

  12

  West Somerset

  Fatal

  1

  1

  0

  2

  3

  1

  1

  Serious

  3

  1

  4

  1

  7

  6

  5

  Railways
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport which organizations provided(a) legal,(b) financial and (c) auditing services valued at over

  Expenditure on legal services

  £(approved invoices paid)

  Organisation

  2000–011

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–052

  Total

  Allen and Overy

  —

  —

  254,889.87

  2,813,023.34

  642,062.61

  3,709,975.83

  Bond Pearce

  —

  —

  —

  25,531.91

  17,084.75

  42,616.66

  Brodies Solicitors

  —

  3,607.00

  119,813.39

  494,094.57

  130,993.56

  748,508.52

  C. Hoare and Co.

  —

  —

  400,000.00

  —

  —

  400,000.00

  Clifford Chance

  —

  5,947.58

  227,937.19

  689,106.64

  201,937.34

  1,124,928.75

  CMS Cameron McKenna

  —

  —

  —

  16,117.60

  21,612.55

  37,730.15

  Cobbetts

  —

  —

  81,499.90

  11,131.45

  —

  92,631.35

  DLA

  —

  —

  24,877.44

  19,198.66

  13,723.81

  57,799.92

  Evans Harding

  —

  —

  —

  764,578.16

  —

  764,578.16

  Eversheds

  308,160.40

  1,133,044.33

  2,135,651.04

  3,344,576.60

  349,041.47

  7,270,473.85

  Field Fisher Waterhouse

  —

  —

  74,400.04

  22,689.18

  9,922.15

  107,011.38

  Freshfields

  —

  —

  7,600.00

  1,559,720.78

  217,193.36

  1,784,514.14

  20W

  Number of TWMV1 passengers2 killed or seriously injured: 1994 to 2003

  Casualties

  East Sussex

  Eastbourne

  UK

  Killed

  Serious

  Killed

  Serious

  Killed

  Serious

  1994

  1

  5

  0

  0

  45

  449

  1995

  0

  9

  0

  1

  30

  505

  1996

  0

  8

  0

  0

  26

  474

  1997

  1

  9

  0

  0

  33

  465

  1998

  0

  10

  0

  0

  33

  411

  1999

  0

  2

  0

  1

  24

  449

  2000

  1

  9

  0

  0

  32

  468

  2001

  0

  5

  0

  0

  29

  403

  2002

  1

  3

  0

  0

  29

  454

  2003

  3

  4

  0

  0

  30

  428

  1Two wheeled motor vehicles, mopeds, motor scooters and motorcycles.

  2 Includes casualties in motorcycle sidecars.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents involving motorcycles and mopeds resulting in(a) death and (b) hospitalisation of (i) riders and (ii) pillion passengers there have been in (A) England, (B) Somerset, (C) Taunton Deane and (D) West Somerset in each of the last seven years. [184651]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of accidents involving a fatal of serious injury to a motorcycle/moped rider or passenger in the areas requested are given in the following table. "Serious" injuries are defined within the Departments road accident reporting system (STATS 19) as injuries for which a person is detained in hospital as an in-patient, plus injuries that may not lead to hospitalisation such as concussion, severe shock and severe cuts and lacerations.

  £25,000 to the Strategic Rail Authority in each year since 2001; and what the value of these services was in each case.

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is shown in the following tables.
  21W

  Expenditure on legal services

  £(approved invoices paid)

  Organisation

  2000–011

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–052

  Total

  HM Paymaster General Lord

  Chancellor's Department

  —

  —

  198,065.00

  323.40

  —

  198,388.40

  Holden and Co.

  —

  —

  39,337.49

  —

  —

  39,337.49

  Hollingworth Bissell

  —

  —

  5,135.00

  82,524.29

  61,085.00

  103,266.09

  12,626.71

  264,637.08

  Kennedy's Solicitors

  —

  —

  101,135.74

  13,061.59

  1,378.72

  115,576.05

  K Legal Solicitors

  —

  105,133.31

  12,340.79

  —

  —

  117,474.10

  Linklaters and Paines

  253,362.39

  3,019,692.08

  8,000,840.23

  164,555.06

  751,698.89

  12,190,148.65

  Mills and Reeve Solicitors

  —

  —

  106,611.28

  —

  —

  106,611.28

  Osborne Clarke

  —

  —

  30,000.00

  —

  —

  30,000.00

  Rees and Freres

  —

  —

  87,459.30

  —

  —

  87.459.30

  Thomas Eggar Church Adams

  —

  5,009.70

  192,944.20

  —

  —

  197,953.90

  Vizards Solicitors

  —

  —

  334,693.67

  —

  —

  334,693.67

  Total

  566,657.79

  4,354,958.29

  12,491,181.57

  10,040,975.05

  2,369,275.94

  29,823,048.63

  Expenditure on financial services

  £(approved invoices paid)

  Organisation

  2000–013

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–054

  Total

  Babcock and Brown

  —

  —

  —

  303,920.99

  —

  303,920.99

  Capital Value Brokers Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  24,679.00

  5,585.00

  30,264.01

  HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd.

  —

  —

  40,000.00

  —

  —

  42,000.00

  KPMG

  438,648.52

  6,181,816.35

  8,809,144.19

  6,822,884.65

  682,923.84

  22,935,417.55

  L E K

  —

  —

  610,521.29

  2,497,441.36

  387,374.02

  3,495,336.67

  Lazard Brothers and Co. Ltd.

  —

  2,832,562.82

  7,064,667.22

  1,738,431.57

  450,372.57

  12,086,034.18

  Moody's Investors Services

  —

  —

  —

  48,081.79

  —

  48,081.79

  Mott Macdonald

  —

  —

  196,632.26

  78,671.30

  —

  275,303.56

  PKF

  —

  —

  572,029.76

  266,668.95

  11,179.99

  849,878.70

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  —

  67,520.00

  361,159.96

  764,694.51

  44,250.00

  1,237,624.47

  Standard and Poores

  —

  30,000.00

  20,000.00

  40,000.00

  —

  90,000.00

  Total

  438,648.52

  9,111,899.17

  17,676,154.68

  12,585,474.12

  1,581,685.42

  41,393,61.91

  Expenditure on auditing services

  £(approved invoices paid)

  Organisation

  2000–013

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–054

  Total

  National Audit Office

  —

  96,100.00

  117,775.00

  247,000.00

  —

  460,875.00

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  40.000.00

  85,535.00

  52,100.00

  112,334.99

  28,175.00

  318,144.99

  Total

  40,000.00

  181,635.00

  169,875.00

  359,334.99

  28,175.00

  779,019.99

  1 Figures in this column show expenditure for the two months February 2001 (when the SRA was established) and March 2001.

  2 Figures in this column show expenditure for the three months April-June 2004.

  3 Figures in this column show expenditure for the two months February 2001 (when the SRA was established) and March 2001.

  4 Figures in this column show expenditure for the three months April-June 2004.

  Road Traffic Accidents (Fatalities)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities there were from road traffic accidents in each local authority area in England and Wales in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [184766]

  Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 16 July 2004.]
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Approved invoices paid

  £

  Financial year

  2000–011

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–052

  Total

  Technical and financial expenditure (non-call-offs)

  352,553.87

  4,608,001.72

  9,744,734.23

  3,906,538.03

  830,827.42

  19.442,655.28

  Technical consultant expenditure (call-of)

  686,740.01

  6,871,213.80

  11,362,342.95

  12,435,146.62

  2,353,573.99

  33,709,017.37

  Financial consultant expenditure (call-off)

  438,648.52

  6,249,336.35

  10,549,487.46

  10,401,760.77

  1,125,727.85

  28,764,960.95

  Total

  1,477,942.40

  17,728,551.87

  31,656,564.64

  26,743,445.43

  4,310,129.26

  81,916,633.60

  1Figures in this column show expenditure for the two months February 2001 (when the SRA was established) and March 2001.

  2 Figures in this column show expenditure for the three months April to June 2004.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  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 Strategic Rail Authority in each year since 2001. [180893]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is shown in the following table.

  Transec
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often the Director of Transec reports to him. [184601]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Frequently.

  Transport Operator Identity Crime
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to put in place measures to counter transport operator identity crime. [184606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Security measures in place to manage the terrorist threat to the transport system vary according to the mode of transport and the threat. Where appropriate, such measures include the security screening of transport operators and the checking of their identity on entry to a restricted zone.

  Uninsured Driving
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the report commissioned by his Department into uninsured driving. [184768]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: We are carefully considering all the recommendations in the report by Professor Greenaway on uninsured driving, and will be publishing the report as soon as possible.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  16. Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Iraqi security forces will be at full operational level. [184484]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Iraqi Security Forces consist of the Iraqi Police Service, Iraqi Armed Forces, Iraqi National Guard, Iraqi Border Police, Facilities Protection Force, Iraqi Coastal Defence Force and Iraqi Riverine Patrol Service among others. Each of these is a separate organisation and has its own intensive programme of training and capability development. Some units of each are already operational locally. Further capability development will occur at different rates in each organisation. It is for the Iraqi Government to determine when the capability they seek is being delivered.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the time scale for the Iraqi security forces to reach full operational capacity. [184488]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work his Department is doing with the (a) Department for International Development and (b) non-governmental organisations to assist the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. [184490]
  24W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence's main contribution to the reconstruction of Iraq is to help provide the security that allows reconstruction projects to take place. We also work with the Department for International Development on numerous reconstruction projects in the South under the auspices of the Emergency Infrastructure Programme, with United Kingdom soldiers rebuilding and offering advice. We work with DFID to ensure that our Quick Impact Project money, which brings about short-term improvements in living conditions, is disbursed wisely.

  MOD coordinates closely with DFID on Iraq policy issues, including strategic communication, capacity building and use of funds from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. NGOs concerned with reconstruction normally engage with DfTD. Our close relationship with DfID ensures that our collective reconstruction effort can take account of concerns or proposals from NGOs.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are in Iraq; and what British equipment is deployed there. [184268]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at the 13 July there are around 8,500 British troops deployed on Operation Telic in Iraq.

  There are currently around 2,800 Army vehicles and other pieces of equipment ranging from challenger tanks and helicopters through to fuel tankers and forklift handling equipment, generators and Land Rovers. The RAF has a mixture of Combat, Air Transport, Refuelling and Maritime Surveillance aircraft involved in operations in the Gulf and the Royal Navy has some warships and support vessels.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the UK's defence budget has been devoted specifically to the armed forces in Iraq over the past 15 months. [184270]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence, in common with other Government Departments, publishes expenditure data on an annual basis in its Resource Accounts following audit by the National Audit Office. Details of costs of operations in Iraq for the Financial Year 2003–04 will be published in the MOD's Annual Report and Accounts following audit in September. Total costs are expected to be within the £1,539 million voted by Parliament which represents 3.6 per cent. of the total resource and capital expenditure limits voted to my Department in the Spring Supplementary Estimates.

  Audited figures for the cost of operations in Iraq in this financial year will be published in the MOD's Resource Accounts in 2005. It is too early to provide any estimate for the total costs that will be incurred this year, but we will ask the House to vote the necessary funds in Supplementary Estimates in due course.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the incidents that have led to compensation being paid to Iraqi people in the sector occupied by British forces for (a) death, (b) injury and (c) destruction of property. [169408]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 16 July, the following incidents have led to compensation being paid to Iraqi people in the sector occupied by British Forces.
  25W

  Number

  Death

  Road traffic accidents

  6

  Gunshot wounds

  3

  Bomb attack on British Army vehicle

  1

  Death in detention

  1

  Injury

  Road traffic accidents

  14

  Gunshot wounds

  3

  Sustained during arrest

  11

  Resulting from property searches

  2

  Property damage

  —

  24

  Vehicle damage

  Road traffic accidents

  57

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which private companies' services have been employed by his Department in Iraq; and how much has been paid to each. [175095]

  Mr. Ingram
  We employ contractors to undertake a wide variety of tasks such as support of equipment, construction and removal of camps, catering and translation. They are contracted by a number of separate military commands including in theatre.

  A record of which private companies' services have been employed is not held centrally and could only be established at disproportionate cost; details of the respective contracts are commercial in confidence.

  Recruitment (Regimental Attainment)
  17. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he takes of the recruitment attainment by regiments when considering the future configuration of the Army. [184485]

  Mr. Ingram
  We continually monitor the ability of Regiments to recruit and retain personnel, their success in doing so would be one element taken into account in decisions on the future structure of the Army.

  Scottish Regiments
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reorganise the structure and recruitment areas of the Scottish regiments. [184486]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces are constantly evolving to reflect the strategic security environment in which they operate. The Defence White Paper published last December established the policy context for shaping the future structure of our armed forces. For the Army, it outlined the vision of a more balanced force that is flexible, rapidly deployable and sustainable for the variety of operational tasks that we envisage it undertaking.

  Against this policy guideline, we have been working through the detailed implications for the Army's force structure. We anticipate being in a position to make announcements about the conclusions of this work shortly.

  Service Personnel (Occupational Stress)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to assist service personnel in coping with the stresses of serving in war zones. [184487]
  26W
  Mr. Caplin
  Preparation for dealing with potentially stressful operational situations forms part of normal training for all Service personnel All Service personnel are given pre and post deployment briefings on dealing with the possibility of post traumatic stress, including guidance on who to consult if they experience problems. Trained mental health staff are also deployed to provide advice to personnel in theatre, supported by both Defence Medical Services and our Welfare Services all of whom play such an extremely important part in supporting our forces both regular and reserve.

  Departmental Agencies (Relocation)
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for moving the headquarters of one of his Department's agencies to the north-east of England. [184491]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to relocate any Defence Agency Headquarters to the North East. However, we are conducting an examination of the Defence estate as part of our estate rationalisation strategy.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action the Department is taking to improve the security situation in Afghanistan. [184479]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is making a major contribution to improving the security situation in Afghanistan. The transfer of control of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Mazar-e Sharif and Meymanek together with associated support forces, was a major step in implementing the first stage of ISAF's expansion across Afghanistan; a process we see as playing a vital role in helping the Afghans create a secure and stable country. Together with our forces in Kabul, we now contribute around 580 personnel to the ISAF, and are also engaged in providing wider support to security sector reform in Afghanistan. Looking ahead, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House on 30 June, we have offered to deploy the Headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to lead ISAF in 2006. This is the clearest possible evidence of our commitment to ISAF and to Afghanistan.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. [184489]

  Mr. Hoon
  Of the 580 United Kingdom personnel serving with the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, 340 are deployed to Kabul where they are assisting the Afghan Transitional Authority to maintain security. The remainder are serving in the UK-led multinational Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Mazar-e Sharif and Meymaneh, and the associated Forward Support Base, in Northern Afghanistan.

  RAF Bases (US Personnel)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, at what percentage of RAF bases RAF personnel are outnumbered by US personnel. [184492]
  27W
  Mr. Ingram
  There are 10 RAF bases where RAF personnel are outnumbered by the United States personnel, which is approximately 17 per cent. of the principal RAF bases in the United Kingdom.

  Aircraft Carriers Programme
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the aircraft carriers programme. [184481]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Statement made to the House earlier today.

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the training objectives of each of the cadet forces. [184156]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: The training objectives of each of the cadet forces are broadly similar, differing only to reflect the traditions and ethos of the parent Service. They support the key themes of the Government youth policies by providing training aimed at capacity building, maximising personal potential and social inclusion. Training is undertaken by cadets under two broad headings: military training and adventurous training in the approximate proportions of 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively. The military training functions are as follows:

  a. To provide the opportunity for young people to exercise responsibility and leadership, and to learn from the Services how they can be best developed.

  b. To impart a basic knowledge and understanding of the role of the armed forces.

  c. To encourage those who have an interest in the Services to be aware of the career opportunities the armed forces have to offer.

  The adventurous training includes activities that are arduous and include an element of risk to test the courage and endurance of cadets and develop their qualities of character.

  The military training syllabi contain such topics as turnout and drill, skill at arms, shooting, map and compass, fieldcraft, and first aid. Rock climbing, mountain walking, canoeing, caving, offshore sailing, sub aqua diving and parachuting are just some of the approved adventurous training activities undertaken by cadets with the view to making them better citizens.

  Arms Trafficking
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his letter of 16 June to the US Defense Secretary; and what implications this has for future Government policy. [182390]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are working with the United States Administration to secure the necessary legislative approval to give effect to an exemption for the United Kingdom from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations as soon as possible. We remain in close contact with the Administration on this and look forward to its successful conclusion.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects the current fleet of Red Arrows Hawk aircraft to remain in service; and what plans he has for their replacement. [180498]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is expected that the current fleet of Hawk Red Arrows will continue flying into the next decade. The management of the Red Arrows fleet beyond that time frame is a matter for periodic review.

  EU Military Planning/Structures
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's commitment to the EU military planning cell is in terms of(a) civilian and uniformed personnel and (b) funding. [184903]

  Mr. Hoon
  Both the European Union cell at SHAPE and the new civil-military cell in the EU Military Staff will be funded out of the Council Secretariat budget. No decisions on the size or manning of these have yet been taken.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the EU planning cell to stand up; and what its role will be. [184904]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Union is setting up a cell at SHAPE to improve the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO and, in particular, the planning of "Berlin Plus" operations where the EU uses NATO's planning capability.

  It is also establishing a civil-military cell within the EU Military Staff, which will improve coherence between the EU's civilian and military responses, develop expertise in managing the civilian-military interface, and undertake advance strategic planning for joint civil-military operations. This will also have the capacity to generate an ad hoc Operations Centre for an operation, in particular where a joint civil-military response is required, where no national headquarters is identified, and if agreed unanimously by EU member states.

  The June European Council agreed that these cells should be established by the end of 2004, with the ability to set up an Operations Centre available by 1 January 2006.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military agreements (a) in force and (b) in negotiation between EU members in respect of military structures outside NATO. [184905]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following table sets out the main multilateral military structures outside NATO which include European Union members. A number of these also include non-EU countries. In addition, there are many other bilateral military agreements between individual EU member states.

  The United Kingdom is a party to military agreements in respect of four of these structures, as listed in the following table. Military agreements between other EU members are a matter for those member states' governments.
  29W

  Structure

  EU participants

  EAG—European Air Group

  Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK

  European Airlift Centre

  Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK

  Sealift Co-ordination Centre (Eindhoven)

  Netherlands, UK

  European Amphibious Initiative (including the UK/Netherlands Amphibious Force)

  France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK

  SHIRBRIG—Stand-by High Readiness Brigade

  Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden. (Observers: Czech Republic, Hungary)

  SEEBRIG—South-Eastern Europe Brigade

  Greece, Italy, Slovenia

  NORDCAPS—Nordic Co-ordinated Arrangement for Military

  Finland, Sweden, Denmark Peace Support

  EUROCORPS

  Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Luxembourg

  EUROFOR

  France, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  EUROMARFOR

  France, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  Lance-Corporal William Graham
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 14 June 2004,Oficial Report, column 644W, on Lance Corporal William Graham, what exceptional reasons were laid before the Director of Manning to make desirable the retention of Lance Corporal William Graham in the Army. [182733]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the details in accordance with Exemption 12 (Privacy of an individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Management Groups
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the responsibilities of the(a) Command Field Army, (b) Command Regional Forces, (c) Defence Supply Chain HQ, (d) Primary Health Care, (e) QVS, (f) DYRMS, (g) Defence Academy, (h) Defence Medical Services Department and (i) Defence Medical Education and Training Agency management groups. [181748]

  Mr. Caplin
  The responsibilities of the management groupings requested are listed as follows:

  (a) Exercising operational command of the field Army and training designated forces for war and other operations in order to provide military capability in the right place, at the right time in the most cost effective manner.

  (b) The Commander Regional Forces maintains, and where possible, enhances the provision of the military capability and infrastructure support required to meet CinC Land's operational requirements.

  (c) The Defence Supply Chain provides a range of support functions to enable the British armed forces to carry out operations. These include storing and distributing all the supplies needed by the forces, such as equipment, mail, medical supplies, fuel, clothing, food and ammunition, as well as transporting personnel and freight anywhere in the world.

  (d) Primary health care comes under the responsibility of the single services except in Germany (responsibility lies with British Forces Germany Health Care) and on operations (responsibility lies with PJHQ). It covers, general practice, occupational health, public health and environmental medicine as well as rehabilitation services and, to a degree, mental health care. These services are available to all armed forces personnel, and entitled civilians ie dependants of service personnel on overseas postings and UK civilians overseas. The standard of healthcare is at least equal to primary health care available on the NHS.

  30W

  (e) The role of the Queen Victoria School is to provide, in accordance with the provision of the Royal Warrant and within a stable boarding environment, education in keeping with the curriculum and standards of the Scottish education system so as to enable pupils admitted to the school to proceed to university or other higher or further education institutions, or to enter directly into the armed services, professions, commerce or industry.

  (f) The Duke of York's Royal Military School's role is to provide, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant, secondary education within a stable environment for those admitted to the school so as to enable them to proceed to university or other higher education institutions, or to enter directly into the armed services, professions, commerce or industry.

  (g) The Defence Academy is a national and international centre of excellence, providing military and civilian personnel with high quality training and education, primarily at the postgraduate level, and conducts research in fields related to defence. The teaching and research it provides are at all times coherent and responsive both to Defence customer needs and to developing national and international circumstances.

  (h) DMSD is responsible for the delivering the required Deployable Medical Operational Capability and a health and healthcare system that maximises the number of service personnel 'fit for task'. The Defence Medical Services provide the armed forces with a comprehensive medical service in peace, war and operations other than war to standards at least equal to the national health service (NHS).

  (i) DMETA delivers medical training to specified standards for personnel of the Defence Medical Services to meet the operational requirement. The agency also makes trained personnel available to front line commanders for training, operations and deployment.

  Further information on individual defence agencies is available in the Library of the House.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the means-tested benefits available through his Department and the agencies for which it is responsible (a) in May 1997 and (b) now. [182568]

  Mr. Caplin
  Under the rules of the War Pension Scheme, the Veterans Agency takes into account claimants' means when assessing the level of certain benefits and allowances paid to those affected by death or injury as a result of service in the armed forces. Specifically:In 1997, the War Widowers pension was means tested, but this is no longer the case.

  31W
  In 1997, and now, a claimant's income is one of the factors taken into consideration when determining entitlement to the following additional allowances: additional allowance for unemployability supplement, allowance for lower standard of occupation and rent allowance.

  Medical Services
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Department provides a single seamless health service to British servicemen and women and their families serving in Germany; and if he will make a statement. [183258]

  Mr. Caplin
  The British Forces Germany (BFG) health service is responsible for the provision of health care for the Army, and the few remaining RAF personnel in Germany. It aims to provide a seamless service to its patients, which include civilian staff and families, and standards of service at least comparable to those of the national health service.

  The BFG health service brings together military personnel, Guy's and St. Thomas' National Health Trust and the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association (SSAFA) into a co-operative military/ civilian and public/private working partnership backed by open-book financial arrangements and close collaboration at every management level.

  Primary care is provided by medical centres located in each of the Garrisons and run by military and civilian medical staff employed by the Defence Medical Service supported by SSAFA.

  Hospital-based care is provided, through Guy's and St. Thomas' as prime contractor, at five German hospitals selected to serve the areas where British forces are based in Germany.

  In the German hospitals, Guy's and St. Thomas' liaison staff provide on-site support to patients. British style menus are available as well as English language television and newspapers.

  Services are continually monitored to ensure that standards are maintained and as part of this process regular patient satisfaction surveys are conducted.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what duty he has to provide medical services to Service personnel; and if he will make a statement; [183259]

  (2) whether he has a duty to provide medical services for Servicemen and women and their families equivalent to the duty of the Secretary of State under the Health Act 1977; and if he will make a statement. [183257]

  Mr. Caplin
  The main activity of the Ministry of Defence is to deliver security for the people of the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories by defending their security, including against terrorism, and so to act as a force for good by strengthening international peace and stability. In doing so, it has a responsibility as an employer, to take care of all its 32W
  personnel. However, this responsibility is not equivalent to that of the Secretary of State for Health who, under the Health Act 1977 has a duty to:
  "continue the promotion in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service."

  As part of its responsibility to take care of all its personnel the Ministry of Defence, through the Defence Medical Services, provides comprehensive medical services, to standards at least equal to the NHS, to Servicemen and women in peace, war and operations other than war in order to maintain military capability. In the main, primary care is delivered by the single Services. Secondary care for Service personnel is usually provided through routine treatment within the NHS unless there are operational reasons to do otherwise. In the UK, medical services for families of Servicemen and women are usually provided within the NHS. Overseas, the Ministry of Defence is committed to providing medical services for families accompanying Service personnel which are comparable to those provided by the NHS.

  Orange Parades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of providing assistance to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in policing the 1 July parade organised by Ballymacarrett District Loyal Orange Lodge No. 6. [182853]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were no additional Army manpower costs in providing public order support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in connection with the 1 July parade organised by the Ballymacarrett Loyal Orange Lodge District No. 6 in East Belfast. It is not possible to provide the additional equipment usage and fuel costs except at disproportionate cost.

  Trident Replacement
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress has been made in assessing options for the replacement of the Trident missile system. [184480]

  Mr. Hoon
  Work on a range of options for maintaining a nuclear deterrent capability is in hand in accordance with the policy set out in last December's Defence White Paper. As that White paper made clear, decisions on whether to replace Trident are not needed this Parliament but are likely to be required in the next one.

PRIME MINISTER

  Arms Trafficking
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has raised British exemption from the US International Traffic in Arms Regulation with the US Administration; and when he expects the exemption to be granted. [185171]

  The Prime Minister
  We are working closely with the US Administration to secure the necessary legislative approval to give effect to an exemption for the United Kingdom from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations as soon as possible.

  Butler Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers were provided with an advance copy of the Butler Committee Report. [184825]

  The Prime Minister
  The Butler Review provided the Government with the final version of its report on 13 July.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an inquiry into the leaks to the media of parts of the report of the Butler Committee on the review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction prior to its publication. [185188]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no plans to establish an inquiry.

  Correspondence
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will answer the letter to him of 30 June from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent about the Iraq Oil for Food programme. [185160]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office received the letter on 5 July. I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly.

  G8 Presidency (Priorities)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government's priorities were when the UK last held the G8 presidency; and what priorities will be set for the next presidency. [184222]

  The Prime Minister
  The priorities of the G7 summit held in Birmingham in 1998 were increasing employment, the environment and crime, particularly drugs and money laundering. We also sought to take steps forward on debt relief, which led to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.

  The main priorities for the UK presidency of the G8 in 2005 will be Africa and climate change. The work of the Commission for Africa and taking forward the Kyoto Protocol will be major parts of our agenda.

  We will also take forward issues from this year's G8 meeting in the United States including reform in the Middle East, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation and trade.

  Iraq
  Clare Short
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 14 July on the Butler report, what information caused him to decide on 15 March 2003 that it was his unequivocal view that Iraq was in further material breach of Resolution 1441; what account he took of Dr. Hans Blix's recent report on increased cooperation from the Iraqi authorities and his request for more time for inspections; and if he will make a statement. [185082]

  The Prime Minister
  Iraq was in further material breach under Operative Paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1441 because of"false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution."
  34W
  As Lord Butler said in his report
  "We have been told that, in coining to this view, the Prime Minister took account both of the overall intelligence picture and of information from a wide range of other sources, including especially UNMOVIC information." (paragraph 385, HC 898)

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether following publication of the Butler Committee report he is able to reveal whether GCHQ provided any information on alleged attempts by Iraq to obtain uranium from Niger. [185567]

  The Prime Minister
  As Lord Butler made clear in his report"The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium" (paragraph 503 (b) HC 898).

  Ministerial Committee on Public Health
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Ministerial Committee on Public Health (MISC27) was established. [184567]

  The Prime Minister
  I announced the establishment of the Ministerial Committee on Public Health (MISC27) to Parliament on Thursday 27 May 2004.

  Radioactive Waste (Italy)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed with President Berlusconi, during his meeting on 13 July, the future timetable for the return of radioactive waste to Italy arising from the contracted reprocessing of Italian spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield. [184826]

  The Prime Minister
  My discussions with Prime Minister Berlusconi focused on international and European issues. As with previous administrations, it is not the practice of this Government to make public all the details of discussions with foreign Governments.

  Terrorism
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to publish further Joint Intelligence Committee assessments to assist public understanding of the threats from terrorism and proliferation, to which he made special reference in his statement to the House on 14 July. [185187]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no current plans to publish Joint Intelligence Committee assessments. However, as the Butler report recognises in paragraph 342 (HC 898), there are likely to be demands in the future on Government to put intelligence into the public domain. The Government fully accepts the conclusions of the Butler report, including those relating to the public use of intelligence.

TREASURY

  Annual Income (Taxpayers)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers have (a) total annual income and (b) earned annual income in excess of (i) £100,000, (ii) £250,000 and (iii) £1 million. [185166]
  35W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the following table:

  Number of taxpayers (thousand)

  Income range

  (a) By range of annual income

  (b) By range of earned income

  (i) £100,000 or more

  329

  278

  (ii) £250,000 or more

  63

  51

  (iii) £1,000,000 or more

  5

  4

  Note:

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes 2001–02.

  Art Prizes (Taxation)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of revenue raised from taxation of prizes awarded for art, in each of the last three years. [184446]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not have central records of the amount of revenue raised from taxation of prizes awarded for art. These sort of data are not shown separately on tax returns and to ask taxpayers to provide it would be an extra burden. If a prize is received by an individual in the course of a trade, vocation or profession, then the prize will normally be taxable.

  Central European Fund
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the United Kingdom contributed to the Central European Fund in(a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2001 and (d) 2004; and what the contributions made by other European member states were for those years. [184259]

  Ruth Kelly
  I am unaware of the Central European Fund. However, Government figures for the UK's gross contribution, abatement, public sector receipts and net contribution to the EC Budget for the years 1999, 2001 together with a forecast for 2004 can be found in Table 3 of the 2004 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 6134). Details for 1997 can be found in Table 3 of the 2003 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 5800).

  Details, as published by the European Commission, of Member States, including the UK, gross contributions, after taking account of the UK abatement, to the EC Budget for the years 1999 and 2001 can be, found in Tables 2 and 2A of the 2004 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 6134). Details for 1997 can be found in Tables 2 and 2A of the 2003 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 5800). The following table provides the latest EC Budget estimates of these contributions for 2004.

  2004€ million

  Belgium

  3,749

  Denmark

  2,061

  Germany

  21,878

  Greece

  1,738

  Spain

  8,202

  France

  16,801

  Ireland

  1,266

  Italy

  13,674

  Luxembourg

  218

  36W

  2004 € million

  Netherlands

  5,459

  Austria

  2,216

  Portugal

  1,440

  Finland

  1,490

  Sweden

  2,686

  UK

  12,857

  Czech Republic

  545

  Estonia

  57

  Cyprus

  89

  Latvia

  67

  Lithuania

  126

  Hungary

  560

  Malta

  35

  Poland

  1,345

  Slovenia

  191

  Slovakia

  240

  Source:

  Amending Budget No. 5/2004

  The figures shown for the 10 new member states represent contributions for two thirds of the year, following enlargement on 1 May 2004.

  Civil Contingencies
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional resources he plans to make available for emergency planning officers in local authorities to deal with planning for civil contingencies arising from terrorist attacks (a) on nuclear installations and (b) using dirty radiological bombs. [184391]

  Mr. Boateng
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement of 12 July, the Government will double the contribution previously allocated to the Civil Defence Grant from £20 million to £40 million from 2005–06. This will further enhance the capacity of local authorities to carry out emergency planning in response to a wide range of civil contingencies. The funding will be provided through an increase to Formula Spending Share for local authorities through the EPCS (Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services) block.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) gross and (b) net reduction in the number of civil service posts and the number of posts which will be outsourced by 2008 in (i) the UK administration and (ii) the devolved Administrations. [184874]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: As announced in the Spending Review there will be a gross reduction of 84,150 posts by 2008, and after redeployment to the frontline there will be a net reduction of 70,600 posts.

  Any future outsourcing changes will be made by Departments in line with their business need. The devolved Administrations will announce their spending plans for devolved areas in the autumn in the normal way.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of reductions in staff numbers due to efficiency savings within the civil service for civil servants working in Northampton. [184841]
  37W
  Mr. Boateng
  There will be an overall gross reduction in posts of 84,150 by 2008 and departments will pursue these reductions in line with business needs.

  It is for individual Departments to finalise specific plans.

  Tourism (Clacton-on-Sea)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Clacton-on-Sea on the latest date for which figures are available. [184993]

  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. Ivan Henderson, dated 19 July 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Clacton-on-Sea. (184993)
  The latest available data, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the total number of employee jobs in tourism related industries in Clacton-on-Sea was 1,400. This total is obtained by combining figures for those working in the following industries as identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2003:

  hotels

  restaurants

  bars

  activities of travel agencies

  library, archives and museums etc.

  sporting activities

  other recreational activities.

  Departmental Electricity Use
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of electricity used by buildings in (a) his Department and (b) agencies of the Department came from renewable sources in each year since 1997. [181844]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following information and tables provide the information required in the form in which the Chancellors Departments and Agencies have been able to compile it without having to incur disproportionate costs. The proportion of electricity used by buildings in the Chancellors' Department and its agencies that came from renewable sources in each year since 1997 is given as follows:

  Office for National Statistics

  Percentage

  1997–01

  0

  2001 (To date)

  10

  Royal Mint

  None of the electricity used by Royal Mint came from renewable sources.

  HM Customs and Excise Inland Revenue and the Valuation Office Agency

  Information prior to 2001–02 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  38W

  Percentage

  2001–02

  13

  2002–03

  10

  2003–04

  10

  Debt Management Office and National Savings and Investments

  Information on the sustainability of electricity is not held by DMO and NS&I for any years.

  Government Actuary's Department

  Data is not available prior to July 2003. Since then none of the electricity used by GAD came from renewable sources.

  Office of Government Commerce

  None of the electricity used by OGC came from renewable sources. OGC Buying Solutions (set up in 2001) used the following:

  Percentage

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  100

  2003–04

  1100

  1100 per cent. six months 60 per cent. six months: variation due to relocation

  HM Treasury

  The percentage from renewable sources from July 2003 for HM Treasury to date is 57 per cent. Although some supplies before this date had been from renewable sources, it has not been possible to quantify them.

  Departmental Publications (Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183874]

  Ruth Kelly
  The majority of requests for publications are met by the Treasury's website, www.hm-treasury. gov.uk.

  Approximately 15 copies of each recent Treasury publication are held centrally to fulfil requests from members of the public without internet access, with larger quantities held for documents that are likely to attract considerable interest. Materials to help UK businesses deal with the euro as a foreign currency are held by an outside distributor in Manchester.

  Treasury teams also hold some stocks of publications for their own use.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the construction projects in each region of the UK which have received whole or partial funding from the EU in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority area; and what the value of the EU funding was(a) per project and (b) as a percentage of the total cost. [184520]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on UK receipts from the EC budget can be found in Table 3.3 of the 2004 European Community Finances White Paper (Cmd 6134). Detailed information on individual projects is not held centrally, and the question could only be answered at disproportionate cost.
  39W
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total value of funding received by each region of the UK from the European Union in each of the last five years, broken down by type of funding; and what the value of matching UK funding is in each case. [184521]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK is eligible for EU spending through Structural Funds, which is managed by DTI, the Common Agricultural Policy, which is managed by DEFRA, and internal policies, which are managed by DTI, DfES, DWP, DCMS, the Department of Health, the Department for Transport, and the Home Office. Information on UK receipts from the EC budget can be found in Table 3.3 of the 2004 European Community Finances White Paper (Cmd 6134).

  Detailed information on individual projects is not held centrally, and so the actual funding received in each year by region, broken down by type of funding, and the value of matching UK funding, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Euro (Pension Liabilities)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of British membership of the Euro for the UK's liability to share in the unfunded pension liabilities of other Eurozone countries; and if he will make a statement. [185068]

  Ruth Kelly
  Article 103 of the EC Treaty explicitly rules out adoption of liabilities of one member state by others or by the EU as a whole. EMU membership would not change this.

  KF Concept
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Financial Services Authority on its investigations into the KF concept. [183216]

  Ruth Kelly
  I understand that there have been no discussions between the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority concerning its investigations into the KF Concept and the activities of Mr. Kevin Foster and his associates. The FSA has issued public statements on its website www.fsa.gov.uk about the progress of its investigation and it would be inappropriate to comment further. Anyone with relevant information about or who has suffered detriment because of the KF Concept should contact the FSA.

  MRSA (Frimley Park Hospital)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have died in the past three years at Frimley Park Hospital where the cause of death has been wholly or partly attributable to MRSA; and if he will make a statement. [184668]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  40W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 19 July 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people have died at Frimley Park Hospital where the cause of death has been wholly or partly attributable to MRSA. (184668)
  The total number of deaths in Frimley Park Hospital where the cause of death was wholly or partly attributable to MRSA1 in the years 2000 to 2002, the latest year for which figures are available, was seven.
  1MIdentified using the methodology described in Griffiths C, Lamagni TL, Crowcroft NS, Duckworth G and Rooney C (2004) Trends in MRSA in England and Wales: analysis of morbidity and mortality data for 1993-2002. Health Statistics Quarterly 21, 15–22.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new employees of non-departmental public bodies will be created as a result of the announcements made in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [184383]

  Mr. Boateng
  All areas of the public service are committed to achieving efficiency gains of 2.5 per cent. per year over the Spending Review period. How these savings are delivered within non-departmental bodies (NDPBs) and the resulting changes to workforce number will be decided by the Department and their respective NDPBs.

  Postal Services (Dangerous Goods)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his assessment of the possible security threats posed by the importation of firearms, drugs and other dangerous goods into the UK by post. [183498]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise are responsible for the detection of prohibited and restricted goods into the United Kingdom. With other agencies, they keep possible security threats tinder constant review and align their deployment of resources according to the level of assessed risk.

  Public Sector Employees
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what roles education employees counted in the Office for National Statistics survey of public sector employees published in May fulfilled, broken down by (a) job title and (b) salary. [183155]

  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. Tim Collins, dated 19 July 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about public sector employees. (183155)
  The estimates of public sector employees in the UK published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) are based on survey sources that do not capture information on job title or salary, and so the ONS is unable to provide the data requested. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) publishes information on the school workforce in England, and provisional data for January 2004 were published in a DfES statistical First Release on 29 April 2004. The ONS and DfES data sets are not directly comparable due to differences in geographical coverage,

  41W
  and the fact that ONS estimates are headcounts while DfES estimates are calculated in terms of full-time equivalents. Additionally, DfES publishes information on teachers' pay, for both England and Wales, in a document "School Workforce in England". Information on teachers' pay is given in tables 32 to 38 in the most recent edition, which relates to 2003. It can be accessed via the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000443/index.shtml.
  Information on the school work forces in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is published by the relevant devolved administration.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the public service agreements negotiated for the current spending review period are on course for all targets contained in them to be met in their original form; how many have seen targets set in them amended since the original agreement; and in the case of how many he does not expect all targets originally set within them to be achieved during the spending review period. [184200]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments" performance against the PSA targets agreed in the 2002 Spending Review is reported in Departmental Reports, Autumn Performance Reports and on the PSA performance website. Departments will continue to report their performance against these targets until the targets have reached their outturn dates.

  The full details of how PSA targets have evolved between the 2002 and 2004 Spending Reviews will be published on the HM Treasury website on 31 July 2004.

  State Pension/Average Weekly Earnings
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the(a) state pension for a single person and (b) average weekly earnings were in each year from 1974 to 2003. [184495]

  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. Alan Hurst, dated 19 July 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much the (a) state pension for a single person and (b) the average weekly wage earnings were in each year from 1974 to 2003. (184495)
  Average earnings are estimated from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and are provided for full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period, by their place of work. This is the standard definition used for NES tables. The NES does not collect data on the self employed and people who do unpaid work.
  The attached table shows the average gross weekly wage and basic pension for a single person from 1974 to 2003.
  The NES, carried out in April of each year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in Great Britain. It is a one per cent sample of all employees who are members of payas-you-earn (PAYE) schemes, but because of its sampling frame, it has difficulty capturing data on people with very low pay. It is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold.

  42W

  Average gross weekly earnings, and the basic state pension for a single person, Great Britain, 1974 to 2003

  £

  Average gross weekly earnings

  Basic state pension

  1974

  41.7

  10.0

  1975

  54.0

  111.6

  213.3

  1976

  64.2

  15.3

  1977

  70.2

  17.5

  1978

  79.1

  19.5

  1979

  89.6

  23.3

  1980

  110.2

  27.2

  1981

  124.9

  29.6

  1982

  136.5

  32.9

  1983

  147.4

  34.1

  1984

  159.3

  35.8

  1985

  171.0

  38.3

  1986

  184.7

  38.7

  1987

  198.9

  39.5

  1988

  218.4

  41.2

  1989

  239.7

  43.6

  1990

  263.1

  46.9

  1991

  284.7

  52.0

  1992

  304.8

  54.2

  1993

  317.3

  56.1

  1994

  325.7

  57.6

  1995

  337.6

  58.9

  1996

  351.6

  61.2

  1997

  367.6

  62.5

  1998

  385.8

  64.7

  1999

  401.5

  66.8

  2000

  419.7

  67.5

  2001

  444.2

  72.5

  2002

  464.7

  75.5

  2003

  475.8

  77.5

  Notes:

  1. Average gross weekly earnings are for adult full-time employees whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence. For the years 1974 to 1982 the estimates shown are for men aged 21 and over, and women aged 18 and over.

  2. The basic state pension was increased in the following months 1974–July 1975–1 April and2 November 1976–1985 November 1986–July 1987–2003 April.

  Source:

  ONS New Earnings Survey.

  STEPS Agreement
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 15 June 2004,Official Report, column 835W, on the STEPS agreement, in respect of what costs were the payments in excess of the annual charge of £170 million made to Mapeley STEPS Ltd. in each year to April (a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004. [184334]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The £170 million, mentioned within the NAO report, relates to Facility price only and is an estimated annual charge only. The difference in the actual Facility Price payments and the total payments to Mapeley STEPS Contractor are for services and pass through costs provided for in the contract such as major works, minor works and utilities.

  The data for years to April 2002 and 2003 have been routinely archived and therefore cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. However, for the year to April 2004 the data are available for the Inland

  43W
  Revenue. The amounts that account for contract expenditure in addition to the Facility Prices are as follows:

  2003–04

  Amount (£000)

  Major works

  25,378

  Utilities

  12,728

  Minor works and services

  12,536

  VAT on rent

  10,163

  New services for existing facilities

  2,244

  Total

  63,049

  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 835W, on the STEPS agreement, what his present estimate is of the total payments over the 20 years' contract that will be paid to Mapeley STEPS Ltd. for the Chancellor's departments. [184339]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In their report on the STEPS deal, the NAO estimated that the Departments would pay Mapeley STEPS Contractor Ltd. some £1,500 million over the 20 years of the contract. This relates to the major contract price element (the facility price) for serviced accommodation. The NAO noted that this cost reflected the Departments anticipated requirements which may vary over time.

  Taking this uncertainty into account, the figure contained in the NAOs report remains a reasonable estimate of the likely total Facility Price payments due to Mapeley over 20 years.

  In addition to this the contract provides a flexible framework in which we are able to transact with Mapeley to provide a range of services including, utilities, business rates, and major and minor building works. Under the contract the cost of these additional services are charged on to the departments separately and will vary according to demand.

  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 15 June 2004,Official Report, column 835W, on the STEPS agreement, whether the payments made to Mapeley STEPS Ltd. in each year to April (a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004 were provided for in the contract which commenced on 2 April 2001. [184340]

  £000

  Departments/Agencies

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  HM Treasury1

  1,069

  1,455

  1,619

  1,718

  1,340

  1,839

  1,944

  Debt Management Office1,2

  —

  9

  26

  9

  17

  25

  36

  Office of Government Commerce3

  —

  —

  —

  1,110

  1,106

  1,047

  1,171

  OGCBuying. Solutions4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  413

  494

  644

  Valuation Office Agency1

  3,700

  3,320

  3,580

  3,530

  3,300

  3,550

  3,750

  HM Customs and Excises

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  4,005

  5,002

  6,200

  Inland Revenue1

  14,509

  17,506

  26,489

  28,077

  31,941

  35,230

  37,335

  Royal Mint1

  456

  380

  455

  503

  490

  466

  536

  National Savings and Investments

  805

  755

  191

  259

  295

  311

  273

  Office of National Statistics

  1,671

  1,784

  2,425

  2,661

  2,550

  2,846

  3,314

  Government Actuary's Department

  80

  71

  95

  89

  88

  97

  92

  1 Figures include subsistence, as travel could only be disaggregated at disproportionate cost.

  2 The DMO did not exist as a separate body prior to 1998–99.

  3 OGC have provided figures from their date of inception—2000.

  4 OGC Buying.Solutions have provided figures from their date of inception—2001.

  5 Figures between 1997–2000 show approximate spend on Rail, Air and Ferry prior to external Contract. Other figures reflect spend on Contract, as off-Contract spend or business mileage could be disaggregated only at disproportionate cost.

  44W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Departments made payments that were provided for in the contract and due to Mapeley STEPS Contractor Ltd. in each of the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. By its nature any serviced accommodation contract provides a flexible framework for provision of a variety of services. In the case of the STEPS contract the Departments are able to transact with Mapeley to call off services including the provision of Major and Minor change works and the payment of Utilities. These are in addition to the fixed facility payment element due under the contract for serviced accommodation.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost in this financial year of disregarding maintenance payments for the purposes of calculating working tax credit and child tax credit. [180985]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 June 2004]: Maintenance payments are disregarded from income for the purposes of calculating tax credit awards. The cost of the child and working tax credit is given in tabled C8 and C11 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2004 (HC 301).

  Tax Credits (Civil Partnerships Bill)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings on tax credits he anticipates making once the Civil Partnership Bill is introduced for, and the living together test is extended to, same-sex couples. [184729]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Civil Partnerships Bill is expected to have a negligible effect on the cost of tax credits.

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the travel costs were of civil servants in(a) his Department and (b) its related agencies in each year since 1997. [183906]

  Ruth Kelly
  The figures are presented in the following table. All travel is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Ministerial Code.

  Unemployment Rates (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were unemployed in Havering in(a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2001 and (d) 2003. [184253]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Andrew Rosindell, dated 19 July 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment in Havering. I am replying in his absence. (184253)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions.
  The attached Table 1 gives the LFS estimates of the number of people unemployed in the Havering Local Authority area in the twelve months ending in February of the years 1997, 1999,2001 and 2003.
  As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.
  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker"s Allowance (JSA) for local areas. The attached Table 2 gives the annual average number of JSA claimants who are resident in the Havering Local Authority area for the years 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003.

  Table 1: Number of unemployed people, Havering local authority, years as shown

  Year1

  Thousand

  1997

  7

  19992

  5

  2001

  2

  2003

  3

  1 12-month period ending in February of the year shown.

  2 Figures not yet adjusted to take account of 2001 Census data.

  Sources:

  1. ONS Labour Force Survey.

  2. Local Area Datasets.

  Table 2: Annual average number of jobseekers' allowance (JSA)claimants, Havering local authority, years as shown

  Number

  1997

  4,286

  1999

  3,329

  2001

  2,315

  2003

  2,518

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Administrative system.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Advertising
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was spent on advertising and promotional literature for her Department"s initiatives, broken down by year since 1997. [183806]

  £

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Design typesetting and pdfs ect.

  n/a

  38,664

  46,142

  40,212

  45,144

  56,105

  45,524

  40,813

  Print (buy back copies form TSO

  n/a

  16,800

  25,000

  18,310

  24,648

  24,774

  118,140

  116,187

  46W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has not spent any money on promotional advertising in this period. The spend on departmental publications and events since 1997 broken down by year is as follows:

  Amount (£)

  1997–98

  252,766

  1998–99

  345,800

  1999–2000

  522,399

  2000–01

  532,609

  2001–02

  324,768

  2002–03

  392.963

  2003–04

  1537,743

  1 Provisional pending final annual accounts

  Ancient Monument Damage
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate the Department has made of the number of scheduled ancient monuments that have been damaged by(a) illicit metal-detecting and (b) looting in each of the last five years. [184647]

  Estelle Morris
  The DCMS does not keep statistics of this nature centrally. However, English Heritage is in the process of designing a system that will compile and record this type of information.

  Archaeological Thefts
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many prosecutions there have been for theft of artefacts from archaeological sites in each of the last five years. [184646]

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not currently available. English Heritage, however, is in the process of designing a data system that will compile and record these statistics centrally.

  Departmental Administration Costs
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of printing her Department"s headed notepaper in(a) 1997–98 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [184373]

  Mr. Caborn
  A record of expenditure at this level of detail within the overall stationery budget for 1997–98 is no longer available. The expenditure on headed notepaper in 2003–04, the last full year for which information is available, was £3,500.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many copies of her Department"s annual report were printed in each year since 1997; how many were sold in each year; and what the(a) publication costs and (b) sales revenue were. [183877]

  Mr. Caborn
  The costs relating to DCMS annual reports since 1997 are set out in the table. Sales revenues are a matter for TSO and do not fall to the Department.
  47W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Number of copies sold

  n/a

  687

  592

  531

  576

  483

  700

  500

  Number of copies printed

  n/a

  1,600

  1,600

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  1,500

  1,500

  Total

  —

  55,464

  71,142

  59,170

  70,325

  281,449

  63,744

  57,000

  1DCMS was responsible for the print for the 2003 and 2004 annual using TSO.

  2 The costs for the 2002 annual report included the development of three years.

  Departmental Publications (Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183865]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS does not hold any publications in storage. Departmental policy is to print sufficient copies for the identified audience for each publication in order to be as cost effective as possible. Wherever possible we also refer people to the DCMS website where all publications are available free.

  The retention and storage of any DCMS publications produced by TSO are a matter for the publisher.

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cases against her Department, the agencies for which it is responsible and its predecessor organisations have been brought to employment tribunals in each year since 1997 in relation to(a) equal pay, (b) sex discrimination, (c) race discrimination, (d) disability discrimination and (e) unfair dismissal; how many cost awards were made against (i) respondents and (ii) applicants; and how much has been spent (A) settling and (B) contesting claims. [181470]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Royal Parks Agency have had a total of eight claims issued against them since 1997. Three of these claims were withdrawn before the case was heard by an employment tribunal. There were no costs awarded against (i) respondents or (ii) applicants. Details of the nature of each claim are set out in the table. The total legal costs incurred by the Department and agency of contesting the claims were £166,714.13. Claims brought by one applicant were settled, but the amount of the settlement has been withheld under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Nature of claim

  1997

  Unfair dismissal

  1997

  Race discrimination

  2000

  Sex discrimination

  2000

  Race discrimination

  2001

  Victimisation (contrary to the Race Relations Act)

  2001

  Sex discrimination/victimisation

  2002

  Sex discrimination

  2002

  Victimisation (contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act)

  Government Art Collection
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the latest valuation of the Government"s art collection. [184375]

  Estelle Morris
  It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the value of the Government art collection, which has no current market valuation. The current monetary value of a work of art can be accurately assessed only at the time of purchase or sale or by professional valuation. In the former case, the collection is not actively traded; in the latter, it would not be justifiable expenditure of public funds to have the whole collection valued professionally.

  Healthy Eating in Schools
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list Lottery-funded projects which promote healthy eating in schools. [184447]

  Estelle Morris
  National Lottery funding has been made available through The School Fruit Pilot Programme to support the promotion of healthy eating in schools. This £42 million New Opportunities Fund programme has been rolled out to five regions. The aim of the programme is to help improve the diet of children and to reduce their risk of heart disease and cancer later in life.

  Heritage Bodies
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with heritage organisations on their educational programmes and initiatives. [183435]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS has been working on a range of different projects with various Heritage organisations in order to embed core policies at the heart of their activity to increase access and engagement, especially to children and young people, and to those who feel excluded from enjoying the historic environment.

  English Heritage"s (EH"s) educational programmes and initiatives are included within its Funding Agreement with DCMS, which includes agreement to:

  implement a new Education, Events and Outreach Strategy

  increase the number of educational visits to EH sites from 478.5k to 508k per annum

  increase the resources available to schools and to independent learners

  assess the extent of informal learning currently achieved and inform future activity

  initiate with others the national coordination of traditional building skills training

  49W
  EH has set up a new outreach team to engage audiences who have traditionally felt excluded from visiting the historic environment. This will include working with the Civic Trust to develop Heritage Open Days.

  In August 2003 DCMS/DIES set up a Joint Advisory Committee on Built Environment Education (JACBEE) to improve the profile and use of the built environment as a learning resource for all. JACBEE will be making its recommendations to Ministers later this summer.

  The Department has also supported the Attingham Trust's project to assess the provision of learning opportunities in the historic environment sector. The report titled Opening Doors: Learning in the Historic Environment was published in June and surveys education and interpretation in historic buildings and sites today in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

  In partnership with DfES we have also been developing a new Museums and Galleries Strategy to unlock the full potential of museums and galleries to support education and learning. This process has involved discussion and consultation with the museums and galleries sector on the content and priorities for the strategy. The strategy is due to be published later this year.

  On 25 March 2004 we hosted a World Heritage Site Education Conference at Kew Gardens to provide a forum for site managers and education officers at UK World Heritage Sites to share best practice and experiences. We are currently developing an action plan for an overall World Heritage Site Education programme.

  Licence Holders Database
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce a national electronic database for individual pub licence holders. [184735]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Licensing Act 2003 requires each licensing authority to keep a register containing, among other things, a record of each personal licence, club premises certificate and premises licence issued by it and each temporary event notice received by it. The Act allows the Secretary of State to arrange for these duties conferred on licensing authorities to be discharged by means of one or more central registers. Officials are currently working with local authorities and their representatives to examine ways in which a central register might be developed.

  Metal-detecting
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate her Department has made of the extent of illicit metal-detecting; and if she will make a statement. [185186]

  Estelle Morris
  The DCMS does not keep statistics like this centrally. However, through the excellent work of both the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Valuation Committee, metal detectorists and archaeologists are working more closely together than ever before.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost of air travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain was for(a) Ministers and (b) officials in the Department in the latest year for which figures are available. [184532]

  Mr. Caborn
  Departmental expenditure on air travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for the financial year 2003-04 was(a) £683 for Ministers and (b) £3,269 for officials.

  Museums/Heritage Bodies Review
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to undertake a review of heritage and museum organisations reporting to her Department; and if she will make a statement. [183282]

  Estelle Morris
  We have no current plans to review museum organisations, but we are planning to consult the museum sector later this year on a range of museum policy issues.

  On heritage organisations, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 12 July 2004, Official Report, columns 897-98W, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  National Lottery
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of total National Lottery income has been distributed to good causes in each year of the Lottery"s existence. [184228]

  Estelle Morris
  The information requested is as follows.

  Total good cause income (£000)

  Total annual good drawdown (£000)

  Drawdown as a percentage of good cause income

  1994–95

  298,580

  6,238

  2.09

  1995–96

  1,535,966

  165,212

  10.76

  1996–97

  1,587,759

  527,387

  33.22

  1997–98

  1,952,219

  1,087,067

  55.68

  1998–99

  1,918,906

  1,830,548

  95.40

  1999–2000

  1,766,394

  1,908,458

  108.04

  2000–01

  1,772,839

  1,855,091

  104.64

  2001–02

  1,842,233

  1,709,559

  92.80

  2002–03

  1,591,781

  1,892,798

  118.91

  2003–041

  1,390,236

  1,910,472

  137.42

  2004–051,2

  195,327

  309,263

  158.33

  1 These figures have not been subject to final audit.

  2 YTD

  The figure for total income includes income from the Lottery games and also investment returns on balances held.

  Policies (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new policy proposals or significant changes in policy were produced in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; how many of these were screened for their environmental impacts; and how many were the subject of separate environmental appraisals. [185109]
  51W
  Estelle Morris
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what the(a) running costs and (b) total expenditure of each regional cultural consortium has been in each year since its creation. [184981]

  Regional cultural consortiums annual expenditure, from DCMS funds

  £

  Regional cultural consortium

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–042

  Eastern

  388

  26,358

  31,621

  110,150

  180,641

  East Midlands

  857

  34,366

  15,927

  108,880

  141,267

  North East

  1,355

  41,855

  32,415

  92,952

  197,326

  North West

  230

  21,995

  32,890

  93,686

  207,915

  South East

  968

  20,229

  36,929

  30,242

  204,862

  South West

  4,823

  33,609

  22,043

  152,725

  205,988

  West Midlands

  1,613

  31,089

  6,097

  120,100

  223,217

  Yorkshire

  829

  29,800

  17,326

  131,450

  208,324

  1 The regional cultural consortiums were established in October 1999

  2 latest available figures with some amounts still to accrue

  Subtitling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has to increase the number of television channels which are regulated for subtitling. [184465]

  Estelle Morris
  None. Section 303 of the Communications Act 2003 establishes a duty on Ofcom to draw up a code relating to the provision for deaf and visually impaired people. Section 303 applies to all digital terrestrial, digital satellite and digital cable channels except the BBC, which is instead brought within the scope of the code by way of the BBC Agreement. Exclusions from the application of the code are a matter for Ofcom, taking into account in particular certain matters specified in the Act designed to balance the costs and difficulty of provision with the extent of the benefit to those with sensory impairments. Ofcom have consulted on their code, including proposed exemptions, and I understand that they propose to announce their conclusions shortly.

  Tourism expenditure in Somerset by year1

  £ million

  Type of tourism

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Overnight stays by overseas residents

  113

  125

  108

  113

  87

  Overnight stays by domestic residents

  2n/a

  293

  416

  357

  nya

  Tourism day trips by domestic residents

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = not available

  nya = not yet available

  1 Sample sizes at this level of detail will be small which means that the estimates will be subject to a high margin of error. Particular caution should therefore be exercised when comparing any two of the estimates.

  2 Figures for overnight stays by domestic tourists are taken from the UK Tourism Survey. Comparable figures at regional level prior to 2000 are not available due to a major change in survey methodology.

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey

  UK Tourism Survey.

  52W
  Mr. Caborn
  The total annual expenditure from DCMS funds of each regional cultural consortium since their creation is given in the table. These advisory non-departmental public bodies do not at present directly employ any staff and the Department does not currently distinguish between running costs and other expenditure. Most consortium expenditure is allocated on research and projects designed to enhance cultural co-operation and services in the regions. Consortiums may also receive some support from other regional cultural partners.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the yearly interim targets are for subtitling for the coming years that have been set by the Office of Communications. [184466]

  Estelle Morris
  The matter raised is the responsibility of Ofcom, as independent regulator. Accordingly, DCMS officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tourism
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much revenue she estimates tourism has generated for(a) Somerset and (b) the South West region in the last five years for which figures are available. [184649]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The available figures for tourism expenditure in Somerset are shown in the table. Figures for tourism day trips are only available at regional level.
  53W
  (b) The available figures for tourism expenditure in the South West region are shown in the second table.

  Tourism expenditure in the South West region by year1

  £ million

  Type of tourism

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Overnight stays by overseas residents

  694

  734

  634

  741

  663

  Overnight stays by domestic residents

  2n/a

  3,122

  3,291

  3,901

  nya

  Tourism day trips by domestic residents

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,100

  n/a

  Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6,742

  n/a

  n/a = not available

  nya = not yet available

  1 Sample sizes at this level of detail will be small which means that the estimates will be subject to a high margin of error. Particular caution should therefore be exercised when comparing any two of the estimates.

  2 Figures for overnight stays by domestic tourists are taken from the UK Tourism Survey. Comparable figures at regional level prior to 2000 are not available due to a major change in survey methodology.

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey

  UK Tourism Survey

  GB Leisure Day Visits Survey.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks Act
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made introducing the provisions contained in the Fireworks Act 2003; and what the time scale is for introduction of the outstanding provisions. [184793]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Following the close of the consultation on 2 July 2004, Regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 July 2004 and introduce, with some minor amendments, the Regulations that were originally proposed in the consultation document.

  The Regulations will come into force on 7 August 2004—with the exception of regulation 9 (licensing of suppliers) and regulation 11 (importation of fireworks). These latter two measures will come into force on 1 January 2005 to allow time for enforcement bodies to set up an effective system of administration and enforcement.

  Nuclear Power
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the reasons for the difficulties encountered by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security in security clearing United States nationals brought over by British Nuclear Fuels; and what steps have been taken to ameliorate the problem. [184404]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no central agency in the United States to which the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) can turn to establish if an individual has security clearance. British Nuclear Fuels are aware that the devolved administrative arrangements in the US can make the verification process difficult and time-consuming.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183848]
  54W
  Ms Hewitt
  The information required is not held in the format requested and could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Retread Tyre Industry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on recent discussions her Department has had with the retread tyre industry. [184857]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials regularly meet representatives of the retread tyre industry at which a broad range of issues are discussed, both specific to that industry and in respect of used tyre disposal and recovery more generally.

  Earlier this year, a study commissioned and funded by DTI, and taken forward in partnership with the Retread Manufacturers Association, was completed. This examined market barriers for key stakeholders in retread tyre markets, and is intended to provide a tool that retreaders can draw on to help promote their product. I will arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member and for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Small Business
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps her Department has taken to help people start their own business. [184518]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government Action Plan for Small Business published in January 2004 sets out a series of actions government is taking to help people start their own businesses. This builds upon the provision from the Business Link network of high quality information advice and support. The Business Link Network assisted 170,000 people last year (in England) to start businesses. New actions being taken include:A programme of Enterprise Show activities: The objective is to encourage higher levels of entrepreneurship particularly among under-represented groups and people from disadvantaged areas. These activities taking place across England are being co-ordinated by the Regional Development Agencies.

  55W
  The establishment of the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship: This has been established to raise the profile of entrepreneurship and starting a business as a viable career option for graduates. The objective is to increase the number of graduates who consider starting their own businesses.

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the travel costs were of civil servants in(a) her Department and (b) its related agencies in each year since 1997. [183898]

  Ms Hewitt
  The costs of travel and travel related expenditure for civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry and its Agencies were as follows:

  Financial Year

  Core Department(£000s)

  Agencies (£000s)

  1998–99

  10,498

  3,588

  1999–00

  10,201

  3,926

  2000—01

  11,466

  3,762

  2001–02

  10,526

  4,305

  2002—03

  11,815

  4,806

  2003—04 (provisional)

  12,135

  4,884

  All travel complied with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code. Data for 1997–98 are archived and so are only available at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Afghan Government on stopping violence against women registering to vote in their country's elections; and what military assistance the UK is providing to help prevent violence. [184053]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is important to the UK and the rest of the international community to support the Afghan Government's efforts to provide security so both men and women can freely exercise their vote. To date over six million people have registered to vote, out of some nine million who are eligible. Around 38 per cent. of those registered are women. The provision of adequate security to enable women to exercise their political, social and economic rights is an important component of the FCO-DFID Gender Strategy for Afghanistan, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is assisting the voter registration process and will provide enhanced support to the Afghan authorities in providing security during the election period. The UK provides around 320 personnel to ISAF in Kabul. The two UK-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams and associated Forward Support Base in northern Afghanistan transferred to ISAF authority on 1 July 2004. This will bring a further 260 UK troops into ISAF. UK troops serving with ISAF are also involved in training the new Afghan National Army, units of which will be used to provide election security.

  Brazil
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to host events with the aim of promoting bilateral relations with Brazil. [184180]

  Mr. Rammell
  In the course of our frequent exchanges with Brazil, we become involved in a range of events, both in the UK and in Brazil, which promote the bilateral relationship. A recent such event was the joint visit to London on 17 and 18 March of the Brazilian Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Finance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer met their Brazilian counterparts on this occasion for talks, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry represented the Government at a dinner for the visitors offered by the Brazilian Chamber of Commerce. We fully expect beneficial events such as these to continue regularly and in many different forms.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for senior members of(a) the Government and (b) the Royal family to visit Brazil in the near future. [184181]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign engagements for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not our practice to announce such visits until they are firm. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel and occasionally not until they are under way.

  There are currently no plans for a senior member of the Royal family to visit Brazil.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with the Brazilian Government about ways to preserve the remaining parts of the Amazon rainforest. [184182]

  Mr. Rammell
  We follow closely the issue of environmental protection in Brazil, and discuss it regularly with the Brazilian Government. I met the Brazilian Environment Minister in December 2002 during my first visit to Brazil. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also supports a number of practical projects in Brazil totalling over £350,000 aimed specifically at preserving the Amazon rainforest and which enjoy the full support of the Brazilian Government.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what precautions the Government take to reduce illegal imports from Brazil into the UK. [184184]

  Mr. Rammell
  We work closely with the Brazilian Government to combat all forms of illegal trafficking. As part of this effort, we have two Drug Liaison Officers based permanently in Brazil and have also provided equipment and training for Brazilian law enforcement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Drugs and Crime Fund.
  57W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of military co-operation there is between the UK and Brazil. [184186]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  We engage in a series of armed forces visits, exchanges, joint training and defence staff talks within the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding on Co-operation on Defence Matters, signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in September 2000, and the Joint Action Plan, signed in 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of Brazil.

  Chagos Islands
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation took place prior to the announcement of the two Orders in Council on 10 June 2004, announced in the written statement of 15 June 2004,Official Report, columns 32—4WS, with (a) Chagossians resident in the United Kingdom and (b) Chagossians resident in Mauritius; and what response he has had from Chagossians following the Orders in Council being made. [184387]

  Mr. Rammell
  Before the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004 and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order 2004 were submitted to Her Majesty the Queen in Council, I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave very careful consideration to all relevant interests and concerns. There was no prior consultation with Chagossians resident in the United Kingdom or Mauritius.

  A petition by a number of Chagossians in the United Kingdom, raising various points including their wish to resettle in the Chagos islands, was handed in to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 6 July 2004, and a petition by Chagossians resident in Mauritius was handed in to the British High Commission in Port Louis on 13 July 2004.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rights Ilois islanders have to visit Diego Garcia to care for the graves of their ancestors; and what financial support is provided to help their passage from Mauritius for such visits. [184382]

  Mr. Rammell
  Following the restoration of full immigration control over the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagossians would need a permit in order to visit any part of the Territory. We have made clear that we remain prepared, as we always have been, to assist and finance a visit by a party of Chagossians to the outer islands of the Territory to enable them to visit the graves there of their parents and grandparents. We have further made clear that if there is a request that the itinerary of any such visit should also include the graves on Diego Garcia, we are prepared to make representations to the US authorities about that.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is a prison or controlled area for holding detainees on Diego Garcia. [184390]
  58W
  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) on 21 June 2004,Official Report, column 1221W.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirement has been placed upon the United States military as a result of the leasing agreement for Diego Garcia, to ensure the land and aquatic environment of Diego Garcia and other Chagos islands are not damaged by the military activities of the United States; what arrangements are in place to remove military and commercial wastes from the islands; and what consultation he has had with the United States Administration over the adequacy of emergency plans to clean up pollution. [184394]

  Mr. Rammell
  There is no leasing agreement in respect of Diego Garcia but, under the relevant treaties concluded with the US Government, the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is set aside for the defence purposes of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the US Government is entitled to establish and maintain a defence facility on Diego Garcia. The BIOT Government and the US authorities collaborate on all aspects of the conservation and protection of the natural environment of Diego Garcia and, where appropriate, of the outer islands of the Territory. In this context, the US authorities on Diego Garcia have established a Natural Resources Management Plan and they expend considerable resources on environmental conservation. The UK Government attaches considerable importance to the conservation of the natural environment of the Chagos islands and the BIOT Government have ensured that the necessary legislation for this purpose is in place and is enforced, and that relevant international conventions are observed.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the situation in Chechnya. [184243]

  Mr. Rammell
  We continue to be concerned by the situation in Chechnya. The assassination of Chechen President Kadyrov in May, and the 21 June raids into neighbouring Ingushetia underline the fragility of the situation in the Russian North Caucasus.

  We recognise the genuine security problems Russia faces in Chechnya and the North Caucasus. We support Russia's territorial integrity. Separatist forces carry out many human rights abuses in Chechnya. We have been clear in our condemnation of the appalling terrorist attacks across Russia, which have killed many innocent victims.

  However, these problems can only be resolved through a political rather than military solution. Continuing human rights abuses in Chechnya by federal and local forces can only undermine attempts to advance a genuine political process and reconciliation. Our policy is to regularly raise our concerns over Chechnya with the Russian authorities. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so recently with Foreign Minister Lavrov, during his visit to Moscow on

  59W
  6–7 July. I raised similar concerns during my visit to Russia on 6–7 April. In addition, we raise these concerns multilaterally through the EU, OSCE, Council of Europe and UN. We also give significant funding to international organisations and NGOs that provide humanitarian aid in the region.

  The new Chechen presidential elections planned for August will be a fresh opportunity to build up the political process and aid efforts to bring stability to the Republic. We therefore hope the election will be genuinely open and inclusive, a hope we have expressed repeatedly to the Russians.

  China
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to improve the UK's relationship with China. [184240]

  Mr. Rammell
  We currently enjoy good relations with China.

  A Task Force was set up in September 2003 under my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's leadership to make firm recommendations for action to increase practical co-operation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in London in May. They issued a joint statement afterwards setting out plans for developing co-operation between the two countries on areas including trade, education, science and technology and the environment. The joint statement also included a commitment to annual summits between the two countries.

  The strength of our relationship allows us to raise sensitive issues of concern, such as human rights, with the Chinese authorities.

  I plan to visit Beijing later this month.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Chinese Government on the police treatment of Christians in custody. [184319]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are very concerned about religious freedom in China. We made clear at the last round of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue in May that the prohibition of some religious/spiritual groups, and the legal restrictions placed upon members of others, are tantamount to a denial of their members' freedom of religious belief.

  We also raised our concerns about torture by the Police and prison authorities at the same dialogue round.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised human rights issues with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during his visit to the UK in May and I raised human rights issues with the Vice-Minister of the International Department of the Chinese Communist Party, Zhang Zhijun during his visit to the UK in March. We will continue to raise human rights issues with the Chinese Government at every appropriate opportunity.

  Mr. Hancork
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has made to the 60W
  Chinese Government on (a) the detention of house church leader Xu Shaungfu and (b) the recent beating to death by Chinese police of two Christians, Gu Xianggao and Jiang Zongxiu; and if he will make a statement. [184320]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are aware of reports of the detention of Xu Shaungfu and the deaths in custody of Gu Xianggao and Jiang Zongxiu. We are monitoring the situation and note reports that the Chinese authorities are investigating the death of Jiang Zongxiu.

  We are very concerned about religious freedom in China. We made clear at the last round of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue in May that the prohibition of some religious/spiritual groups, and the legal restrictions placed upon members of others, are tantamount to a denial of their members' freedom of religious belief. We also raised our concerns about torture and the treatment of prisoners at the same dialogue round.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised human rights issues with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during his visit to the UK in May and I raised human rights issues with the Vice-Minister of the International Department of the Chinese Communist Party, Zhang Zhijun during his visit to the UK in March.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of how the proposed EU package of trade and air links to northern Cyprus will assist in achieving a settlement. [185157]

  Mr. MacShane
  The EU package of measures for northern Cyprus is designed to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community by facilitating economic growth. We believe that enabling direct trade between northern Cyprus and the rest of the EU is an essential element of that strategy. Furthermore, direct trade will reduce the economic disparity between the north and south of the island and will help to bring the Turkish Cypriots in to line with the EU acquis. Narrowing the economic divide between the north and south will remove a major obstacle to a future settlement to the Cyprus problem.

  Direct air links with northern Cyprus are not covered by the Commission proposals. We are actively looking at this issue.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with Mr. Talat, leader of the Turkish Cypriots and Mr. Iakovou, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus. [185158]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met Mr. Talat on 1 July. We discussed a number of Cyprus related issues and encouraged Mr. Talat to continue to pursue a pro-EU policy. Mr. Talat assured us that he would continue to work for a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem.

  I met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 July. I briefed him on the recent debates on Cyprus in this House. We also discussed Mr. Talat's recent visit to the UK.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the exclusion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from the Kimberley process. [184225]

  Mr. Rammell
  The expulsion of the Republic of Congo from the Kimberley Process followed a report by a visiting team drawn from others in the Process on the discrepancy between the Republic of Congo's substantial exports of rough diamonds and its limited production. The report concluded that the Republic of Congo failed to meet agreed minimum common standards and was therefore undermining the credibility of the Kimberley Process. We support the decision to expel and stand ready to consider any request from the Republic of Congo for technical assistance to help it meet the standard required and thereby eventually rejoin the Process.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of his Department's annual report were printed in each year since 1997; how many were sold in each year; and what the(a) publication costs and (b) sales revenue were. [183885]

  Mr. Straw
  Production of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Departmental Report 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 cost the Department £24,453. Due to new printing arrangements, these costs to the Department are 25 per cent. lower than for the 2003 Report. Other costs are met by the publisher, The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO).

  1,900 copies of this year's report were printed of which 1,350 are distributed internally at a price which covers printing costs and 550 copies are retained by TSO. The report is also available free of charge on the FCO website: www.fco.gov.uk. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 6 May 2004, Official Report, column 1731W, for further details.

  TSO does not divulge its sales revenues, which depend on the extent to which it chooses to sell copies at a discount. Nor does TSO provide the total number of copies printed in previous years. However, the number of copies sold by TSO, and the number supplied to the FCO for internal use, is listed in the table. Statistics for the 1997 edition are not available.

  Edition

  Copies sold by TSO

  Copies supplied to FCO

  1998

  626

  1,682

  1999

  542

  1,527

  2000

  513

  1,438

  2001

  564

  1,447

  2002

  525

  1,412

  2003

  426

  1,340

  2004

  1315

  1,350

  1Interim figure. The sales profile for previous years indicates that TSO can expect to sell a further 95 copies, bringing the total for the year to approximately 410.

  EU-Israel Association Agreement
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of a suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement on(a) the Israeli and (b) the Palestinian economy. [184057]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government do not believe that suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement would help bring Israel and the Palestinians nearer to a just and lasting negotiated settlement. The Government have therefore made no detailed assessment of the implications of a suspension of the Agreement.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU concerning suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [184058]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government do not believe that suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement would help bring Israel and the Palestinians nearer to a just and lasting negotiated settlement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has therefore had no recent discussions with his EU counterparts concerning the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the value in euros of the EU-Israel Association Agreement to the economies of(a) the EU, (b) UK, (c) Israel and (d) Palestine in the last year for which figures are available. [184059]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government do not have estimates of the monetary value of the EU/Israel Association Agreement to any of its parties. A large part of the Agreement's benefit to Israel lies in the confidence and sense of normality it provides to domestic business and foreign workers. In other circumstances the economic benefit the Agreement brings to Israel would also benefit the Palestinian economy. At present, the effects of the conflict more than nullify that benefit.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with members of the Quartet concerning the effects of suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [184061]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government supports the work of the Quartet (UN, US, Russia, EU) in supporting Israel and the Palestinians to return to a political process in order to reach a just and lasting negotiated settlement. We do not believe that suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement would help in this regard. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has therefore not discussed the effects of suspension of the EU/Israel Association Agreement with other Quartet members.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on universal suffrage for the people of Hong Kong. [184027]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have consistently said that we would hope to see early progress towards the Basic Law's ultimate aim of universal suffrage for the election
  63W
  of the Chief Executive and Legislative Council at a pace in line with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. We have made this position clear on many occasions to the Chinese authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

  Iran
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Government of Iran on the imprisonment of Ebrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam who had previously been granted asylum in the U K. [184316]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have raised the imprisonment of Ebrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam with the Iranian Government many times, on human rights grounds. We have urged the Iranian authorities to ensure that the men are well treated and, if charged, given a fair and open trial with recourse to proper legal representation. We have no right of consular access to the two men, who are not British nationals. But we have encouraged the Iranian authorities to allow international monitoring visits.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the bounty payment in respect of the capture of Saddam Hussein; what the source of the bounty money was; what advice Coalition partners received about the legality of the bounty; and if he will make a statement. [183437]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US Government offered a reward for information leading to the capture of Saddam Hussein under the State Department Rewards for Justice programme. Details of this programme are on the US State Department website: www.state.gov. The legal basis of these rewards is a matter for the US Government.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the United Kingdom's representative in Iraq has had about the bounty for the capture of the Jordanian militant, Zarqawi; what the sources of the money for the bounty is; what advice was taken by Coalition partners about the legality of any such bounty; and if he will make a statement. [183439]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US Government offered rewards for information leading to the capture of Saddam and Zarqawi under the State Department's Rewards for Justice programme. Details of this programme are on the US State Department website: www.state.gov. The legal basis of these rewards is a matter for the US Government. Our ambassador to Iraq regularly discusses a wide range of issues on Iraq with his interlocutors.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on terrorist attacks in Iraq. [184123]

  Mr. Rammell
  Terrorism has not derailed the transition of power to the new Iraqi Interim Government which took office on 28 June, although 64W
  attacks have continued. The most significant of these in recent days was on 14 July when a terrorist car bomb killed nine Iraqis queuing to enter the international zone, and there has also been an increase in terrorist activity in Samarra. Internal security is now the responsibility of the IIG supported by the Multinational Force (MNF) in accordance with UNSCR 1546. The IIG is determined to tackle terrorism, and Iraqi security forces have been engaged in a number of successful operations in Baghdad and elsewhere. The Iraqi authorities are also committed to building up its counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency forces. We continue to be engaged in supporting these efforts.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the projected daily output of Iraqi oil is(a) for the rest of 2004 and (b) for 2005. [184266]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Iraqi authorities have responsibility for setting their own oil production targets. Iraq has a target of increasing its daily output of oil to 2.8–3.0 million barrels by the end of 2004. The Iraqi authorities will aim to ensure sustainable increases in production for 2005 and for subsequent years, to a level that is commensurate with their economic and other developmental needs.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Iraq's latest daily oil output is. [184267]

  Mr. Rammell
  Over the period 2–8 July, the most recent for which data is available, Iraq's daily average oil production was 2.122 million barrels per day.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the current size is of the Iraqi army; and what the forecast size is for July 2005. [184273]

  Mr. Rammell
  According to statistics provided by the Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) the projected strength for the Iraqi Army is 36,000 personnel. At present, it numbers 7,116 with a further 2,638 currently under training. The aim is for the army to reach full operational capability by January 2005.

  These figures do not include the Iraqi National Guard (ING), formerly the Iraq Civil Defence Corps. It currently numbers 38,000 and is due to reach 50,000 by December 2004. The ING has officially been subsumed into the Iraqi armed forces but is a distinct entity from the regular army.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in negotiations with other countries to which Iraq owes money on the Iraqi debt. [184338]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK's objective is a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debt problems. The G7 is united in agreeing that Iraq's debt is unsustainable and that Iraq needs substantial debt reduction. Many other creditors have associated themselves with this analysis. The Government are continuing to discuss this issue with creditors, including with those in the Paris Club.

  Iraq Survey Group
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is putting in place(a) to make available paper copies of the final report of the Iraq Survey Group on its publication and (b) to place the text on a Government website; and what plans he has to publicise its publication. [184392]

  Mr. Rammell
  There is no set timetable for reporting by the Iraq Survey Group, nor is there any deadline for the completion of the Group's task.

  At present, the Government have not drawn up any plans for publication of the Group's final report but, as with the Group's interim reports, the Government intend to publish as much of the final report as is consistent with the need to protect any operationally-sensitive material.

  Israel/Palestine
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning(a) the killing of Dr. Khaled Saled and his son and (b) the destruction by shelling of a residential block in Nablus on 6 July. [184054]

  Mr. Rammell
  Israel is entitled to take steps to protect itself from terrorist attack, but these should be within international law and neither disproportionate nor excessive. Actions which result in the death or injury of civilians and the demolition of Palestinian homes and property are deeply disturbing. We have frequently called on the Israeli government to stop such action. We have made representations to the Israeli Government at every level about its actions in the occupied territories. We have not made specific representations concerning the killing of Dr Saled and his son, or the 6 July shelling in Nablus.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answers of 28 June 2004,Official Report, columns 129–30W, on Israel/Palestine, what steps he will take to ensure that Israel complies with the UK Government's policies. [184060]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK will continue to pursue its policy towards Israel in the areas raised, through bilateral dialogue with the Israelis and through the activities of the European Union, the Quartet (UN, US, Russia, EU) and the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly.

  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's response is to the ruling of the International Court on the route of the Israeli wall; and if he will make a statement. [184757]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion with his EU counterparts on 12 July. We have repeatedly said that we recognise Israel's legitimate security concerns. But we consider the building of the barrier on Occupied Territory to be illegal. The EU has said the same; so has the UN General Assembly. We continue to call upon the Israeli Government to re-route the barrier away from
  66W
  Occupied Territory. Similarly we call on the Palestinian Authority to meet their commitments on security. A draft resolution is being considered by the UN General Assembly. If it is put to a vote we shall vote according to the merits of the resolution.

  Maritime Archaeology
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist the maritime archaeology of sunken British vessels in the waters off Commonwealth countries, with particular reference to wrecks off St. Kitts being researched by the St. Kitts Maritime Archaeological Project. [185001]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have no current plans to assist the St. Kitts Maritime Archeological Project.

  Milosevic Trial
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Milosevic trial at The Hague; and if he will make it his policy to press for the trial to be completed. [184024]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Prosecution finished presenting its case in the Milosevic trial on 25 February.

  The defence stage of the trial began on 5 July. Milosevic wishes to undertake his own defence, but there are concerns about his health. Given these concerns the trial chamber has decided to adjourn until 19 July with a further adjournment from 21 July until 31 August in order to allow the defendant additional time to prepare his case. The trial chamber has indicated it may be necessary to assign defence counsel to assist or represent Milosevic should he be unfit to do so himself. Full details can be found on the ICTY website at http:// www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/order-e/040706.htm.

  The UK continues to believe it is important that Milosevic, like others indicted by the ICTY, must stand trial for the crimes of which he is accused. We trust the Tribunal will find a fair and satisfactory solution to allow the completion of this trial.

  North Cyprus
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on a reduction in the number of Turkish troops based in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [184132]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our ambassador in Ankara has a close working relationship with the Turkish Government. During his dialogue with the Turkish Government on the UN Secretary General's settlement plan the issue of Turkish troops was discussed.

  Our fundamental goal remains to work for a Cyprus settlement. The Turkish Government gave its full support to the UN Secretary General's settlement plan. This included provision for the phased withdrawal of Turkish troops down to a militarily insignificant level.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had at his recent meeting in London with the Turkish Cypriot
  67W
  Prime Minister of the occupied area of northern Cyprus, as to a reduction in the number of Turkish troops based in Northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [184134]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed a wide range of issues with Mr. Talat, including Turkish troops in northern Cyprus. Mr. Talat assured us that he would continue to work for a settlement to the Cyprus problem. As my hon. Friend knows, the UN Secretary General's proposals for a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem included a provision for a substantial phased withdrawal of Turkish troops.

  It is a matter of regret that those proposals were not accepted by the Greek Cypriots and troops remain. It remains the view of the Government that a comprehensive settlement as set out by the UN Secretary General offers the best means of addressing all aspects of the Cyprus problem, including the presence of Turkish troops.

  North Korea
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential threat posed to international security by North Korea. [184023]

  Mr. Rammell
  We believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been pursuing two separate programmes for the production of fissile material, through the enrichment of uranium and the processing of plutonium. We view this as a serious potential threat to international security. We also remain very concerned at the threat to international security posed by DPRK's willingness to transfer ballistic missile technology and systems to other states. We support the objective of the continuing six-party talks: a Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, and believe that the comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes is necessary to assure this objective.

  Saddam Hussein
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom was consulted by(a) the United States Administration and (b) the interim Iraqi Government in respect of the arrangements made for the first appearance in court of Saddam Hussein; whether he was made aware in advance that only US media would be permitted in the court for the former President of Iraq's appearance; and whether he plans to consult the interim Iraqi Government over the access to the court by other than US media companies in future hearings of former members of the Iraq Government. [184396]

  Mr. Rammell
  UK, US and Iraqi officials discussed in advance the media arrangements for the arraignment of Saddam Hussein. The media representatives present in the courtroom were there as a press pool. They included representatives of Al-Jazeera (pan-Arab satellite television) and Al-Iraqiya (Iraqi satellite television).
  68W
  We have also been consulted on the arrangements for the next court appearance. The Baghdad press corps have themselves selected the proposed media pool.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he has issued to British citizens working in countries where there is a high risk of terrorist attacks, concerning their personal safety. [184028]

  Mr. MacShane
  Travel advice for 217 countries, including those where there is a high threat from terrorism, is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website: www.fco.gov.uk. This provides practical objective, accurate and up-to-date information including on personal safety, so that British nationals can make informed decisions about travelling abroad. Our diplomatic missions also communicate such advice to British expatriates through wardens' networks overseas. In October 2003 the FCO and the Confederation of British Industry launched the Security Information Service for Businesses Overseas (SISBO), which provides British companies with information on political and security risks in overseas markets.

  Visas
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas were granted in(a) Romania and (b) Bulgaria between January and July 2004. [183272]

  Mr. Mullin
  The figures requested are only available for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2004. Between these dates 15,874 visas were issued at our embassy in Bucharest, Romania and 13,496 visas were issued at our embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria.

  West Bank/Gaza Strip
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [184026]

  Mr. Rammell
  Through our Consulate-General in Jerusalem and the British Information Service Office in Gaza we conduct discussions with the Palestinian Authority on a range of issues. These crucially include how the UK can support the Palestinian Authority in meeting its obligations under the Roadmap; work with the Palestinian Authority to build its capacity on security is one such example. My noble Friend Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean last visited the Palestinian Authority in January 2004. The Consulate-General offers a full visa and consular service in Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories.

  The UK is a significant bilateral donor of development assistance in the Occupied Territories. The Department for International Development has planned expenditure of £16.15 million on assistance to the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian civil society, and a further £12.35 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in the current financial year.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the(a) political and (b) economic situation in Zimbabwe with other southern African countries. [183336]

  Mr. Mullin
  We regularly make our views on Zimbabwe clear to southern African countries. Most recently I discussed Zimbabwe with representatives of a number of African leaders during the African Union Summit from 6 to 8 July in Addis Ababa.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Orders in Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list each occasion when Her Majesty's Government has legislated by way of an Order in Council since 1 May 1997; and what the reason for deciding on this way to legislate was in each case. [184395]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Her Majesty's Government legislates through Orders in Council either because Parliament has provided for delegated legislation under a particular Act to be made in that way, or because a Prerogative power is being exercised which can be given legislative force in no other way. Not all Orders in Council represent "legislation by Her Majesty's Government", and the task of listing those that do could be carried out only at disproportionate cost. A list of all Orders in Council made since October 2000 can be found, however, on the Privy Council Office website at www.pco.gov.uk.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Civil Emergencies (Voting Arrangements)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what contingency arrangements have been made for casting votes at an election in the event of there being a civil emergency such as a foot and mouth outbreak. [185207]

  Mr. Leslie
  The arrangements for counting votes are the responsibility of the relevant Returning Officer. Guidance on appropriate actions in the event of various emergencies (such as security threats, riot, flood, fire, etc) is issued to Returning Officers before each parliamentary election. Special guidance related to the foot and mouth outbreak was issued before the last general election. An assessment of the need for further advice would be made in the light of the circumstances and the nature of the emergency.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will set up a committee to investigate allegations of corruption, vote tampering and voter manipulation in the June elections. [185076]
  70W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Government have no plan to do so. Some allegations of electoral fraud are already under criminal investigation. In addition, five electoral petitions are before the courts. More generally, the independent Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to report on the European Parliamentary elections. It is also statutorily required to evaluate the operation of the all-postal voting electoral pilots. I understand that the Commission's reports will consider electoral fraud issues.

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the travel costs were of civil servants in(a) his Department, (b) its predecessor Department and (c) its related agencies in each year since 1997. [183894]

  Mr. Lammy
  Total travel costs, which includes domestic and overseas travel for the Department and covers costs for the Court Service (CS), the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Headquarters (DCA HQ) are set out in the following table.

  Period

  DCA HQ

  CS

  PGO

  Total DCA

  2004–051

  556,356

  720,660

  7,570

  1,284,586

  2003–04

  2,389,149

  3,664,272

  34,639

  6,088,060

  2002–03

  1,174,209

  3,964,961

  41,783

  5,180,953

  2001–02

  1,179,355

  3,377,593

  61,480

  4,618,428

  2000–01

  1,307,772

  2,972,788

  43,082

  4,323,642

  1999–2000

  1,096,679

  3,215,919

  28,751

  4,341,349

  1998–99

  903,983

  2,696,618

  16,934

  3,617,535

  1To 30 June.

  There has been an increase in travel costs for the DCA HQ between 2002–03 and 2003–04, which is mainly due to a change in attribution of costs between the Court Service, PGO and DCA HQ and due to an increase in responsibilities for the Department.

  Information on the previous year is not readily available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Promotions
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold discussions with the alcohol industry and licensed trade, in particular the large pub chains, to encourage the stocking of a range of non-alcoholic beers, lagers and ciders on licensed premises. [183657]

  Caroline Flint
  We are currently having discussions with the industry around the development of the social responsibility scheme for retailers, which was one of the recommendations of the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England. This scheme is likely to contain a pledge to consider the pricing policy on non-alcoholic drinks, and to encourage discounting of them. The scheme will also be likely to include a commitment to offering free water and reasonably priced soft drinks in all pubs and clubs.

  Asylum Seekers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(1) on what date his Department agreed a contract with Reliance Monitoring Service to provide a system for tagging individuals seeking asylum; if he will publish a copy of the contract; and if he will make a statement; [183918]

  (2) what the value of the contract with Reliance Monitoring Service to provide a system for tagging individuals seeking asylum is. [183920]

  Mr. Browne
  The Secretary of State has not let a contract with Reliance Monitoring Services for tagging individuals seeking asylum and residing in Scotland.

  Reliance Monitoring Services Ltd. have been providing electronic monitoring services in the South of England since 1 October 2001 under the terms of a contract with the Home Office and electronic tagging services within the Scottish criminal justice system since 1 May 2002 under the terms of a contact with the Scottish Executive.

  IND plans to pilot the use of electronic monitoring for immigration purposes from the autumn in accordance with clause 36 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill.

  The pilot in England and Wales will be run under the existing Home Office contract. A separate procurement exercise is under way to provide services for use by IND in Scotland.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals seeking asylum in the UK and residing in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland will be involved in his Department's pilot scheme to provide a system for tagging individuals seeking asylum. [183922]

  Mr. Browne
  The pilot will cover up to 200 people for voice recognition and up to 50 people for tagging (including up to 10 on satellite tracking). Numbers will be divided between the three contractors operating under the existing Home Office contract for England and Wales and an interim contractor in Scotland.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has no plans to pilot tagging in Northern Ireland, but will consider the use of electronic monitoring through voice recognition depending on the outcome of the pilots in England and Wales and Scotland.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department consulted the Scottish Executive prior to the awarding of the contract with Reliance Monitoring Service to provide a system for tagging persons seeking asylum. [183923]

  Mr. Browne
  The Secretary of State has not awarded a contract to Reliance Monitoring Services for the electronic monitoring of individuals seeking asylum and residing in Scotland.

  Home Office officials met officials from the Scottish Executive in Glasgow in January and have kept them fully informed of plans to procure electronic monitoring services in Scotland.

  Child Trafficking
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first inter-ministerial meeting on child trafficking will be held. [182840]

  Mr. Browne
  There is close co-operation across Government to tackle the crime of human trafficking. For example, Reflex the multi-agency task force set up to co-ordinate intelligence and law enforcement in a response to organised immigration crime, including human trafficking, brings together all the key agencies and Departments. The Government Departments represented on Reflex include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Home Office.

  The Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills work closely on the subject of child trafficking. We are jointly considering the results from the Reflex funded multi-agency operation, Paladin Child. This involved the Metropolitan police, the Immigration Service, social workers from Hillingdon Social Services and secondees from NSPCC. The operation risk assessed children arriving at Heathrow airport without their parents or legal guardians and social services followed up those considered to be at risk. The operation did not uncover any evidence of child trafficking. However, the report did make a number of recommendations related to child protection.

  This issue of human trafficking is currently within the remit of a number of ministerial groups. Ministers are currently considering whether a ministerial group focussing specifically on human trafficking would be of benefit in taking forward the agenda in this area.

  Unaccompanied 1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1999 to 2003

  Nationality

  19994

  20004

  20014

  20025,6

  20036

  Albania

  125

  95

  85

  300

  145

  Czech Republic

  30

  20

  20

  10

  —

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  100

  110

  55

  Moldova

  *

  5

  35

  145

  5

  Poland

  45

  15

  25

  10

  60

  Romania

  85

  40

  50

  130

  5

  Russia

  5

  *

  5

  10

  170

  SAM

  1,520

  665

  475

  725

  15

  Turkey

  115

  155

  95

  85

  85

  Ukraine

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  Other former USSR

  25

  20

  10

  10

  5

  Other former Yugoslavia

  30

  35

  80

  5

  *

  Europe other

  10

  5

  —

  *

  *

  Europe total

  1,995

  1,055

  985

  1,545

  560

  Colombia

  20

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Ecuador

  15

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Jamaica

  5

  5

  *

  15

  5

  Americas other

  5

  *

  5

  —

  5

  Americas total

  40

  15

  20

  30

  15

  Algeria

  10

  25

  20

  40

  20

  Angola

  40

  100

  145

  210

  115

  Burundi

  10

  20

  20

  30

  60

  Cameroon

  —

  5

  20

  30

  20

  Congo

  5

  10

  30

  25

  15

  Democratic Republic Congo

  35

  45

  80

  145

  95

  Eritrea

  95

  85

  110

  220

  125

  Ethiopia

  55

  60

  140

  140

  100

  Gambia

  —

  —

  *

  5

  5

  Ghana

  *

  10

  5

  5

  5

  Ivory Coast

  *

  5

  5

  5

  10

  Kenya

  10

  10

  15

  30

  25

  Nigeria

  45

  25

  35

  55

  35

  Rwanda

  35

  50

  40

  65

  20

  Sierra Leone

  65

  75

  130

  110

  35

  73W

  Unaccompanied1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1999 to 2003

  Nationality

  19994

  20004

  20014

  20025,6

  20036

  Somalia

  190

  175

  200

  345

  255

  Sudan

  5

  10

  5

  15

  30

  Tanzania

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  Uganda

  10

  25

  45

  105

  125

  Zimbabwe

  5

  35

  35

  90

  10

  Africa other

  10

  25

  25

  70

  105

  Africa total

  630

  800

  1,115

  1,745

  1,225

  Iran

  15

  65

  25

  50

  65

  Iraq

  60

  110

  180

  1,310

  220

  Middle East other

  15

  15

  20

  50

  30

  Middle East total

  90

  190

  225

  1,410

  310

  Afghanistan

  215

  300

  675

  720

  235

  Bangladesh

  5

  5

  15

  60

  50

  China

  165

  115

  135

  260

  145

  India

  15

  15

  20

  60

  60

  Pakistan

  20

  25

  25

  40

  45

  Sri Lanka

  125

  170

  140

  125

  15

  Vietnam

  5

  20

  90

  180

  125

  Asia other

  5

  5

  5

  15

  10

  Asia total

  550

  655

  1,100

  1,460

  685

  Nationality not known

  40

  20

  25

  5

  5

  Grand total

  3,350

  2,735

  3,470

  6,200

  2,800

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Unaccompanied at point of arrival, aged (or if no proof) determined to be 17 or under and not known to be joining a relative or guardian in the United Kingdom.

  3 Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4 May excluded some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices.

  5 Not comparable with manual counts data prior to 2002.

  6 Provisional figures.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 24 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. P. Cookson. [183687]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 13 July 2004.

  Data Collection/Sharing (Children)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken recently to improve the collection of data on children entering the country. [183311]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: The Immigration Service does not routinely collect data on children arriving in the United Kingdom. It does however act as the first information point to identify children who may be at risk when they arrive in the United Kingdom.

  The overwhelming majority of children arriving in the UK do so legitimately and safely and give no cause for concern. However, if an immigration officer had concerns about a child arriving in the UK, mechanisms are in place to ensure that such information is collected and shared with relevant agencies, such as social services.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the data collected on children entering the country are shared with other relevant agencies. [183308]
  74W
  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 14 July 2004]: The Immigration Service does not routinely collect data on children arriving in the United Kingdom. But it has recently introduced a number of measures aimed at ensuring that children at risk are identified on arrival and, where appropriate, other agencies informed.

  Child Protection Officers are based at Heathrow Airport and at the Croydon Asylum Screening Unit in order to strengthen the links between the police and the Immigration Service to counter child trafficking and problems associated with unaccompanied minors. In addition social services have recently placed staff at the Croydon Asylum Screening Unit to work alongside Immigration Service staff advising them on child welfare issues. A scoping study is also being undertaken to examine the feasibility of social work teams being based at the major ports of entry.

  The Immigration Service also participated in Operation Paladin Child, initiated by the Metropolitan Police Child Protection Command to define the nature of child migration from non-EU countries to the UK via Heathrow, and which also involved the NSPCC and Hillingdon Social Services. The report into the operation's findings made a number of recommendations, including the creation of multi-agency partnership teams at major ports. The Immigration Service will work with the police and other agencies involved to help implement those recommendations.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the effect on the prevention of terrorism of not requiring foreign nationals coming to the UK for less than three months to have an identity card. [182297]

  Mr. Browne
  It is well known that terrorists use false and multiple identities to help undertake and finance their activities in the UK and abroad. An identity card scheme would disrupt the use of false identities by terrorist organisations, for example in the money laundering and organised crime, which support their terrorist activities. Such operations are generally perpetrated over long periods of time.

  The Government agrees with Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who has said that he has absolutely no doubt that a card scheme would have a significant effect in the war against terrorism.

  Immigration Removals
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees under immigration service control have signed forms for return to their home country and are awaiting removal. [183832]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of detainees awaiting removal to their home country following a request to make a voluntary departure is not recorded by the Home Office. This information could be obtained only by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
  75W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average waiting time was for detainees under immigration service control who have signed forms to return to their home country, in the last period for which figures are available. [183833]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the average waiting time for the removal of detainees to their home country following a request to make a voluntary departure is not recorded by the Home Office. This information could be obtained by examination of individual cases files only at disproportionate cost.

  Passports
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are to participate in the UK Passport Service biometrics enrolment trial; and if he will make a statement. [183042]

  Mr. Browne
  The trial began in April and is fully rolled out, functioning at four fixed sites and a mobile unit. It is expected to run for around six months until September when the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) will have enrolled 10,000 people. Up to 2 July, 3,675 people have participated.

  The trial is testing the recording of biometrics and public perceptions.

  Police
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed by Northamptonshire police at(a) 1 April 1997 and (b) 1 April 2004. [183752]

  Ms Blears
  The Northamptonshire police had 1,177 police officers on 31 March 1997. This had increased to 1,234 on 31 December 2003 (the latest published figure). In addition the force had 812 police support staff on 31 March 2003 compared with 554 in March 1997. At the end of March 2004 the force also had 12 Community Support Officers.

  Refugee Women (Employment)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the efforts made by(a) the Community Integration Partnership project in the West Midlands and (b) other similar projects to address barriers refugee women face when trying to find employment. [183309]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 14 July 2004]: The Community Integration Partnership (CIP), which was formed as a direct result of a joint partnership between West Midlands Consortium for Asylum Support (WMCARS) and Roselodge Group in March 2003, is currently funded under the Home Office's Refugee Integration Challenge Fund to help refugee women to access training, education and employment. Their main objectives are to address the barriers that many refugee women face in doing so, for instance by obtaining relevant information, confidence building, arranging childcare, and enhancing language skills. It works in close partnership with a range of Government and non-government bodies across the West Midlands which share its commitment to the provision of services to refugee women.

  Security Officers (Crime)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British Security Industry Association security officers have been convicted of criminal offences when carrying out their duties in each of the last five years. [184535]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: The information requested is not available. The British Security Industry Association is a professional trade association for the security industry in the UK. Membership of the BSIA is at company rather than individual level.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensioner Households (Income)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average income for pensioner households was in each year from 1993 to 2003. [184558]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The following table gives the mean net (after tax, in 2002–03 prices) Before and After Housing Cost income of pensioner units between 1994–95 and 2002–03. Information is based on the Family Resources Survey, which began in 1994–95.

  Mean income

  Net BHC

  Net AHC

  1994–95

  189

  161

  1995—96

  188

  160

  1996–97

  199

  170

  1997–98

  202

  174

  1998–99

  208

  182

  1999–2000

  216

  189

  2000–01

  225

  202

  2001–02

  233

  210

  2002–03

  237

  214

  Note:

  Pensioner units are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married and cohabiting) where the man is over pension age.

  Source:

  Pensioners' Income Series 2002–03, in 2002–03 prices.

  Child Support
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what factors underlie the decision not to reward parents coming off benefits and into full-time education with the child maintenance bonus under the old scheme and child maintenance premium under the new scheme. [181629]

  Mr. Pond
  The child maintenance bonus is a measure to provide an incentive for parents with care to go into work.

  The child maintenance premium is a disregard of income for parents with care who are in receipt of either income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. When a parent with care ceases to receive income-related benefit, she will receive all of the maintenance paid.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects Child Support Agency cases assessed under the old legislation to be transferred for assessment under the new legislation. [184734]

  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.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason maintenance from non-resident parents which is uncollected by the Child Support Agency will be disregarded and written off. [183286]

  Mr. Pond
  The Child Support Agency has no powers to write-off debt.

  Legislation provides for a non-resident parent to cease to be liable for a proportion of his arrears in certain tightly defined circumstances. In such cases the Secretary of State may make a payment to the parent with care.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims were registered with the Compensation Recovery Unit in respect of accidents and illnesses at work; how many resulted in repayment of benefit in such cases; and what the total amount of benefit recovered was. [185163]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table.

  Employer liability compensation cases and benefit recovered

  Cause

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Claims received via employer liability

  Accident

  92,915

  79,286

  Disease

  90,427

  211,924

  Claims resulting in repayment of benefit

  Accident

  111,322

  115,214

  Disease

  75,028

  100,506

  Amount recovered

  Accident (£)

  65,121,648

  65,934,190

  Disease (£)

  37,334,756

  39,054,286

  Note:

  The figures of claims resulting in repayment of benefit include some received in, and carried forward from, the previous year.

  Source:

  Compensation Recovery Unit Database.

  Hearing Loss
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of evidence about the cumulative effects of hearing loss occasioned by war-time noise combined with age related hearing loss. [183610]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The current scientific understanding of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss is that it does not get worse on removal from the noise giving rise to the injury and that, in the context of the War Pensions Scheme, hearing loss
  78W
  due to noise and that due to subsequent effects of age are not more than additive. This is the basis on which the Department considers claims for hearing loss due to service in the armed forces.

  In terms of specific assessments of the effects of hearing loss, in 1997 Baroness Hollis, the Minister then responsible for war pensions, asked the then Government Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, to chair an independent expert review of the assessment of hearing loss in the War Pensions Scheme. Both that independent review and a further departmental review in February 1999 confirmed that the Department's approach to the assessment of hearing loss in war pensions was in line with current scientific and medical understanding. Since early 1999 emerging evidence on the matter has continued to be monitored.

  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, an independent non-governmental body which advises the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on matters relating to the Industrial Injuries Scheme, published their review of occupational deafness in November 2002 (Cm 5672). This confirmed the War Pensions Scheme approach to assessment.

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many school leavers joined the New Deal programme in Havering in(a) 1999, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [184244]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on whether people joining New Deal are school leavers is not available.

  Information on the numbers of young people joining New Deal for Young People in Havering, and their ages on joining, is in the table.

  Starts to New Deal for Young People in Havering

  Age on joining

  1999

  2002

  2003

  18

  70

  60

  80

  19

  80

  70

  70

  20

  70

  60

  60

  21

  60

  40

  60

  22

  50

  50

  50

  23

  50

  40

  50

  24

  60

  40

  50

  Total

  450

  360

  430

  Notes:

  1. All figures are for January to December each year.

  2. All figures are starts rather than individuals and may include people who have started New Deal more than once.

  3. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 10 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1341-42W, what the average cost per place on each of the four options in the New Deal for Young People was in the last 12 months. [182122]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not available.
  79W
  It is intended that a unit cost system, capable of capturing this type of information, will be part of the system implementation of the Resource Management System. The system is currently still in the design and development stage and we anticipate that roll out will commence from late 2005.

  Occupational/Personal Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the percentage of employees in each decile of employee incomes who do not contribute to an occupational or personal pension. [185168]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The proportion of employees of working age that have no pension provision by earnings deciles in 2002–03 is shown in the table.

  Decile

  Percentage

  Low

  81

  2

  62

  3

  59

  4

  48

  5

  42

  6

  36

  7

  27

  8

  22

  9

  16

  High

  13

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) 2002–03, the latest year for which data is available. The coverage of the survey is the UK.

  2. Estimates show the proportion of working age employees with no pension provision within the deciles of the overall working age gross earnings distribution.

  3. People with no pension provision are defined as those who are not members of an occupational pension and not currently contributing to a personal or stakeholder pension scheme.

  4. Employees have been defined as full-time and part-time employees.

  5. Working age has been defined as 20–59 for women and 20–64 for men.

  6. Earnings deciles have been defined in relation to working age gross earnings for employees.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 2002–03.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit recipients have changed their method of payment from payment into a bank account to payment into a Post Office card account since the beginning of direct payment. [184630]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Figures supplied are for benefit accounts not benefit recipients. A benefit recipient may have more than one benefit account.

  The Post Office card account has been available since April 2003.

  The number of benefit accounts that have changed from a bank account to a Post Office card account from April 2003 to May 2004 is 12,625.
  80W
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit recipients have changed their method of payment from payment into a Post Office card account to payment into a bank account since the beginning of direct payment. [184631]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Figures supplied are for benefit accounts not benefit recipients. A benefit recipient may have more than one benefit account.

  The Post Office card account has been available since April 2003.

  The number of benefit accounts that have changed from a Post Office card account to a bank account from April 2003 to May 2004 is 5,765.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much(a) his Department and (b) agencies of the Department have spent on electricity use for each year from 1997 to date. [181395]

  Mr. Pond
  Since DWP came into being, its total spend on electricity was £10,097,555 and £11,394,575 in 2001–02 and 2002–03 respectively. Figures are not yet available for 2003–04.

  It is not possible to provide an accurate breakdown of spend to Agency level, as invariably DWP buildings are occupied by a number of the Department's businesses.

  Underfunded Pension Schemes
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the written statement of 30 June 2004,Official Report, columns 15–16WS, on underfunded pension schemes (insolvency), what assessment he is undertaking of the number of people who lost pension rights when their scheme was wound up, where the sponsoring employer was solvent, but would have been insolvent had full pension rights been provided. [184355]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The data gathering exercise undertaken to inform the report published on 30 June focused on underfunded schemes sponsored by insolvent employers. The information requested is not available although we are seeking further information and consulting on the circumstances of schemes winding up underfunded with solvent employers prior to making final decisions on eligibility for the Financial Assistance Scheme.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the written statement of 30 June 2004,Official Report, columns 15—16WS, on underfunded pension schemes (insolvency), how many people have lost (a) any and (b) 10 per cent. or more of their expected pension benefits from underfunded schemes wound up by insolvent employers since 1997; and if he will list the schemes whose members were included in the research exercise. [184356]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is estimated that(a) some 70,000 members may have lost any of their expected pension benefits and that (b) some 65,000 members face losses

  81W
  of 10 per cent. or more of their expected pension benefits from underfunded schemes being wound up by insolvent employers since 1997. These estimates are consistent with those published on 30 June and exclude any non-pensioners' indexation offered by their schemes as well as excluding those with the very smallest cash losses of less than £5 a week. They are rounded to the nearest 5,000 members and so the estimates of the numbers losing 10 per cent. or more of their expected pension benefits are the same as those previously published for the numbers losing 20 per cent. or more.

  We are unable to list the schemes whose members were included in the research exercise as this information was provided by scheme trustees in confidence.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the written statement of 30 June 2004,Official Report, columns 15–16WS, on underfunded pension schemes (insolvency), what steps
  82W
  he is taking to ensure that the data gathered covers all cases where companies sponsoring defined benefit schemes have become insolvent since 1997. [184357]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The report that was published on 30 June provides estimates of the numbers of people facing significant reductions in their expected pensions as a result of schemes starting to wind up underfunded with insolvent employers since 1997. Those estimates were basedon a combination of new information collected, for the purpose of the estimates, from independent trustees, and information already available in the Occupational Pension Regulatory Authority's Pension Schemes Registry. While the new information collected did not itself cover all such schemes, the two sets of information combined provided a firm basis for the global estimates published.

  We are, however, working with the pensions industry to collect more information on affected schemes to assist the development and implementation of the Financial Assistance Scheme.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Residential Accommodation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of establishments registered to provide residential accommodation for children were the subject of(a) scheduled and (b) unannounced inspections in each of the last three years. [178495]

  Margaret Hodge
  Data are only available for the years 2002–03 and 2003–04 and have been provided by the Commission for Social Care Inspection.

  In 2002–03 a total number of 1,172 children's homes were registered. In that period there were 1,031 announced inspections (88 per cent. of all registered children's homes) and 639 unannounced inspections (54.5 per cent. of all registered children's homes).

  In 2003–04 a total of 1,956 children's homes were registered. In that period there were 1,683 announced inspections (86 per cent. of all registered children's homes) and 1,678 unannounced inspections (85.8 per cent. of all registered children's homes).

  It must be taken into account that homes that have not been registered until the latter part of the year might not achieve the second (unannounced) inspection within the same year, although it should occur within the annual timeframe.

  Accountancy Costs
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has spent on accountants in each year since 1997. [183972]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on spend on accountants is not collected separately from that of other expenditure. The number of accountants employed by the Department since 1997 is shown in the table. The figures for each year are not directly comparable because of machinery of government changes in 2001 and 2003.

  Period

  Number

  1997–98

  71

  1998–99

  64

  1999–2000

  66

  2000–01

  41

  2001–02

  56

  2002–03

  39

  2003–04

  36

  Adult Skills
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of(a) an A-level, (b) an Advanced GNVQ and (c) a NVQ level 3 or equivalent vocational qualification are; and how many people achieved each of these qualifications in 2003. [174370]
  84W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: The cost of examination entry is set by the independent awarding bodies. The typical cost of entry and the number of people achieving (a) A-levels (b) Advanced GNVQs and (c) NVQ level 3 or equivalent in England in 2003 are as follows:

  Qualification

  Typical cost of entry1 (£)

  Number of candidates achieving qualification 2

  (a) GCE A-level

  66.00

  244,426

  (b) VCE AS-level

  42.00

  10,622

  VCE A-level

  79.00

  27,870

  VCE Double Award

  150.00

  34,349

  As part of the Curriculum 2000 reforms the Advanced GNVQ was replaced by the Vocational Certificate of Education (VCE) group of qualifications.

  Using the most recent data available the number of level 3 NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) and VRQs (Vocationally Related Qualifications) achieved in 2002/03 are shown in the following table.

  Qualification

  Typical cost of entity 1 (£)

  Number of qualifications achieved3

  (c) NVQ Level 3

  110.00

  85,196

  VRQ Level 3

  —

  45,076

  1 Typical cost of entry is based on entry through Edexcel. These figures have been taken from information provided on the Edexcel website.

  2 Information on candidates attempting GCE A levels and VCE qualifications is taken from information collated for the 2003 Performance Tables.

  3 Information on achievements for level 3 NVQs and VRQs is taken from the 2002 03 National Information System for Vocational Qualifications (NISVQ).

  Note:

  For VRQs the cost is not shown as this would be dependent upon the exact qualification.

  Building Schools for the Future Programme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the private contractors participating in the Building Schools for the Future programme; and if he will make a statement. [184866]

  Mr. Miliband
  The first schemes to be procured under the Building Schools for the Future programme are not due to come to the market until later in the summer.

  However, several contractors have been engaged in accordance with public procurement processes to assist in the creation and development of Partnerships for Schools (PfS), which is the non departmental public body established by the Department to manage and co-ordinate the Building Schools for the Future programme.

  These contractors are Bevan Ashford, KPMG, Capita, Precept, Anders Elite and Fujitsu. In addition, the following have had engagements which have now been concluded; Augmentis, Bridge and Beyond.
  85W
  PfS is also in the process of procuring framework contacts for the following range of services on behalf of itself, local authorities, schools and other stakeholders:

  Legal advisory services

  Financial advisory services

  Programme Management

  Communications

  Technical advisory services

  Education advisory services

  Team Development.

  Chief Mathematics Adviser
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) human and (b) financial resources he plans to make available to the post of chief mathematics adviser to enable the successful applicant to fulfil the responsibilities listed in the job description. [184108]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The post of Chief Adviser for Mathematics will be a highly influential and pivotal role and the successful candidate will work together with senior officials and Ministers to take forward the work detailed in our response to Professor Adrian Smith's report Making Mathematics Count, which I announced in the House on 28 June. Our response documentcontained a number of specific financial commitments and I am considering additional resources in the light of this week's Spending Review announcements.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how his Department monitors parental child abuse cases in the UK. [184173]

  Margaret Hodge
  This Department does not monitor parental child abuse cases. Rather, the Department collects information relating to children who are listed on the child protection register.

  Children are placed on the child protection register when a multi-agency child protection conference considers them to be at continuing risk of significant harm. That risk may arise from a number of factors, one of which may be parental abuse, but the register does not record the source of the risk.

  Children should be registered under one or more of the categories of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect, according to a decision by the chair of the child protection conference. The categories used for registration help indicate to those consulting the register the nature of presenting concerns. Recording information in this way also allows for the collation and analysis of information locally and nationally.

  The Department publishes, on an annual basis, information relating to registrations, de-registrations and re-registrations of children on the child protection register.

  Children in Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children are residing in children's homes in West Sussex. [178491]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the total number of children residing in children's homes in West Sussex is not collected centrally.

  At 31 March 2003, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that West Sussex County Council had responsibility for 20 looked after children residing in children's homes and hostels within their local authority. A further 30 are in children's homes outside their local authority boundary. Information on the number of looked after children from other councils who are residing in residential accommodation within West Sussex is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of children's homes in West Sussex were subject to(a) scheduled and (b) unannounced inspections in each of the last three years. [178492]

  Margaret Hodge
  According to information provided by the Commission for Social Care Inspection there are 32 children's homes in West Sussex, of which nine are run by the Local Authority. Since 1 April 2002 all of the homes have been inspected twice a year (one announced and one unannounced inspection in each year).

  Departmental Staffing
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many non-Civil Service staff have worked on projects in the Department in each year since 1997. [183977]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department does not hold this information centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled People (Services)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the efficacy and efficiency of services provided by his Department to disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [183253]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 July 2004]: The Government are committed to improving the position of disabled people in society and believe that public bodies should take the lead in promoting equal opportunities. That is why the draft Disability Discrimination Bill extends the DDA to the functions of public bodies and introuces a duty on public bodies to promote equality for disabled people.

  Accordingly, my Department keeps the efficacy and efficiency of services provided to disabled people under constant review. The Sure Start Unit has published and disseminated guidance and training materials to Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) in local authorities, which will guide and empower them to support early identification, intervention, develop inclusive early learning environments and existing

  87W
  service provision. These materials will help them to support children in removing barriers to learning wherever these exist.

  The Children Act Report 2002, published by DfES in June 2003, pulls together the latest information from statistical returns, inspections and research on social services support for children. This report includes a chapter on support for disabled children and their families. See the DfES website at http://www.dfes.qov.uk.Ofsted inspections of schools and LEAs include a requirement to look at and report on the inclusion of children with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities. In addition, Ofsted also undertake reports on specific themes. It is due to report in September 2004 on the initial impact of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and will also be reporting at regular intervals on progress being made as a result of the Government's Strategy for SEN: Removing Barriers to Achievement. Ofsted also has the lead responsibility for inspecting Connexions partnerships. All Ofsted inspections focus on the experience of young people and evaluate and report on quality and effectiveness of the partnership. Ofsted's framework for inspection states that they should report on how responsive the partnership is to the range and diversity of young people in the area. In making their judgments, Ofsted report on the relevance of programmes provided and whether they provide for the diverse needs of young people within the target age group, taking into account such features as sex, link ethnicity and disability and ensuring equality and equity. See the Ofsted website at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides funding to the higher education institutions and further education colleges it funds to widen access and improve provision for disabled students. It publishes an annual series of performance indicators that cover access, progression, retention, research, graduate employment and disability. The allocation of funds reflects the proportion of students that each institution recruits who are in receipt of the disabled students allowance (DSA). See "Explanation of how the mainstream disability allocation for 2004–05 is calculated" at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/widen/sldd/ allocat.asp

  HEFCE also distributes special initiative funding in support of students with learning difficulties and disabilities. In the current round, they have funded 54 projects in two strands. Funding for this round of projects began in January 2003 and the programme ends in December 2005. See HEFCE's "2003–05 Special funding programme: Improving provision for disabled students" at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/widen/sldd/fund03-O5.asp

  HEFCE also funds the National Disability Team to support projects and provide guidance to the higher education sector on disability issues and legislation. More details can be found at http://www.natdisteam.ac.uk/

  In May 2003 HEFCE published "Project capital round three: invitation to apply for funds". Of the £494 million allocated to improve capital and IT infrastructure to support learning and teaching, £117 million is allocated to improve provision for
  88W
  disabled students, in line with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and its extension in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. See http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2004/c102_04/

  In addition, the Department has published guidance on the additional studentsupport that students with disabilities are entitled to. This guidance ("Bridging the Gap; A guide to the Disabled Students Allowances (DSAs) in higher education") can be downloaded from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport/students/stu_students_with_d.shtml.

  A review of the administration of disabled students allowances was carried out by SKILL: the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities at the request of DfES. A summary of SKILL'S findings and recommendations can be found on the Department's website at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport/dsa_.shtml

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) published its Annual Equality and Diversity Report for 2002–03 in November 2003, including an assessment of progress in providing equal access to Further Education and adult learning for disabled people. This publication is available in electronic form on the LSC's website: www.lsc.gov.uk

  Sure Start
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been made available to Sure Start projects in the London borough of Islington for each year since the inception of Sure Start; and what the projected funding for future years is. [184723]

  Margaret Hodge
  The London borough of Islington has six Sure Start local programmes, two Early Excellence Centres and eight Neighbourhood nurseries, the first of which was approved in October 2000. The revenue funding for these initiatives is shown in the following table:

  Table 1

  £

  Amount (Revenue)

  2000/01

  448,250

  2001/02

  894,900

  2002/03

  2,277,208

  2003/04

  4,030,346

  2004/05

  4,910,149

  2005/06

  5,227,097

  Total

  17,837,950

  The total amount of capital allocated to the Sure Start initiatives in Islington is £7,587,100. In addition Islington has been allocated £1,033,126 revenue and £3,149,773 capital to develop children's centres over the period of 2004–06

  These figures do not include local authority funding for child care and nursery education allocated to Islington.

  The Chancellor announced in the Spending Review that the Sure Start Unit will be allocated £1,167 million,

  89W
  £1,483 million and £1,667 million for 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 respectively for England. At this stage it is not possible to say how much will be allocated to individual local authorities.

  Out-of-city Schools.
  Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and skills how many Nottingham pupils

  Number and proportion of LEA resident pupils in maintained primary1 and secondary1 schools educated in other LEAs and the number and proportion of non-residents educated in schools located within the LEA—January 2003

  Nottingham

  Primary

  Secondary

  Number of pupils resident within the LEA

  25,615

  16,451

  Number of resident pupils educated in other LEAs

  1,365

  3,659

  Percentage of resident pupils educated in other LEAs2

  5.3

  22.2

  Number of pupils educated within the LEA

  25,538

  13,937

  Number of pupils educated in the LEA that are resident in another LEA

  1,288

  1,145

  Percentage of pupils educated in the LEA that are resident in another LEA3

  5

  8.2

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Percentage reported is calculated as a percentage of resident pupils living within the LEA.

  3 Percentage reported is calculated as a percentage of school population attending schools within the LEA.

  Source:

  NPD 2003.

  (ii) Local education authorities are funded for the pupils attending schools within their authority irrespective of the area of residence of the individual pupils (with the exception of SEN pupils where recoupment is arranged locally). Therefore there is no need for funding transfers in respect of cross border movements.
  (iii) Data of this type are not currently available.

  St. Helens Schools
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) head teachers, (b) teachers and (c) support workers were employed in St. Helens schools in each year from 1997 to 2004. [184621]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the full-time equivalent number of head teachers all regular teachers and support staff employed in the maintained sector in St. Helens local education authority for each year between 1997 and 2003, the latest information available.

  Head teachers1

  All teachers2

  Support staff3

  2003

  78

  1,630

  800

  2002

  78

  1,580

  790

  2001

  75

  1,570

  680

  2000

  77

  1,570

  570

  1999

  81

  1,570

  530

  1998

  84

  1,570

  500

  1997

  83

  1,590

  480

  1 Source: Annual Survey of Teachers in Service 2001 to 2003 and Database of Teachers Records (DTR) 1997 to 2000. The DTR is maintained primarily for pensions purposes. The figures include all teachers who are being paid as head teachers.

  2 Source: Annual Survey of Teachers in Service

  3 Source: Annual School Census. Support staff include teaching assistants, administrative staff, technicians and other medical, child care and education support staff.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average pay was for teachers in St. Helens in each year from 1997 to 2004. [184623]
  90W
  have gone to out of city schools in the last academic year; (ii) what funding was transferred out of the city as a result; and (iii) how many pupils in each of the last three years have been returned to city schools during the course of the year. [184662]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is as follows:

  (i) The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the average salary of full-time regular qualified teachers inthe maintained schools sector in England and Wales as at March of each year. The latest information available is for 2002.

  As at March

  £

  2002

  28,720

  2001

  27,200

  2000

  25,390

  1999

  24,440

  1998

  23,540

  1997

  22,900

  Source:

  The Database of Teacher Records. Figures cover all grades and include all allowances.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what major development and spending projects(a) have taken place since 1997 and (b) are planned to take place over the next two years in St. Helens; [184626]

  (2) what the level of (a) capital and (b) revenue spend was in St. Helens primary schools in each year from 1997 to 2004. [184622]

  Mr. Miliband
  The bulk of capital funding is allocated to local education authorities (LEAs) and schools by formula so that they can decide their priorities for investment in line with locally decided asset management plans. We do not, therefore, hold detailed information about school building developments and projects that have taken place, or are planned.

  The following table shows the capital allocations made to St. Helens LEA and all its schools, both primary and secondary, from 1996–97 to 2003–04.
  91W

  Capital allocations to St. Helens and its schools

  1996–97

  2,286

  1997–98

  1,818

  1998–99

  3,244

  1999–2000

  3,802

  2000–01

  6,603

  2001–02

  5,562

  2002–03

  10,234

  2003–04

  7,152

  For revenue spend in primary schools in St. Helens, the figures are as follows:

  St. Helen's: Net institutional expenditure (NIE)1 (cash terms)

  £

  NIE (pre-primary and primary)2

  NIE (pre-primary)2

  NIE (primary)2

  1996–97

  29,540,000

  —

  —

  1997–98

  27,484,000

  —

  —

  1998–99

  29,286,000

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  33,966,565

  514,585

  33,451,980

  2000–01

  37,197,870

  828,287

  36,369,583

  2001–02

  39,765,740

  1,174,816

  38,590,924

  2002–033

  39,865,585

  1 Net institutional expenditure (NIE) includes all school-recurrent funding, including teaching staff and non-teaching staff salaries, school premises costs, equipment and supplies. It takes account of unspent balances held by schools at the year end It does not include the cost of school meals, home to school transport, LEA central administration or the financing costs of capital expenditure.

  2 Prior to 1999–2000 figures are drawn from the RO1 return which collected combined information for pre-primary and primary. In 2002–03 the structure of the form changed to collect in-school expenditure information from the primary, secondary and special sectors only.

  3 The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the expenditure reported in 2002–03 is not strictly comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  The expenditure data prior to 1999–2000 is drawn from the annual 'RO1' spending returns which local authorities submitted to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. From 1999—2000 onwards, data is taken from local education authorities' Section 52 Outturn Statements submitted to the DfES.

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases against his Department, the agencies for which it is responsible and its predecessor organisations have been brought to employment tribunals in each year since 1997 in relation to(a) equal pay, (b) sex discrimination, (c) race discrimination, (d) disability discrimination and (e) unfair dismissal; how many cost awards were made against (i) respondents and (ii) applicants; and how much has been spent (A) settling and (B) contesting claims. [181473]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department is committed to embedding diversity and equality into its employment policies and practices.
  92W
  The number of employment tribunal cases against my Department is set out as follows:

  Equal pay

  Sex discrimination

  Race discrimination

  Disability discrimination

  Unfair dismissal

  2002

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2003

  —

  1

  13

  2

  2004

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  4

  2

  4

  3

  1 Two cases included unfair dismissal.

  Information before these years in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There were no awards made against my Department during the years quoted, however, applicants did receive out of court settlements totalling £26,356. The cost for contesting claims during the years quoted totalled just over £99,500.

  Fair Admissions Taskforce
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of recruitment of the Head of the Fair Admissions Taskforce was; and what his(a) salary and (b) other employment costs for the next three years are estimated to be. [184321]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: Professor Schwartz receives no remuneration as Chair of the Admissions to Higher Education Review, other than expenses. There ere no costs of recruitment.

  As Vice-Chancellor of Brunel University, Professor Schwartz's salary is a matter for Brunel University. All Vice-Chancellors' salaries are in the public domain, and the THES of 20 February 2004 listed his pay for the year 2002–03 as £174,000.

  Fieldwork
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of a possible link between falling numbers of science graduates and the availability of fieldwork and out-of-classroom activity in schools; and if he will make a statement; [183157]

  (2) if he will make fieldwork and out-of-classroom learning part of the core science curriculum; what assessment he has made of the obstacles to biology fieldwork; and if he will make a statement; [183158]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefits of fieldwork and out-of-classroom activity in developing practical skills for use (a) at undergraduate level, (b) at postgraduate level and (c) in employment; and if he will make a statement. [183159]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No assessment has been made of the impact that the availability of fieldwork in school science has on science graduate numbers. We will set out measures to increase the number of students studying the physical sciences and engineering through the Government's 10 year investment framework for science and innovation, published alongside the 2004 spending review.
  93W
  Out of classroom learning is already a statutory requirement in National Curriculum Geography and we will continue to encourage schools to provide fieldwork opportunities in science. We are developing training and guidance for science teachers in fieldwork, including risk assessment, through our new network of Science Learning Centres.

  The Field Studies Council's recent 'Review of Outdoor Learning', which the Department part funded, pointed to the potential learning, attitudinal interpersonal and social outcomes of fieldwork and out of classroom activity such as leadership, team working, enquiry and self-reliance.

  Formula Spending Share
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average(a) primary formula spending share per pupil and (b) secondary formula spending share per pupil is for each local education authority for 2005–06 listed in descending order of secondary formula spending share. [184955]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures for 2005–06 will not be available until the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement is announced in the autumn.

  Foundation Schools
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills with whom a school must consult should it wish to adopt foundation status; and how such consultations are funded. [184704]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State's statutory guidance currently says that those bringing forward proposals for a change in the category of a school should consult all interested parties. These include:

  any local education authority likely to be affected by the proposals;

  other schools in the area;

  parents and teachers in the area who may be affected by the proposals;

  if proposals involve, or are likely to affect, a school which has a particular religious foundation, the appropriate religious body;

  if the proposals affect the provision of full-time 16–19 education, the Learning and Skills Council.

  Funding of consultations is the responsibility of those bringing forward the proposals.

  The Five Year Strategy document proposes a simpler and quicker procedure for schools to change category. We intend that the new procedures should retain a requirement for consultation.

  Free School Transport
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Weston-Super-Mare constituency he estimates would lose the right to free school transport under the proposals contained in the Draft School Transport Bill. [183819]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This would be a matter for the LEA. The School transport Bill (which has been published for prelegislative scrutiny) allows local education authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to run pilot schemes which will cater for ALL pupils, not 94W
  just those currently qualifying for free school transport. Pilot authorities may charge for transport, except for pupils eligible for free school meals, but charges must be set at a level that does not encourage car use and caters for the needs of large and low income families.

  The Local Government Association, the Audit Commission and the Social Exclusion Unit have all asked us to trial alternatives to the current regime. No authority will be forced to run a trial, and we have no plans to require all authorities to change their existing arrangements.

  Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of higher education students studied(a) physical sciences, (b) medicine, (c) dentistry, (d) engineering and technology and (e) architecture, building and planning in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 2002–03. [183268]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is given in the table. A new method of allocating students to subject groups was introduced in 2002/03, the effect of which was to decrease the number of students in the 'combined' category and increase those who were allocated to specific subjects. This means that the figures for 2002/03 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years so the comparisons in the table have been made with 2001/02 instead.

  Proportion of all HE Enrolments at UK HEIs studying specific subjects

  Percentage

  Subject group

  1996/97

  2001/02

  2002/03

  Physical Sciences

  4.1

  3.2

  3.3

  Pre-clinical/Clinical Medicine

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  Pre-clinical/Clinical Dentistry

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Engineering and Technology

  7.5

  6.4

  6.0

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  2.7

  2.2

  2.1

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which academic areas the percentage of higher education students studying a particular subject has fallen since 1997; and by what amounts. [183312]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is given in the table. A new method of allocating students to subject groups was introduced in 2002/03, the effect of which was to decrease the number of students in the 'combined' category and increase those who were allocated to specific subjects. This means that the figures for 2002/03 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years so the comparisons in the table have been made with 2001/02 instead.

  Distribution of higher education students at UK HE institutions by subject of stud

  Percentage of all HE enrolments

  Subject

  1997/98

  2001/02

  Change

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2.2

  2.3

  0.0

  Subjects Allied to Medicine

  9.2

  11.0

  1.7

  Biological Sciences

  4.8

  4.6

  -0.2

  Veterinary Science

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  Agriculture and Related Subjects

  0.8

  0.8

  -0.0

  95W

  Distribution of higher education students at UK HE institutions by subject of study

  Percentage of all HE enrolments

  Subject

  1997/98

  2001/02

  Change

  Physical Sciences

  3.9

  3.2

  -0.7

  Mathematical Sciences

  1.1

  1.1

  0.0

  Computer Science

  4.3

  5.7

  1.4

  Engineering and Technology

  7.1

  6.4

  -0.8

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  2.5

  2.2

  -0.3

  Social, Economic and Political Science

  7.2

  7.0

  -0.2

  Law

  3.2

  3.2

  0.0

  Business and Administrative Studies

  12.4

  11.7

  -0.7

  Librarianship and Information Science

  —

  —

  —

  Languages

  5.1

  4.7

  -0.4

  Humanities

  3.4

  3.2

  -0.2

  Creative Arts and Design

  5.3

  5.7

  0.4

  Education

  7.5

  7.4

  -0.1

  Combined

  18.5

  18.2

  -0.3

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  n/a

  n/a = Not applicable.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Percentage of all higher education students in the above subjects in 2002/031

  Subject

  2002/03

  Medicine

  2.3

  Subjects Allied to Medicine

  11.4

  Biological Sciences

  5.9

  Veterinary Science

  0.2

  Agriculture and Related Subjects

  0.7

  Physical Sciences

  3.3

  Mathematical Science

  1.2

  Computing Science

  6.1

  Engineering and Technology

  6.0

  Architecture, Building and Planning

  2.1

  Social Studies

  7.7

  Law

  3.7

  Business and Administrative Studies

  13.0

  Mass Communications and Documentation

  1.9

  Languages

  5.9

  Historical and Philosophical Studies

  3.9

  Creative Arts and Design

  6.3

  Education

  7.3

  Combined

  11.2

  May 1997

  July 2004

  Higher Education

  Full-time students

  Student grant (mandatory awards from LEAs).

  Grants for fees.

  Grants for dependants—adults and children.

  Grants for dependants—adults and children.

  Travelling expenses.

  Travel grant.

  Disabled students allowances.

  Student loan (25 per cent. means-tested).

  Discretionary access funds.

  Discretionary hardship fund.

  Hardship loan.

  Part-time Students

  No means-tested benefits available.

  Part-time student loan.

  Further Education

  Learner support funds.

  Learner support funds.

  Education maintenance allowance.

  Adult learning grants.

  School Age

  Free school meals.

  Free school meals.

  Free school milk.

  Free school milk.

  Remission of charges for the cost of board and lodging while attending residential school trips.

  Remission of charges for the cost of board and lodging while attending residential school trips.

  96W
  1 For the academic year 2002/03 HESA uses a different method of allocating students to subject groups and so figures are not comparable to earlier years.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  London Admissions System
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out details of the London admissions system referred to in page 52 of his five year strategy for children and learners. [184703]

  Mr. Miliband
  The London Schools Admissions System (LSAS) has been developed by the Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in London to create an infrastructure which will simplify the secondary school admissions process for London parents. From September 2005, all 33 London boroughs and eight adjoining LEAs will co-operate to process applications for secondary schools. Parents will be able to apply for up to six maintained secondary schools on a single application form. Individual admission authorities will continue to consider applications under their published arrangements, but where an applicant is eligible for a place at more than one school the LSAS will offer the applicant the available school ranked highest on their application form. This will ensure that no child gets more than one offer and that more children are offered a school place on the national offer date of 1 March. We are confident that because fewer children will be left with no offer of a school place, the LSAS will help to reduce the anxiety and frustration which many parents, pupils and schools feel under the current application system.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the means-tested benefits available through his Department and the agencies for which it is responsible(a) in May 1997 and (b) now. [182594]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table sets out means-tested benefits that applied on May 1997 and those that apply in July 2004. Further changes will be implemented for the 2004/05 academic year as a result of the Higher Education Act.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 1997. [182942]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since 1997, 14 Executive, Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs have been established, 11 have been abolished and one ceased to be an NDPB and was de-classified as an NDPB.

  Pupil Funding (Harwich)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding per pupil was spent in the Harwich constituency in each year since 1997. [184997]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than constituency level. The figures provided are for Essex LEA and are shown in the following table.

  Net current expenditure (after recharges) per pupil—Cash terms

  Total

  1997–98

  2,410

  1998–99

  2,640

  1999–00

  2,650

  2000–01

  2,880

  2001–02

  3,200

  2002–03

  3,410

  Notes:

  The financial data are taken from Essex LEAs' Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. 2002–03 data are subject to change by the LEA. Section 52 is collected at local authority level, not constituency level, so the figures provided are for Essex LEA. 1997–98 figures are for Essex LEA prior to local government reorganisation. From 1998–99 onwards parts of Essex LEA became Southend and Thurrock LEAs. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. This change in calculation is identified by the use of italics. The 2002–03 figure is calculated by taking all the LEA expenditure, excluding CERA and Youth and Community, and dividing it by the FTE pupil numbers in maintained pre-primary, primary, secondary and special schools.

  3. The figures shown are calculated by dividing the LEA expenditure by the number of pupils in maintained establishments, Essex has a large proportion of its pre-primary pupils educated outside mainstream establishments. If these are taken into account then the unit cost in 2001–02 reduces to approximately £3,110 and in 2002–03 to £3,300.

  Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  School Halls (East Sussex)
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new school halls have been approved for primary schools in East Sussex in 98W
  each of the last 10 years; and how many applications for new school halls for primary schools in East Sussex have been rejected in each of the last 10 years. [185071]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold the information requested. The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans.

  In 2001–02 there were five projects in East Sussex awarded funding under the Spaces for Sports and Arts programme operated by Sport England. This programme was intended to increase community and curricula use in primary schools.

  School Leaving Age
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average age of school leavers in(a) Great Britain and (b) Havering was in (i) 1999, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2003. [184252]

  Mr. Miliband
  The data are not collected centrally. In England, a pupil ceases to be of compulsory school age on the last Friday in June in the school year in which he reaches the age of sixteen. This means that pupils will be aged between around sixteen years and ten months and fifteen years and ten months when they leave school.

  School Workload Agreement
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the number of schools that will be able to fund the implementation of the School Workload Agreement in 2005–06 and 2006–07; [184660]

  (2) what options head teachers can follow in order to release funds to implement the requirements of the schools remodelling agreement; [184658]

  (3) what mechanisms are in place to ensure the successful implementation of the School Workforce Agreement in all schools for 2005—06; [184659]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact of reductions in numbers of teachers and teaching assistants on the introduction of planning, preparation and assessment time for all teachers. [184661]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement I laid before the House on Tuesday 3 July on school funding for 2005–06,Official Report, column 55WS. On the same day there was also a press notice issued by the Department (DfES press notice 2004/0137) which included a statement welcoming the school funding settlement by the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group (made up of the majority of the school workforce unions and other partners).

  The written statement to the House sets out how we have considered, with our partner signatories, the costs of implementation of the National Agreement. It announces what funds will be available to schools to implement the Agreement in 2005–06.

  From 2006 we will provide guaranteed three-year budgets for every school, which will give head teachers and governors unprecedented financial security and confidence, and the ability to plan for the future.
  99W
  Practical advice and support is available to assist successful implementation at school level, from the national network of LEA remodelling advisers and from the National Remodelling Team—NRT (part of National College for School Leadership). The NRT website, www.remodelling.org, contains a range of strategies and models based on real school level case studies on managing in the changes and will include shortly, a toolkit and resources pack specifically on guaranteeing planning, preparation and assessment time for teachers.

  In addition, from September, up to 10,000 schools will have access to workshops and conultancy as part of the second year of the Financial Management in Schools programme. This builds on the first year of this programme which saw thousands of schools benefit from the programme.

  We will continue to monitor trends in the schools workforce through the Annual Schools Census each January. There are now 427,800 full-time equivalent teachers—28,600 more than in 1997 and the highest number since 1981—and the number of support staff has increased to 241,700, having more than doubled since 1997. These figures illustrate the trend of the significant increases in teachers and support staff since 1997. The next School Workforce Volume will be available in the autumn.

  Schools (Foundation Status)
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether there will be an appeals system(a) against a school's decision to apply for and (b) against a decision to grant a school foundation status. [184890]

  Mr. Miliband
  The decision on whether to proceed to and adopt Foundation status will be for the governing body of a school alone, though they will be obliged to publish proposal of their intention to make the change of status.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the enablement of a foundation school to appoint a majority of governors from(a) a charitable foundation and (b) a faith sponsor referred to in chapter 4, page 49 of his five-year strategy for children and learners will be subject to (i) consultation with and (ii) the agreement of all parents in the locality. [184891]

  Mr. Miliband
  We shall be consulting in due course on the proposals for foundation schools set out in the Department's five-year strategy. At that point we will set out in more detail our plans for ensuring that stakeholders, including local parents, are consulted and have the opportunity to make representations about proposed changes to the constitution of schools.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding the Government have provided for education on solvent abuse in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [184579]
  100W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The funding that the Department has allocated to local education authorities to support drug education and prevention in all schools in England since 1999 is provided in the table. This would include education about the effects of solvents; a statutory requirement of the National Curriculum. We have not directed the proportion of this funding that should be spent on education about solvent abuse.

  £ million

  Funding

  1999–2000

  7.4

  2000–01

  17.4

  2001–02

  13.1

  2002–03

  15.2

  2003–04

  14.3

  Total

  57.4

  1Allocated as part of social inclusion grant

  Since April 2004, the level of support for drug education in schools is for local education authorities and schools to decide.

  "Drugs: Guidance to Schools" issued by DfES to all schools this year made clear that volatile substance abuse should be addressed at an early stage in the curriculum. We are also supporting teachers' professional development through the PSHE certification programme which will support teaching of drug education, including volatile substance abuse, in schools. 3,000 teachers are set the benefit this year.

  The Department of Health is leading the development of a stategy for volatile substance abuse which will include measurable and achievable targets.

  Specialist Schools
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether a specialist school, applying for an additional specialism, will be required to undergo all the procedures inherent in its original application for specialist status. [184702]

  Mr. Miliband
  As set out in the Department's Five Year Strategy, the opportunity to develop a second specialism will be offered at re-designation (when specialist schools apply to retain the status for a further four year phase). This year, schools qualifying for the simplified re-designation procedure will be eligible. In recognition of what these schools have already achieved, on both exam performance and value added bases, the application process will be light touch—with short guidance asking for summary plans to be annexed to the main re-designation application. This light touch approach reflects wider policy moves towards a new relationship with schools. Applicants will also need to consult their LEAs, the Specialist Schools Trust and the Youth Sport Trust, including to ensure their choice of second specialism enhances the existing local specialist balance.

  Students (Means-Testing)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what effect university bursaries and grants will have on students in receipt of means-tested bursaries from 2006. [184878]
  101W
  Alan Johnson
  Bursaries are not treated as part of taxable income and so are not taken into account in the Government means test that determines entitlement to our grants.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department estimates to be the average salary cost in 2004 to(a) schools, (b) his Department and (c) local education authorities of (i) a newly qualified teacher, (ii) a teacher with five years' experience in teaching and (iii) a teacher nearing retirement. [183156]

  Mr. Miliband
  The salary costs of the majority of teachers in schools are met by school budgets. There are no additional costs to local authorities. The Department for Education and Skills provides special grants to meet the cost of teachers who pass the performance threshold and contributes to the cost of performance pay awards. In the financial year 2001/02 the performance threshold grant totalled £436,703,000 and the performance pay grant totalled £19,887,000.

  At 31 March 2002, the latest information available, the average salary of a newly qualified full-time entrant to the maintained school sector in England and Wales was £17,870. The salary for full-time qualified teachers with five years service was £25,310 and for full-time qualified teachers aged 55 to £59,32,890. These figures are for all grades and include all allowances. Employer national insurance and pension contributions are excluded: for the average salaries above the contribution rates are 13.9 per cent. for new entrants, 14.6 per cent. for those with five years experience and 15.3 per cent. for those aged 55 to 59. The normal age for the retirement of teachers is 60.

  This information is based on data from the Database of Teachers Records which is maintained primarily for pensions purposes.

  University Attendance (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 18 year olds(a) in Great Britain and (b) from Havering chose to go to university in (i) 1997, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2003. [184251]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges amissions service (UCAS) and covers 18 year old, English domiciled applicants accepted through UCAS to full time first degree and HMD courses. Figures are given in the table.

  Percentage of 18 year olds accepted through UCAS to HE courses

  Year of Entry

  Havering LEA

  England

  1997

  16.2

  20.5

  1999

  16.9

  20.0

  2001

  19.0

  21.5

  2003

  16.8

  21.4

  University Entrants
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 18 year olds in 102W
  (a) England and (b) Somerset chose to go to university in (i) 1997, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2003. [184642]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions service (UCAS) and covers 18 year old, English domiciled applicants accepted through UCAS to full time first degree and HND courses. Figures are given in the table.

  Percentage of 18 year olds accepted through UCAS to HE courses

  Year of Entry

  Somerset LEA

  England

  1997

  21.6

  20.5

  2001

  21.4

  21.5

  2003

  19.9

  21.4

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Athletics Tracks
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to develop an eight lane athletics track for international athletics meetings in Northern Ireland. [182617]

  Angela Smith
  Northern Ireland currently has three eight lane athletics tracks with facilities of the standard required to hold minor international athletic events. These are at Antrim Stadium, Ballykillaire Sports Centre in Bangor and Templemore Stadium in Londonderry. However, the facilities at these venues are not of a standard which would allow major international athletic events to be hosted.

  Provision for an eight lane athletics track for major international athletic meetings in Northern Ireland is a matter in the first instance for the Governing body of athletics in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Athletics Federation. To date I have received no proposals from them for such a facility.

  Care Homes (South Down)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what action will be taken to resolve the shortage of home care staff in the South Down area; [183058]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the shortage in home care staff in the South Down area. [183064]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) recognises the recruitment and retention difficulties faced by domiciliary care providers, not only in the South Down area but across the region as a whole. Research has been commissioned, which includes exploring with Health and Social Services Trusts and independent domiciliary care providers, the key issues affecting their ability to commission or deliver such services in the future. The outcome of this research will help to inform decisions on future funding for domiciliary care services.

  DHSSPS is committed to securing additional resources for community care services. This year I have allocated an additional £4 million for community care,

  103W
  which will include domiciliary care. These funds have been allocated to boards on the basis of their capitation shares of overall resources.

  Chlamydia
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish a chlamydia screening programme in Northern Ireland. [183028]

  Angela Smith
  The Department is in the process of establishing a Working Group to consider the evidence and the feasibility of introducing a Chlamydia screening programme in Northern Ireland.

  Civil Servants (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact of the current industrial action of civil servants on the payment of rates. [180791]

  Mr. Pearson
  While the ongoing industrial action is causing some disruption to services the Rates Collection Agency has deployed contingency measures and performance at the end of May 2004 was on a par with that at the end of May 2003.

  Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been made available in the last year to roll-out a regional diabetic retinopathy screening programme in Northern Ireland; and(a) how and (b) where this funding has been spent. [183451]

  Angela Smith
  In the financial year 2003–04 £175,000 was allocated to the four Health and Social Services Boards, on a capitation basis, to begin the development of a regional diabetic retinopathy screening programme. This year (2004–05) £300,000 has been provided to the boards towards the extension of the programme. These resources will allow the boards to commence recruitment and training of staff for photography and grading, and certain aspects of IT. £100,000 has been set aside to support the development of central elements of the programme including a regional co-ordinator, clerical support, and a quality assurance framework. A further £300,000 capital funding is available this year for the purchase of essential equipment.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the implementation strategy is for rolling out regional diabetic retinopathy screening in Northern Ireland; and what the(a) timescales and (b) targets for the future roll-out are. [183452]

  Angela Smith
  Introduction of a comprehensive regional diabetic retinopathy screening programme with its different methodologies and complex IT and operational aspects is expected to take a number of years. Boards are developing local implementation plans which take account of local needs and existing arrangements. They are being guided by the Department's Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Working Group. The aim is to screen around 20,000 people with diabetes in the current year, subject to recruitment of appropriate staff.
  104W
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the progress is of the Regional Diabetic Retinopathy Steering Group since January in taking forward the proposals outlined in the Report of the Working Group to the Chief Medical Officer, October 2002, entitled Proposal for the Introduction of a Comprehensive Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Programme in Northern Ireland. [183453]

  Angela Smith
  Following the Report of the Working Group, money was made available in April 2003 to develop diabetic retinopathy screening. Since then the Department's Diabetic Retinopathy Working Group has been overseeing developmental work required for the extension of the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Programme. This includes work with Health Board staff, and other health professionals involved in screening, in progressing local implementation plans. Work is also on-going on issues including regional coordination, a quality assurance framework, datasets and IT support. The capacity of the treatment services is also being assessed.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his Department is doing to limit mortality and morbidity from adverse drug reactions in Northern Ireland. [183415]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is actively supporting the introduction of medicines management services in Northern Ireland. These are specifically targeted to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with medicine use. Such services include prescribing support, medication review, managing your medicines schemes, repeat dispensing, patient education and interface management between primary and secondary care.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide mainstream funding for the Stopping Them Starting drugs prevention campaign through education projects in primary schools. [184063]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department for Education does not directly fund or prescribe the use of any particular programmes or materials that schools should use. It is entirely a matter for individual schools to select the resources and materials they consider necessary to deliver the curriculum, including drugs education.

  Education Budget
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much of the projected budget for schools in 2005–06 will go to(a) primary and (b) secondary education; [184214]

  (2) what special funding has been allocated to schools in socially deprived areas in the 2005–06 budget. [184294]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Specific budgets for the 2005–06 financial year will be determined in light of the outcome of the Budget 2004 Spending Review.
  105W
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional funding for education in Northern Ireland was received from the Exchequer following the Chancellor's funding statement in March. [184216]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement provided for increased allocations for the Department for Education and Skills in 2006–07 and 2007–08. Northern Ireland received a proportion of these increases but, under the standard funding arrangements, such additions are not hypothecated as the allocation of the overall Northern Ireland budget is a matter for local decision.

  Equality Commission
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid in legal aid for cases supported by the Equality Commission in the last three years. [171541]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) is not responsible for legal aid but does support a range of discrimination cases of strategic value through its legal and financial resources. ECNI's published Annual Reports and Accounts for 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 report spearing on legal cases supported by the Commission as:

  £

  2000–01

  653,890

  2001–02

  1,046,561

  2002–03

  2,750,825

  As stated in the Audited Accounts, the total for 2002–03 includes a contingent liability of legal fees of £605,000 anticipated over the next three years in respect of 287 closed cases.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases the Equality Commission has supported in the last three years, broken down by(a) gender, (b) disability and (c) religion; and how many succeeded. [171542]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows.

  Area

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Gender

  141

  160

  52

  Disability

  68

  112

  43

  Religion/Political Opinion

  142

  289

  37

  Applications Granted Assistance 2000–01 to 2002–03

  On the basis of information supplied by the Equality Commission, in the same period the following numbers of cases were either settled or heard and upheld1.
  1The year in which applications were granted support and the year when settlements or hearings were completed are unlikely to be the same.

  Number of cases

  2000–01

  108

  2001–02

  124

  2002–03

  196

  106W
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases are before the Equality Commission; and how long each has been awaiting a decision. [171543]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently 176 applications for assistance being considered by the Equality Commission of which 120 have been received within the past four months and 56, four months or more.

  The target processing period is four months and a number of those applications currently requiring longer are dependent on responses from respondents.

  Foster Carers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many foster carers in each health trust area in Northern Ireland receive fee pay for children in their care; what the average amount of money paid to foster carers for fee pay is; and whether the criteria for fee paying to foster carers is the same in each health trust area in Northern Ireland. [183489]

  Angela Smith
  The number of foster carers in receipt of fee pay in each Health and Social Services Trust area in Northern Ireland as of quarter ending 31st March 2004 is as follows:

  Health and Social Services Trust

  Number of Fee Paid Foster Carers

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  7

  Causeway HSS Trust

  6

  Craigavon and Banbridge HSS Trust

  3

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  28

  Foyle HSS Trust

  11

  Homefirst HSS Trust

  23

  Newry and Moume HSS Trust

  2

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  50

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  78

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  5

  Ulster Community Hospitals HSS Trust

  20

  The average amount of money paid to foster carers for fee pay and the criteria for fee paying to foster carers in Northern Ireland is not centrally available.

  Genitourinary Medicine
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of hospital sites offering genitourinary medicine outpost clinics. [183416]

  Angela Smith
  The Department recently consulted on "A Five Year Sexual Health Promotion Strategy and Action Plan". Rather than increasing the number of hospital sites that currently offer genitourinary medicine services, the strategy recommended that a more holistic approach should be adopted. Many people wish to access the wide range of sexual health services in one setting, and for some this will be a community setting such as a GP surgery. The Department is currently considering the results of the consultation exercise and in October will host a major conference on sexually transmitted infections and sexual health services.

  Health Service Projects
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the health service

  Commissioning Body

  Project Title

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  Car Parking

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  Holywell Hospital Energy Management System

  Craigavon Area Hospital HSS Trust

  Energy Management System

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  Renal Unit

  Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS)

  Regional Clinical Waste Disposal Facilities

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  Antrim Hospital Renal Unit

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust and Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  Link Laboratories

  Various HSS Trusts/Boards

  All Equipment Leases

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  Cancer Centre Equipment

  The 'Equipment Leases' project consists of a variety of 46 leases. The major leases are:

  Commissioning Body

  Lease

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  Anaesthetics, Theatres and Intensive Care Services

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  Fractures/Accident and Emergency Centralisation

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  Redevelopment Scheme

  Causeway Hospital HSS Trust

  PACS X-Ray Equipment

  There are no projects that have been partly funded by PFI.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties were sold in each of the past five years to tenants who were(a) in full receipt of housing benefit, (b) in partial receipt of housing benefit and (c) not in receipt of housing benefit. [183508]

  Mr. Spellar
  Historical information is not readily available in the form requested. However, since the Northern Ireland Housing Executive began to collect this information in July 2003, the figures are as follows:

  Of a total of 4,752 house sales:
  1,823 applicants were in receipt of full housing benefit
  492 were in receipt of partial housing benefit
  2,437 were not in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties have been sold in each year since 1998 to joint tenancy of more than two joint tenants. [183509]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties have been bought by their occupiers with a discount. [183510]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not readily available. However, the Housing Executive estimates that approximately 97 per cent. of the 109,245 houses sold from the introduction of the house sales scheme in March 1981 would have been sold with a discount.
  108W
  projects funded fully or partly by private finance initiatives. [166698]

  Angela Smith
  The following projects are fully funded by Private Finance Initiative:

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken to resolve the problem of waiting times for Housing Executive grant assessments. [183059]

  Mr. Spellar
  Preliminary work has been undertaken on the 'Modernising the Private Sector Improvement Services' project, the main aim of which is to streamline the grants process and make the process easier for applicants. Detailed work is planned to start as soon as possible following the approval of the Housing Executive's overall Modernising Services Business Plan. This is expected to take place within the next few months and it is anticipated the Grants Project will be complete two years after that.

  In the meantime, work is continuing on streamlining procedures particularly in relation to Disabled Facilities Grants. In addition the Grants Service is engaged in a Charter Mark strategy with the aim of having all Grants Offices meeting the standard by early 2006. This follows the success of the Craigavon office in achieving a Charter Mark in 2003.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the weaknesses identified in the Auditor General's Report, NIA 41/03, HC 673 on the financial control and monitoring of grants paid to registered housing associations. [183061]

  Mr. Spellar
  In summary, the Auditor General's report identified weaknesses relating mainly to certifications submitted by Housing Associations, procedural issues, supporting evidence, control and monitoring arrangements by both the Department and Housing Associations.

  The Report how ever also acknowledged the work that had been and was being done to address these issues.
  109W
  The Department for Social Development is continuing to implement the full range of measures agreed with the Auditor General.

  Full details of the Auditor General's findings are contained in his Report which was laid before Parliament in November last year and a copy of which is available in the Library.

  MOT Certificates
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether cars registered in Northern Ireland but whose MOT vehicle test certificate has expired due to industrial action by Civil Servants in Northern Ireland will be exempt from prosecution whilst travelling in England; and if he will make a statement. [184761]

  Angela Smith
  The Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA), which is responsible for vehicle testing, has been keeping in contact with the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) regarding the legal obligations for motorists during the current period of industrial action.

  The PSNI has advised that it will not prosecute a motorist whose MOT certificate has expired provided they have evidence to show that they have maintained their vehicle in a roadworthy condition and have applied to the DVTA for a vehicle test. The PSNI remind motorists of the need to keep their vehicles in a roadworthy condition at all times and have indicated that they may prosecute in cases where this has not been done. However, all relevant circumstances will be taken into account before deciding whether to prosecute.

  Police forces throughout GB are being kept informed of the situation in NI, and it is expected that they will adopt a similar approach.

  A vehicle does not require a certificate when it is being driven to an MOT centre for a pre-arranged test.

  In the meantime the legislative process is now under way to provide temporary exemption for cars and motorcycles to allow these vehicles to be taxed and registered in Northern Ireland and to be driven legally anywhere in the United Kingdom It is anticipated that certificates of temporary exemption, valid for up to six months, will be available from mid August 2004.

  Museums and Heritage Review
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the recommendations contained in the Northern Ireland Museums and Heritage Review. [183065]

  Angela Smith
  Since the publication of the Joint Departmental Response to the Local Museum and Heritage Review there have been three liaison meetings between representatives of DCAL and EHS, as recommended in the Response. A Heritage Sub-Group of the Cultural Forum was formed in December 2003 to take forward the recommendations of the Review and there have been three meetings held to date. The Sub-Group is currently working its way through the recommendations and has agreed to hold a planning 110W
  day, focusing on the priorities and outcomes required, in the autumn. In addition, work is ongoing to develop a comprehensive statistical picture of the sector.

  Nexus Institute
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been provided to the Nexus Institute in each of the last 10 years. [183024]

  Angela Smith
  A full and complete breakdown of all sources of funding (for example, funding from individual Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts and Education and Library Boards) over the period of 10 years, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has awarded the Nexus Institute recurrent core funding in the support of central administration costs over the last 10 years. This is shown in the following table:

  £

  1994–95

  34,556

  1995–96

  50,668

  1996–97

  52,000

  1997–98

  52,304

  1998–99

  55,794

  1999–2000

  57,244

  2000–01

  58,672

  2001–02

  60,140

  2002–03

  61,644

  2003–04

  64,085

  In addition, the organisation has been awarded several one off payments to assist in the purchase of office equipment, development of business plans and conference expenses etc. This amounts to £96,360.

  In April 2002 the Department awarded the Nexus Institute a further £104,718 over a three year period, towards a Double Trauma project assisting those affected by sexual abuse.

  The Northern Ireland Office began funding the Nexus Institute in August 2000 and the amounts of award are shown in the following table:

  £

  2000–01

  39,256

  2001–02

  56,830

  2002–03

  58,494

  2003–04

  65,290

  Sexual Abuse Victims
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the(a) availability of services for and (b) level of need of victims of sexual abuse in Northern Ireland. [183016]

  Angela Smith
  No such assessment has been completed to date in relation to services provided directly, or funded by, HSS boards and trusts. However, key preliminary research to inform the development of a regional strategy to address sexual abuse is now under way. This will include compiling baseline information
  111W
  on the current availability of services for victims and work on assessing the level of need. In co-operation with other Departments and agencies whose responsibilities also encompass matters relating to sexual abuse, it is the Department of Health, Social Service's and Public Safety's intention to develop and publish the draft strategy for consultation by late summer 2005. In terms of services provided by the PSNI, there are currently 11 Child Abuse and Rape Enquiry (CARE) units and four CARE suites. Each CARE unit is staffed by five to eight Detective Constables and one Detective Sergeant, with one Detective Inspector responsible for two to three CARE units.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has collated on the percentage of those with mental illness who report having suffered sexual abuse. [183025]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Terrorism Victims
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been spent in each of the last five years on organisations to help the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. [166642]

  Angela Smith
  There is no definitive list of organisations that help the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Any organisation may help victims of terrorism as part of its own aims and objectives.

  The following table shows details of how much money has been spent by the 11 Northern Ireland Departments and Northern Ireland Office in each of the last five years on organisations whose primary aim is to help the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

  Total (£)

  1999–2000

  2,777,930

  2000–01

  2,662,617

  2001–02

  3,035,359

  2002–03

  5,504,884

  2003–041

  15,691,585

  1 These figures are only provisional spending totals for the year, as final outturn figures for 2003—04 are not yet available.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate how many patients with trigeminal neuralgia are awaiting surgery at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast. [182627]

  Angela Smith
  A total of seven patients with trigeminal neuralgia are currently waiting for surgery at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.

HEALTH

  Anti-cancer Drugs
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the take up of new anti-cancer drugs authorised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; [180496]
  112W
  (2) what measures may be taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to encourage a more uniform use of anti-cancer drugs across the country. [180497]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Last autumn, we asked Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director, to report on the implementation of National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on drugs for cancer.

  Professor Richards' report was published on 14 June. It shows that NICE guidance has been effective in increasing the uptake of recommended new treatments and in reducing variations. Nevertheless, the report finds that there are still unacceptable variations in uptake. The reasons are complex but do not appear to be associated with restrictions in funding. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  In parallel with the publication of this report, my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Warner) issued a statement setting out the responsibilities of the national health service in responding to guidance from NICE and a range of actions to support the NHS in these tasks. NICE can play a key part in promoting its guidance and in providing costing templates and other tools to help the NHS with implementation.

  Bed Occupancy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the number of extra hospital beds required to reduce bed occupancy rates to 85 per cent. of their current level in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement; [184099]

  (2) what plans he has to reduce bed occupancy in NHS hospitals. [184224]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is not possible to make an estimate of this kind at either a national or strategic health authority level. Bed occupancy depends not only on the number of beds provided, but on the level of demand for those beds and the way flow through beds is managed.

  Average or snap shot weekly bed occupancy is often not the critical factor for bed availability: rather it is the hourly levels of bed occupancy and the temporary mismatch between admissions and discharges that influence the ability of trusts to admit emergency patients without delay and avoid the cancellation of electives. Much bed capacity can be released through simply reducing the current, often substantial, temporary peaks and troughs in bed occupancy.

  Trusts have identified improving the way they use their bed capacity as a top priority and significant support is being delivered through the national programme to improve throughput in accident and emergency. Improved use of beds is critical to delivering this priority alongside the priorities on electives.

  Branded Medicine Prices
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which country in Europe has the highest prices for branded medicines; and what the range of prices is. [183665]
  113W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Each year, the Department publishes a comparison of branded medicine prices in the United Kingdom with a range of European countries and the United States. The latest published figures for 2002 show that the UK is the highest among these European comparator countries. The range of prices is shown in the table.

  Bilateral comparisons of ex-manufacturer prices

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Five year1 average

  France

  85

  84

  80

  81

  81

  81

  Germany

  108

  97

  91

  94

  95

  95

  Italy

  81

  83

  79

  82

  86

  86

  Netherlands

  n/a

  n/a

  81

  84

  88

  89

  Spain

  71

  67

  64

  67

  75

  75

  UK

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  USA

  174

  184

  209

  217

  201

  204

  Austria

  81

  83

  77

  81

  86

  86

  Belgium

  86

  84

  78

  81

  86

  86

  Finland

  86

  85

  align="right"83

  84

  88

  89

  Ireland

  90

  88

  83

  88

  93

  93

  1 This is based on bilateral comparisons, i.e. the form and strength matches occurred between the UK and another country, using average annual exchange rates.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in Morley and Rothwell constituency have taken commitment payments to devote more time to NHS dentistry. [179682]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  18 general dental service (CDS) dentists in the Morley and Rothwell constituency received commitment payments in April 2004 for the quarter ending March 2004.

  Commitment payments are based on dentists' gross fees, together with a patient registration requirement for the higher payments and are based on previous years, so do not require additional time in the future to be devoted to national health service dentistry. Commitment payments will be increased, up to a maximum threshold, if a dentist takes on additional CDS work.

  Departmental Accounting Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the Finance Director of(a) the Department, (b) the NHS Appointments Commission and (c) the Food Standards Agency is; what accountancy qualifications each Director holds; and on how many occasions there has been a qualified opinion on (i) the resource accounts and (ii) other accounts of each in the last five years. [183424]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The finance directors/managers of the three bodies and their qualifications are:

  Body

  Name and position

  Qualification

  Department of Health

  Mr. Richard Douglas (Finance Director)

  CIPFA

  National Health Service Appointments Commission

  Ms Lynn Shadford (Finance Manager)

  ICAEW

  Food Standards Agency

  Mr. Allan Hutton (Finance Director)

  CIMA, CIPFA

  114W
  In the five year period starting 1999–2000, the Department has prepared resource accounts in each year. The resource accounts were qualified in 1999–2000 arising from limitation in audit scope.

  The Food Standards Agency has prepared three sets of resource accounts from 2000—01.

  Apart from the above qualified opinion on the Department's resource account, all accounts have been given a true and fair opinion by the comptroller and auditor general.

  The first summarised account of the NHS Appointments Commission was qualified in 2001–02 arising from limitation in audit scope. The 2002–03 account was unqualified.

  The audit opinions for 203–04 will be available later in the year.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) number, (b) value and (c) purpose of contracts his Department holds with (i) A. T. Kearney, (ii) PricewaterhouseCoopers and (iii) Atos KPMG. [180440]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 28 June 2004]: The Department does not centrally hold a record of the number or the purpose of individual contracts. Only payments made are recorded.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what departmental expenditure was on(a) mobile telephones, (b) hospitality and (c) taxis in (i)1996–97 and (ii) the latest accounting period for which figures are available. [184552]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  £000

  1996–97

  2003–04

  Mobile telephones

  133

  222

  Taxis

  2—

  403

  Hospitality

  105

  109

  1 This figure relates to national health service regional offices only. Mobile phone costs were not identified separately from other telecommunications expenditure in the rest of the Department.

  2 Not available—taxi costs were not separately identified in 1996–97.

  Departmental Legal Costs
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the Department of external legal advice was in the last 12 months. [180324]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has a service level agreement with the legal division of the Department of Work and Pensions for the provision of legal services, including advice. The value of the agreement was £4.5 million in 2003–04. External legal services are used, often on commercial matters, but the specific costs of this advice cannot be dis-aggregated from the overall cost of consultancy services without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Diabetes
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of(a) type 1 and (b) type 2 diabetics. [R] [183715]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  An estimated 1.3 million people in England have diabetes. About 15 per cent. of these have type 1 diabetes.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects the UK Scrutiny Committee to report on the future provision of screening for type 2 diabetes; [183717]

  (2) what evidence he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the number of individuals suffering from diabetes who have not yet been formally diagnosed. [183718]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The United Kingdom national screening committee (NSC) is undertaking a development project on the feasibility and impact of screening patients at greatest risk of diabetes in disadvantaged areas, reaching high risk groups through primary care. The Department has also commissioned some additional research to look at the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the population.

  This work will inform the advice the NSC has been asked to give on the most effective policy for screening for type 2 diabetes. It will report to the Department in 2005.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) his Department and (b) its agencies spent on (i) electricity use and (ii) water and sewerage services in each year since 1997. [181726]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Costs for the principal buildings on the Department's London estate are as follows.

  Electricity

  Year

  (£000s)

  1997–98

  615,007

  1998–99

  614,783

  1999–2000

  634,859

  2000–01

  545,079

  2001–02

  579,102

  2002–03

  551,938

  2003–04

  572,782

  Water and Sewerage

  Year

  (£000s)

  1997–98

  36,396

  1998–99

  33,614

  1999–2000

  32,607

  2000–01

  32,224

  2001–02

  29,009

  2002–03

  34,684

  2003–04

  29,372

  London staff of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) occupy buildings that are rented and most of the utilities are included within the service charge. However, figures for electricity
  116W
  costs only are available for Hannibal House, which is shared between MHRA and Departmental staff. Expenditure is as follows.

  Electricity

  Year

  (£000s)

  1997–98

  58,654

  1998–99

  53,124

  1999–2000

  48,124

  2000–01

  49,219

  2001–02

  53,689

  2002–03

  50,382

  2003–04

  57,855

  Expenditure for the wheelchair evaluation centre at Blackpool, part of MHRA, is as follows. Figures are for electricity and gas combined.

  Electricity and Gas

  Year

  (£000s)

  1997–98

  6,074

  1998–99

  6,118

  1999–2000

  4,835

  2000–01

  5,029

  2001–02

  6,522

  2002–03

  5,275

  2003–04

  6,009

  Water and Sewerage

  Year

  (£000s)

  1997–98

  1,407

  1998–99

  1,478

  1999–2000

  1,527

  2000–01

  1,754

  2001–02

  2,013

  2002–03

  1,922

  2003–04

  1,466

  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supplies Agency became an agency of the Department in April 2000. Figures for the years following are as follows.

  Electricity

  Year

  (£000s)

  2000–01

  23,591

  2001–02

  32,901

  2002–03

  38,570

  2003–04

  30,122

  Water and Sewerage

  Year

  (£000s)

  2000–01

  3,704

  2001–02

  2,576

  2002–03

  2,476

  2003–04

  2,292

  Figures for the NHS Pensions Agency are as follows.

  Electricity

  Year

  (£000s)

  1997—98

  60,554

  1998–99

  61,333

  1999–2000

  55,236

  117W

  Electricity

  Year

  (£000s)

  2000–01

  50,678

  2001–02

  52,919

  2002–03

  46,787

  2003–04

  56,309

  Water and Sewerage

  Year

  (£000s)

  1997–98

  26,237

  1998–99

  27,459

  1999–2000

  30,675

  2000–01

  13,542

  2001–02

  23,026

  2002–03

  24,218

  2003–04

  27,003

  The NHS Estates Agency (NHSE) occupies rented office space in Leeds city centre. NHSE is not billed separately for its energy and water these are included in its service charge.

  Instrument Sterilisation
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts let or in the process of tendering for the provision of instrument sterilisation services to NHS trust hospitals giving the(a) location of each service, (b) the hospitals for which it will provide the service and (c) the dates of the period of contract; and what further contracts for similar services he intends to let in each of the next three years. [184756]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: Contracts for the provision of sterile services may arise as a result of an individual outsourcing procurement, as part of a large private finance initiative or public private partnership or where one national health service trust provides such services for others.

  Decisions on whether to let contracts and to whom are for individual NHS trusts to take, within the rules relating to such procurements and details are not held centrally.

  As part of their strategies for modernising sterile services, strategic health authorities are encouraging the setting up of joint ventures, which entails a number of NHS trusts pooling their demand, and advertising jointly for a private sector partner. Information about the joint ventures established so far is set out in the table. The details of these contracts have not yet been agreed.

  Trusts

  Date of advertisement

  The Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  June 2003

  Pan Birmingham Group

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

  November 2003

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Birmingham Primary Care Trust

  118W

  Trusts

  Date of advertisement

  Kent Group

  The Medway NHS Trust

  November 2003

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  South Manchester and North Cheshire Group

  South Manchester University Hospital Trust

  November 2003

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Thames Valley Group

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  November 2003

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park NHS Trust

  Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Internet Drug Sales
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to prevent the advertising and selling of drugs via the internet that are only available in the UK with a general practitioner's prescription. [183492]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The responsibility for regulating medicines on the United Kingdom market lies with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), an executive agency of the Department. The MHRA takes the view that internet and mail order sale and supply of medicines is acceptable, provided the legislative requirements are met. There are perfectly legitimate internet-based dispensing pharmacies, where patients can sign their prescriptions and post them to the pharmacist to be filled. Medicines are then sent back to the patient by post. The law allows for this.

  The MHRA is also responsible for the enforcement of these requirements and any website brought to its attention for breaching regulations regarding advertising, sale and supply of medicines will be investigated. Such sites will be contacted, initially in order to seek compliance and although the MHRA has no powers to force closures of websites, it seeks to achieve compliance through internet service providers (ISPs), which are advised on UK law.

  The MHRA recognises that, in order to deal with the risks posed by the internet, it is impossible to act unilaterally. To this end, the MHRA's enforcement group works closely with other Government Departments and law enforcement authorities, both in the European Community and elsewhere, in an effort to address possible courses of action.

  Less-invasive Technologies
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of less-invasive technologies in the NHS. [174965]

  Mr. Hutton
  Many diseases and illnesses which have been routinely treated with surgical intervention are now being successfully managed or cured with less invasive forms of treatment. Last year the Department issued guidelines to the national health service governing the use of new interventional procedures. The guidelines are supported by the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).
  119W
  NICE is responsible for assessing the safety and efficacy of new technologies to protect the safety of patients. It also supports clinicians in the process of managing and introducing new procedures.

  Myasthenia Gravis
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on support available for those suffering from myasthenia gravis; and what steps he is taking to raise awareness of myasthenia gravis among the medical profession. [184213]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: Patients with myasthenia gravis are able to access a range of national health service services. Although there is no cure for this condition, there are a number of treatments available to help control it. These include medication, surgery, and palliation.

  We have no specific plans to raise awareness of the condition among the medical profession. However, we are committed to improving services for patients with neurological diseases. The national service framework for long term conditions will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions. While the framework will not cover myasthenia gravis specifically, it will recommend improvements in standards, care and support that will benefit everyone with a neurological condition.

  Non NICE-appraised Treatments
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts in England do not fund non-National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraised products and treatments. [183988]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds primary care trusts may refuse to fund non-National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraised products if a clinician wishes to prescribe them. [183989]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is for primary care trusts (PCTs) to determine what criteria they use in deciding whether to fund a treatment or therapy which has not been appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. However, we would expect PCTs to consider the available evidence on clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments.

  Critical Care Networks (Transfers)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 5 July 2004,Official Report, column 580W, on critical care networks (transfers), for what reasons patients are transferred between hospitals for non-clinical reasons; and if he will make a statement. [184206]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Critical care transfers between hospitals occur for non-clinical reasons where critical care beds or other necessary resources are not immediately available. There are 29 critical care networks that work with commissioners and providers to assess the needs of the critically ill, plan services to meet those needs, agree standards and monitor the 120W
  delivery of critical care. It is their role to ensure transfers for non-clinical reasons occur only within the network and only occur following consultant-to-consultant discussion and agreement.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what negotiations have been held with the pharmaceutical industry following the consultation on the future of the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme; and when they will be completed. [183533]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Following consultation on the future of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS), the Department started confidential bilateral negotiations with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on new arrangements. These negotiations started in February 2004 and are continuing. It remains the Government's preference to include another voluntary PPRS agreement with the research-based pharmaceutical industry and to do this as speedily as possible commensurate with a satisfactory outcome for the taxpayer and the national health service.

  Prescription Medicines Prices
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that the prices paid in the UK for branded prescription medicines are comparable with those in other countries in Europe; and if he will make a statement. [183666]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, is currently negotiating with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) on a new Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. It is seeking to negotiate another voluntary agreement that delivers prices that represent value for money for the taxpayer and the national health service as well as reasonable returns for the research-based pharmaceutical industry.

  Restraint Procedures
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restraint procedures are allowed to be used within a psychiatric hospital when a patient becomes violent or aggressive to ensure that the patient or members of staff are not physically injured; and if he will make a statement. [184133]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Guidance on the use of restraint, for those detained under section of the Mental Health Act 1983, is laid out in the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

  Section 19.12 of the Code of Practice states that:
  "Any restraint used should:
  be reasonable in the circumstance;
  apply the minimum force necessary to prevent harm to the patient or others;
  be used for only as long as is necessary;
  be sensitive to gender and race issues."

  Trusts should regularly audit their control and restraint procedures consistent with the framework of clinical governance.
  121W
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently carrying out its final consultation on its guidance, "Disturbed (violent) behaviour: the short-term management of disturbed (violent) behaviour in in-patient psychiatric settings", which is scheduled for publication later in the year.

  In February this year, "Developing Positive Practice to Support the Safe and Therapeutic Management of Aggression and Violence in Mental Health In-patient Settings" was issued to assist services by the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) programme on the management of violence.

  The NIMHE programme is also developing a scheme for regulation and accreditation for trainers and training in the prevention and management of aggression and violence in mental health services.

  Salary and Recruitment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) the cost of recruitment and (b) the total cumulative salary bill are for the (i) national cancer director, (ii) national director for heart disease, (iii) chairman of the better hospital food panel, (iv) national director of mental health, (v) national director for older people's services and (vi) alliance development manager at the tobacco policy unit. [184551]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The four national clinical directors are each employed on a national health service consultant contract and the Department reimburses the costs of their time. The alliance development manager, which has been renamed regional liaison manager, is a secondment from the voluntary sector.

  Because these posts were filled through secondment arrangements as permitted by the Civil Service Commissioners, there were no recruitment costs incurred in these appointments.

  The chairman of the better hospital food panel receives no remuneration and there were no recruitment costs associated with his appointment.

  TNF Blockade
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from consultant rheumatologists regarding the prescribing of TNF blockade; whether the obligation to fund it includes funding the nursing and administrative infrastructure 122W
  necessary to facilitate and enable funding the administration of the drug: what guidance he has issued to primary care trusts and acute trusts; and if he will make a statement. [184875]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We are not aware of having received any representations from consultant rheumatologists on this subject. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) reported on these drugs in 2002, so we would expect that any representations would have been received by them. There has, however, been correspondence from hon. and right hon. Members and the public, as well as several parliamentary questions, on anti-TNF therapy.

  National health service bodies are under a statutory obligation to fund treatments recommended in NICE technology appraisals. We expect primary care trusts (PCTs) to meet their statutory obligations, and strategic health authorities to follow up any allegations of non-compliance.

  The NHS has three months from the date of publication of guidance on technology appraisals to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE recommended treatments or drugs can be funded. We last reminded PCTs of these obligations in guidance published in January 2003.

  The Department has not issued guidelines on the dispensing of anti-TNF drugs. NICE issued guidance on these drugs in March 2002. They recommended that consultant rheumatologists, or consultant paediatric rheumatologists in the case of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, should prescribe these drugs, in accordance with the guidelines set out by the British Society for Rheumatology or British Paediatric Rheumatology Group.

  Wiltshire Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the criteria are for the Wiltshire Project for evaluation of the Wiltshire Ambulance Trust. [184230]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In April 2004 Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA), in partnership with Wiltshire Ambulance National Health Service Trust, embarked on a project to consider how emergency services could be better shaped to meet the demands of the future.

  The criteria for the project are a matter for the SHA and trust.

DEFENCE

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  I am pleased to announce that we have decided to extend the future aircraft carrier (CVF) programme assessment phase. This extension will enable us to carry out further risk reduction work and increase the maturity of the design prior to making our main investment decision on demonstration and manufacture (D&M). In line with smart acquisition principles, by spending the right amount of time and money in the assessment phase we will gain a better understanding of the technical and supply-side risks before we make any major commitments. We had planned to complete this risk reduction work within the original demonstration phase. The underlying programme has not been adjusted, but rather the point at which we make the main investment decision has shifted.

  We anticipate moving into the D&M phase during 2005, following the main gate decision. At this point we intend to finalise performance, time and cost parameters of the carriers. These will continue to be refined during the remainder of the assessment phase. Our target in service dates (ISO) for the CVF remain 2012 and 2015. When built the two vessels will be the largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the United Kingdom.

  We have also agreed the alliancing principles with industry for the CVF programme which confirms the commitment of all parties to the programme and to an alliance based on commercial best practice. The alliancing principles will provide the most effective way of managing risk and reward and will bring together all parties with a vested financial interest, thus ensuring that we deliver CVF collaboratively. We will now discuss and agree the detailed alliancing arrangements with industry, including the roles and responsibilities of alliance members.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  UK Civil Plutonium and Uranium
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  The Department will be placing the figures for the United Kingdom's stocks of civil plutonium and uranium as at 31 December 2003 in the Library of the House. In accordance with our commitment under the "Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium", we will also be sending the figures to the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who will circulate them to Member States in due course. The figures will be available on the Department's and the IAEA's websites.
  2WS
  The figures show that stocks of unirradiated plutonium in the UK totalled 96.3 tonnes at the end of 2003. Changes from the corresponding figures for 2002 are a consequence of continuing reprocessing operations (e.g. as reflected in the increased quantity of "unirradiated separated plutonium in product stores at reprocessing plants"). Other smaller changes are the result of material being allocated to UK fuel. The decrease in unirradiated separated plutonium held elsewhere is due to both Thorp and magnox reprocessing plants being close to empty during December 2003 whereas they were operating over that period in the proceeding year. The decrease in the civil depleted, natural and low enriched uranium figures reflects the change in requirements for these materials at the fuel fabrication plants and reactors.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Creative Industries Forum on Intellectual Property
  The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris)
  I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are setting up a creative industries forum on intellectual property. This will be a cross-governmental body, with ministerial representation, and jointly chaired by me and my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation (Lord Sainsbury), who is making a similar statement to the House of Lords. I am pleased to say that there will also be strong representation from the private sector, both from the creative industries themselves and from other key industry stakeholders such as Internet service providers and hardware manufacturers. Consumers will also be represented.

  The forum will create a dialogue on intellectual property issues, such as business models, education and awareness raising, strategies for maximising the opportunities for the creative industries in a digital environment, while also addressing the challenges such as file sharing and piracy.

  The launch and first meeting of the forum is taking place on 19 July at the London College of Communication, Elephant and Castle. Industry has warmly welcomed the initiative.

  It is anticipated that the forum will work through meetings that will set tasks and objectives to be taken forward. There is intended to be a focus on outputs and deliverables, and I am confident that this will represent a significant development in an area crucial to the UK's future competitiveness.

  Terms of reference and membership of the forum will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

SOLICITOR GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  The annual report of the Serious Fraud Office has today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Strategic Plan for Criminal Justice
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Today the Government will publish Command Paper 6288, entitled "Cutting Crime—Delivering Justice: Strategic Plan for Criminal Justice 2004—08". Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The strategic plan for criminal justice sets out the Government's vision for the criminal justice system (CJS) and how we aim to achieve it, combining forces across the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Law Officers' Departments.

  The plan focuses on how we will provide a better service to victims and witnesses of crime, increase the number of offences brought to justice, tackle offenders who fail to comply with court dates, fines and sentences and improve the way criminal justice agencies work together. This is closely linked to our overall approach to preventing crime and reducing reoffending, which is set out in a parallel document, the Home Office strategic plan. I will announce the details of that plan to the House in an oral statement later today.

  The Government are committed to ongoing reform of the criminal justice system. The CJS strategic plan explains how much has already been achieved. Huge steps have been made to establish joint working across the CJS—largely through the success of the 42 Local Criminal Justice Boards across England and Wales and the strong leadership of the National Criminal Justice Board. We know these changes are working because we are seeing improvements on the ground. Overall, crime is down by 25 per cent. since 1997. 7 per cent. more offences have been brought to justice in the last two years. The number of crown court trials that fail to go ahead on the day scheduled has fallen by 25 per cent. The number of assets recovered in the last three years has doubled. Public confidence in criminal justice was falling sharply: we have turned this around.

  We have achieved a great deal, but there are still some real issues to tackle. The CJS Strategic plan outlines our key objectives for reform, structured around a vision of the delivery of criminal justice in 2008. To achieve this vision, we need to improve the way agencies work together to support and protect victims and witnesses; we need to further increase the number of offenders brought to justice; we need to tackle offenders who fail to comply with court dates, fines and sentences; and we need to continue progress towards fully joined-up working, including providing the CJS with the information technology it needs to work effectively.

  The goal of these reforms is to deliver a service that responds better to the needs of the communities it is there to serve.

  Improved service for victims and witnesses is at the heart of this. By the end of next year, in all cases where someone is charged with an offence, the victims and witnesses will be offered support by a witness care unit, to make it more likely that they attend court and give evidence. Over the period, Crown court buildings will have separate waiting facilities for prosecution and defence victims and witnesses. The victims fund, which
  4WS
  will pay for better support services for victims, will also be boosted by a surcharge on all criminals who are convicted.

  The public also need to know that the offenders will be brought to book and respect for the law will be maintained. The CIS strategic plan sets out how the prosecution will take responsibility for charging, cooperating earlier with the police to identify the correct charge for the offence. It also describes innovative measures to crack down on those who fail to turn up at court or comply with fines and community penalties. Those who breach bail can now expect action to be taken straightaway, and to be punished for this whatever the decision on the original case. We are working hard to make sure that every offender who defaults on their fine is pursued and made to pay it. With our measures on asset recovery it will be the criminal who pays not the community. Our approach includes: increased powers for frontline enforcement staff including search and entry, and new measures and sanctions from the Courts Act 2003 to help recoup fines, including attachment of earnings and deduction of state benefits, and car clamping. And by rolling out direct access to the police national computer (PNC) for all magistrates courts by autumn 2004, we will enable police officers to identify whether an offender is on the run from court or defaulting on a fine or community sentence.

  We will also pilot the community justice centre concept in North Liverpool, bringing new approaches to tackle the low level crime and antisocial behaviour which can make communal life miserable; and to reach offenders and their problems before they progress to serious crime. Court sentences will combine punishment with support to help offenders kick their crime habit. The community will be involved in helping to steer people away from crime.

  To achieve all these goals we need to work in close partnership across the justice system. The development of the National Criminal Justice Board and Local Criminal Justice Boards has made great strides in delivering a more seamless service and better outcomes. To build on this, we are announcing today that, in future, joint working across the CJS will be further strengthened by the establishment of the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on a cross departmental basis. This implements the recommendations of a recent review of CJS capacity published in a parallel document "Criminal Justice Reform: Working Together". This means that the teams driving progress on shared CJS targets will in future report on an equal basis to the Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs and Law Officers' Departments. Establishing the Office for Criminal Justice Reform as a shared resource serving all three Departments builds on the firm foundations of what we have achieved, and is a powerful symbol of our resolve to work together effectively to deliver better services for the public.

  Reducing Re-Offending
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the "Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan". This fulfils the Government's commitment to reducing re-offending through greater strategic direction and collaborative
  5WS
  working. The plan aims to address the concerns raised in a number of important reports on the theme of rehabilitation, including the social exclusion unit report on "reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners" and the joint thematic report "Through the prison gate" by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prison and Her Majesty's chief inspector of probation.

  Over 60 national action points have been agreed across Government within the key areas to support the rehabilitation of offenders. For each agreed action point, the plan suggests complementary activity for those working at local and regional level to consider. A complementary approach is being developed in Wales led by the correctional services and the Welsh Assembly Government.

  The plan has been set within our radical proposals for improving the management of offenders through the creation of a National Offender Management Service (NOMS). The new service is a key building block in achieving integrated service delivery, with end-to-end case management and co-ordinated interventions focused on individual offenders.

  The delivery of the Plan will be overseen by a cross-Government board of senior officials, chaired by the chief executive of NOMS, including representatives from key government departments responsible for complementary services such as health, education and training, employment and housing.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing for public consultation the proposed changes to the draft revised regional planning guidance for the east midlands (RPG8). They follow the public examination into draft revised RPG8 held in November-December 2003.

  RPG8 was issued by the Secretary of State on 24 January 2002 to provide a broad development strategy for the east midlands up to 2021. This also represents the spatial element of the east midlands integrated regional strategy (IRS) and provides the framework for meeting the region's development needs in a way that promotes a more sustainable pattern of development.

  The current revision makes the guidance more concise, more regionally specific, more focused on delivery and with cross references to national policy rather than repetition. However, the revision is not a complete review and several key parts are not revised, including housing provision figures which are retained from the existing RPG8. These will be reviewed at the next full review of RPG8 when it is re-cast as a regional spatial strategy under the principles set out in the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.

  New elements in the draft revision include:
  New policies to promote sustainable economic growth consistent with the region's economic strategy produced by the East Midlands Development Agency;
  A new regional transport strategy which has been informed by a number of major studies in the region;
  6WS
  Higher targets for improving biodiversity, promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy, and recycling waste
  A new approach to dealing with flood risk
  Proposals for more detailed sub-regional strategies in parts of the region, including areas of Northamptonshire covered by the Milton Keynes and south midlands study.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supports the broad thrust of the draft revision and has accepted most of the recommendations of the independent panel, many of which have been made to improve clarity and to eliminate as far as possible any ambiguity in the wording of policies. Among the recommendations that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted is the deletion of a geographically based policy indicating general areas where wind energy proposals might be acceptable and the substitution of a criteria-based policy in line with current Government guidelines as expressed in PPS22.

  However, my right hon. Friend has not accepted the panel's recommendation to delete a policy requiring a review of the Nottingham-Derby green belt to be undertaken. The panel's view was that the policy was superfluous as PPG2 provides adequate guidance for any review. However, since the original Nottingham-Derby green belt was drawn up in the 1980s there has been no overall strategic review of the green belt, and with the development of planning policy, particularly related to the principles of sustainable development, together with the increasing development pressures in the Nottingham-Derby area, the Deputy Prime Minister considers that there is a need for a strategic review of the green belt carried out by all the affected planning authorities in a single exercise, overseen by the regional assembly as regional planning body. The policy and supporting paragraphs are therefore retained and amended accordingly.

  The issue raising most discussion at the public examination related to a policy that proposed a target of a 50 per cent. cut in the predicted growth in traffic without reference to the Government's priority of reducing congestion in urban areas and at key pinch points in the regional road network. The panel rejected this argument and recommended that the policy be retained. The proposed changes, which are endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, omit the original target for traffic growth reduction but retain the principle of reducing traffic growth as one of a series of measures encouraging behavioural change, which also includes the principle of reducing congestion.

  The panel has also suggested that further indicators be included to measure the effectiveness of policies. These require further discussion with regional stakeholders and views on these will be sought during public consultation. This also applies to the inclusion of a new map, which will illustrate the region's environmental and cultural assets.

  I have today written to the east midlands regional assembly with the proposed changes indicating areas where views are particularly sought. There will now be a 12-week period for public consultation on the proposed changes which will end on 8 October 2004.
  7WS
  Copies of the relevant documents are available in the Libraries of the House and have been provided for all the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities. Documents are also available on the Government office for the east midlands website http://www.goem.gov.uk/.

  Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will publish this week for public consultation proposed changes to the draft revised regional planning guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber (RPG12). They follow the public examination into the selective review of RPG12 held in February 2004.

  The panel that held the public examination endorsed the approach taken by the Yorkshire and Humber assembly in the selective review and recommended only modest changes to clarify and refine the document. More radical changes to RPG should await preparation of a regional spatial strategy (RSS), which the assembly is currently working on to prepare a draft by April 2005.

  The proposed changes being published this week reflect this approach. They are largely as recommended by the panel and are modest in nature. They also take account of suggestions made in the public consultation last autumn, the sustainability appraisal carried out on draft revised RPG, and to take account of national policy. The main issues addressed in the selective review of RPG and covered by the proposed changes are as follows:

  Preparation of regional spatial strategy
  The proposed changes clearly set out the timetable and issues to be addressed in the preparation of a new RSS. RSS will build on this selective review of RPG and carry forward a lot of the core strategy. But it will need to look again at a number of important policy areas, such as housing, economic development, waste management and transport priorities. The changes make it clear that this will need to be in the context of the northern way growth strategy.
  Renewable energy
  The panel concluded that draft revised RPG contains appropriate regional and sub regional targets for renewable energy generation to contribute to the national target that renewable energy should provide 10 per cent. of UK electricity supply by 2010 and consistent with the aspiration to reach 20 per cent. nationally by 2020. The proposed changes therefore carry these forward.
  Climate change
  The panel recommend a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the region by at least 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 and by at least 25 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2015. These are consistent with the regional economic strategy, make a positive contribution to national targets and are carried forward in the proposed changes.
  Development and flood risk
  The panel commend work done by YHA, the Environment Agency and local authorities to address flooding issues and consider that revised draft RPG provides an integrated and sustainable regional framework. The proposed changes simply seek to further clarify the policy.
  Waste management
  The panel endorse the approach taken in draft revised RPG to the management of municipal waste, including sub-regional targets for recycling/composting and guidance on new facilities that may be required. The proposed changes make a number of detailed changes to clarify the policies and targets. Importantly, they also emphasise the need for urgent, further work for RSS to drive forward the waste management strategy and ensure the delivery of significant numbers of new facilities to allow landfill directive targets to be met.
  Public transport accessibility
  The panel considers that draft revised RPG includes a sophisticated and innovative public transport accessibility policy which should help achieve spatial planning and transport objectives in an integrated way. The proposed changes clarify how the policy will be implemented.
  Strategic transport demand management
  The proposed changes carry forward the panel's recommendation that RPG should set out action that local authorities can take immediately on car parking strategies, a range of actions that can be taken in the short to medium term, and a commitment to take forward area-wide charging in the region if and when there is a national framework in place to support it.

  Transport investment priorities
  The panel considers the list of priorities set out in draft revised RPG to be generally appropriate. They recommend some detailed changes to the way the priorities are presented and to add some management measures (rather than infrastructure improvements). The proposed changes take forward most of these recommendations and ensure that RPG reflects national commitments and Government guidance on the inclusion of regional priorities.
  I will write to the chair of the Yorkshire and Humber assembly this week informing him of publication of the proposed changes. Copies of the proposed changes will be put on the government office for Yorkshire and the Humber website and sent to the region's local authorities and all other interested parties. There will be a 10-week period of consultation which will end on Friday 24 September 2004.

  Planning Appeal Procedures
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  On 15 January,Official Report, columns 43–44WS, I announced our intention, following a review, to consult on proposals to amend the planning appeals procedures rules and regulations to allow third parties a further opportunity to comment on the main parties' appeal statements at the nine-week stage of an appeal. This would bring the opportunities for third parties to

  9WS
  comment in line with the opportunities that local planning authorities and appellants have to make representations.

  We received an overwhelmingly positive response to the proposals. We therefore intend to amend the relevant planning appeals procedures to allow third parties an additional opportunity to make representations on appeals at the nine-week stage as well as the six-week stage. The consultation document, however, made clear that the proposed change to the arrangements would only come into affect once the planning casework system (PCS) was operational. The PCS will facilitate electronic appeals and thus the availability of all appeal documents for inspection online/electronically. I now expect this to be in place by March 2005 and we will amend the appeals procedures at that point.

  Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing the alterations to chapter 12 of the regional planning guidance for the south-east: the Ashford growth area. This follows the public examination into the draft alterations in December 2003, the panel report in February 2004 and the consultation on the Secretary of State's proposed changes that closed on 17th June 2004.

  The alterations represent a revision to the regional planning guidance for the south-east (RPG9), as published in March 2001. On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act the alterations will be part of a statutory regional special strategy (RSS).

  The alterations aim to achieve sustainable growth in Ashford, which was identified as a growth area in RPG9. They set out the scale and form of development at Ashford to 2016, and form a special framework for the preparation of local planning documents and other relevant policy documents.

  The consultation period for the proposed changes to the draft alterations ended on the 17 June with 40 responses from individuals or organisations. These mainly related to issues which had already been raised at the public examination and therefore only minor changes to the proposed alterations have been made.

  Planning Inspectorate
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I have today laid before the House a copy of the planning inspectorate's annual report and accounts for 2003–04.

  The report gives an overview of the performance of the inspectorate and highlights the ways in which it is contributing to the Government's planning reform agenda. It demonstrates the importance of a credible, accessible planning tribunal service which is open, transparent and impartial.
  10WS
  Copies of the report have been made available in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  The 2003–04 annual report and accounts for the pesticides safety directorate were laid before Parliament today.

  Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  As required under the Animal Health Act 1981 the Government will publish today a review of controls on the import of animal products for the financial year 2003–04. We welcome the opportunity to report on progress made in the past year.

  Seizures of illegally imported animal products have doubled in the past year. This has been delivered by continuing to follow the three key principles of:
  evidence based policy;
  investment in enforcement; and
  securing better public engagement and awareness.

  Over the course of the year customs has built up its enforcement activity in relation to products of animal origin. There has been a sustained effort inland, at the borders, and overseas, to increase the travelling public's awareness of the restrictions relating to importing products of animal origin. The Food Standards Agency has also worked with local and port health authorities to achieve a step change in the enforcement of controls on imported food inland.

  Also published today is an assessment of the risks of foot and mouth disease and certain pig diseases entering the country through illegally imported meat. This has been refined since last year when it only considered foot and mouth disease. The results of this are available at:
  http://www.defra.gov. uk/animalh/illegali/pdf/risk-assessmentO4 pdf

  The Government will continue to develop their approach to managing the risk posed by illegal imports. Working with all agencies involved, we will continue to build on enforcement activity and work to raise awareness of the rules.

  Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the DEFRA illegal imports website:
  http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/illegali/pdf/annual-review04.pdf

  The risk assessment is available on the DEFRA illegal imports website:
  http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/illegali/pdf/risk-assessment04.pdf

  Hard copies are available on request.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Lord Gould of Brookwood
Philip Gould, Esquire, having been created Baron Gould of Brookwood, of Brookwood in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hollick and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton.
Lord Broers
Sir Alec Nigel Broers, Knight, having been created Baron Broers, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridgeshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve and the Lord Oxburgh.

Pension Funds and Taxation
2.47 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they anticipated the effects on pension funds of the changes to the rules for advance corporation tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I hope I am right in thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is referring to payable tax credits on dividends. Those were a
2
distortion in the tax system under which non-taxpayers such as pension funds were better off if companies distributed profits as dividends rather than retaining them for investment. They were abolished in 1997 as part of a balanced package of measures, including reductions in corporation tax, designed to encourage companies to reinvest their profits for growth. While the abolition of payable tax credits reduced the income of pension funds by around £3.5 billion per annum, the long-term effect of that package of measures will benefit all investors, including pension funds and those saving for retirement.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that, coming from the Treasury's most skilled apologist, that Answer was really not very welcome. Will he not at least try to explain how the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to aim such a blow at both the whole of the savings movement and the arrangements made for retirement by many pensioners? A word of regret or sympathy would not come amiss.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not had time to look up the word "apologist" in Roget's Thesaurus, but I suspect that it is related to very many words that are much less approving than the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would be prepared to use in public. Having said that, I do not think that any apology is required. The change was a redress of a distortion that has existed for some time and has not been a significant element in pension funds' ability to meet their obligations in the years between then and now. There have of course been significant changes in the financing of pension funds, but those have been due much more to interest rate reductions than to the fall in the price of equities and, even more significantly, to increased life expectancy.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that companies are currently increasing the amounts they are putting into corporate pension funds at an

3
annual rate of 25 per cent? What estimate have the Government made of the loss of corporation tax that will follow those increased flows?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when figures are quoted on which an estimate can be made, no doubt an estimate will be made. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the increasing amounts that companies are putting into their pension funds, and that is welcome. I would remind him that in the period preceding the abolition of payable tax credits on dividends, companies—many of them the same companies—took very much longer pension fund holidays, amounting over a period of years to something like £19 billion.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is it not clear that the change in ACT to which my noble friend referred was only the first in a series of actions by the Chancellor that have added to the present crisis in provision? The Government admitted only last week in Grand Committee that the Pensions Bill was introduced in a hurry. As a result, there was not adequate time to debate it in the Commons. We in this House will have to sort out the details of the Bill, which seeks to rectify some of the damage that the Government have caused. Your Lordships will need to make that effort.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to correct the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but the abolition of advance corporation tax took place roughly at the same time, and on the basis that advance corporation tax and dividends tax credit were generally set at the same rate. What we are talking about now is not advance corporation tax; it is only the payable tax credits on dividends that directly affected pension funds. On the issue of the Pensions Bill, I leave the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to debate that at his usual length and with his usual assiduity with my noble friend Lady Hollis.

Zimbabwe: Human Rights
2.52 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What studies they have made of the report on Zimbabwe from the African Union's Commission on Human and People's Rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we received the executive summary of the report at the time of the African Union summit on 6 to 8 July. The full report will be available later this year, after Zimbabwe has responded to the observations about human rights abuses. We welcome the summary as clear criticism of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe by the African Union.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a damning report on the
4
abuses in Zimbabwe and on the activities of the racist regime there? Does she further agree that the way in which it has been handled, having been suppressed, it seems, for two years, reflects poorly on the African Union and on its aspirations, vision and strategy, which we all support, for a better and reformed Africa in the future? Is there any channel by which this can now be brought into the United Nations forum? Hitherto, the Government have taken the view that there are too many obstacles to bringing the issue to the United Nations, but this could provide the vehicle for doing so.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the executive summary is a full criticism of Zimbabwe on human rights. The noble Lord said that the report is damning, but I reiterate that I have not as yet seen the full report. It will not be forthcoming for at least another month, or possibly longer, in order to give Zimbabwe the opportunity to comment on what is said.
The African Union has pointed out to Zimbabwe that three reports are now outstanding on Zimbabwe's failure to comply over human rights issues, and it has urged Zimbabwe so to do. On the last point, the United Kingdom Government are considering taking an issue to the United Nations General Assembly.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not a welcome sign that the African Union has commented so stringently on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe? We should be encouraging the African Union for doing so, since it is always under criticism. Does my noble friend agree that it is also important that the African Union has now said to African leaders that they can no longer expect a defence from the African Union where there are abuses of human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I strongly agree with that. That is why I said in my initial Answer that we welcome the report by the African Union. It is most welcome that it has spoken out in the way that it has. I remind noble Lords that the Zimbabwean Government, in the person of the Information Minister, last Wednesday accused the opposition Movement for Democratic Change of "smuggling" the report onto the AU agenda at the behest of the British Prime Minister. That is complete and utter rubbish, but it gives your Lordships an indication of how far the Zimbabweans are prepared to go in order to try to protect their backs.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while it is unfortunate that the AU summit declined to publish the report on the basis of the false claims made by Zimbabwe that they had never seen it before, as well as the allegations by Mr Moyo that the Minister has quoted, and considering that the report is already two years old, should we not be looking ahead? Will the noble Baroness consider whether the G8 secretariat, which is preparing for the meeting to be hosted by the UK at Gleneagles in June 2005, might request its opposite numbers in the African Union to commission reports

5
from the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, from the UNHCR on the 3 million exiles from Zimbabwe in neighbouring countries, and from the FAO and the World Food Programme on the starvation of Zimbabweans as a result of the economic policies of the Mugabe regime?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right to point out that it is not just a question of straightforward human rights. There are also issues around the appalling economic situation in Zimbabwe, which has resulted in many of its people being put in jeopardy. The noble Lord raised the question of next year's G8. It is too soon to state with any certainty whether we will be able to focus on these issues next year, although I see certain attractions in what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. One note of caution is that it is already the case that Zimbabwe believes that anything that has UK fingerprints on it can be discredited. We must be careful how we handle that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the way in which the people of Zimbabwe have now suffered for some years, has not the time come for the United Nations to be inspired to intervene there?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, we are considering whether it might be possible to pursue a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly this year. As the noble Lord will know, UN sanctions, which are binding on all member states, would require the agreement of the Security Council. Security Council agreement to such sanctions at this stage is not an option.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is it not important to reflect on the development of the constitutional position of the African Union? The ambition to have peer group review of sovereign states by other sovereign states in Africa is a recent development. It may be that we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope if we see only what they have not done. I agree with my noble friend in seeing what they are now developing as a role for the future.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, that is a fair comment. The African Union has a great difficulty in how it deals with Zimbabwe. There are clearly a number of differences of opinion within that organisation. It is important that at the end of the executive summary of the report the African Union notes that the republic of Zimbabwe now has three overdue reports in order to fulfil its obligations to the African charter. The African Union is laying it on the line in that way with the Government of Zimbabwe, and it is to be congratulated on doing so.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the commission was chaired by an eminent South African academic? In the hope that this is a favourable
6
augury of South Africa's attitude, are the Government planning to hold talks about the executive summary, and ultimately about the report, with the South African Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, the investigation team was led by the vice-chair of the African Commission on Human Rights, Mr Jainaba Johm of Gambia. However, it included a South African churchman and academic, Barney Pityana, who is the commissioner responsible for Zimbabwe, and, of course, Fiona Adolu of Uganda. Barney Pityana is the past chair of South Africa's human rights commission.
My honourable friend Mr Mullin will meet the South African deputy Foreign Minister on Wednesday of this week. I have not seen their agenda, but I believe that it is highly probable that the report will be discussed.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the African Union is undoubtedly to be congratulated on having tried for so long to bring the matter out into the open and face the facts about what is happening? Could it not be encouraged through the EU—not by us, I accept—to bring the matter, as the AU bloc, to the UNHCR meeting in Geneva? On previous occasions, it has prevented discussion there: this time, it could initiate a clear call for Zimbabwe to recognise the human rights of its people.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that idea has considerable merit. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who has taken such a close interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe.
There may be some difficulty in trying to persuade the African Union to adopt the course of action that the noble Baroness suggests. Zimbabwe tried to persuade the African Union to withdraw the report altogether, on the extraordinary pretext that it was all a put-up job by the United Kingdom. It was supported by at least one other country in that endeavour, but, I am happy to say, they were overruled.
Zimbabwe now has the opportunity to respond to the report, and it may be that the response will overrun the period of the next meeting of the UNHCR in Geneva. The situation is still uncertain with regard to the point at which the report will see the full light of day. No doubt, when it does, there will be many people who are most anxious to discuss it.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, has the noble Baroness's attention been drawn to reports last week in two reputable South African newspapers of talks between the ANC, which is President Mbeki's party, and ZANU-PF, which is Mr Mugabe's party, about the future of Zimbabwe? In particular, they are said to have discussed co-operation by the two parties on preparations for the Zimbabwe elections next spring. If those reports are correct, do they not cast doubt on

7
the suitability of President Mbeki as an impartial interlocutor between ZANU-PF and the opposition in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that concerns have been raised about President Mbeki, but I remind the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki following South Africa's elections in April. The Minister for Africa has also had regular opportunities to discuss such issues with the South Africans.
President Mbeki and Foreign Minister Zuma have stated that negotiations between ZANU-PF and the MDC are imminent. However, the noble Lord is right: we would be more interested to see some firm evidence of progress in those discussions, rather than just reports that the discussions are imminent.

Syria: Trade
3.3 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to renew trade ties with Syria.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the trade relationship between the European Union and Syria is underpinned by the EU-Syria co-operation agreement of 1977. Negotiations are under way for an EU-Syria association agreement, as part of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership under the Barcelona process, which aims to create a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area by 2010.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful and informative reply. I recognise the importance of trade and the development of normal, peaceful relations between nations, but is it not the case that Syria has failed to meet important international obligations? In the past, that has led to sanctions against other countries, such as Iraq and Libya. Are we operating different standards here? Is the standard applied to Syria different from that applied to other countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that it is. The European Union has concluded a number of trade agreements with the countries involved in the Euro-Med process and the Barcelona process. I have been part of those meetings this year, and I have seen no difference in the way in which the negotiations are conducted or in the criteria that trigger those negotiations. I would, however, be misleading your Lordships if I were to say that the negotiations were the easiest that I had ever observed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not clear that Syria is still the sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East
8
and adheres to a policy of having weapons of mass destruction? How is that compatible with increased trade between ourselves and that country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend uses very strong language. He claims that Syria is a sponsor of terrorism and a possessor of weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that there are causes for concern about Syria's activities on weapons of mass destruction, which is why there is a clause—not only in the agreement that we hope to conclude with Syria but in all future agreements in the EU association agreements process—that deals with the very important question of weapons of mass destruction.
I think, without going into any detail, that it is important that we are clear—I might say "blunt"—with a number of countries in the region about the way that terrorism—even if not sponsored—is perhaps a subject from which individuals turn their face in the opposite direction when it is discussed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we recognise that critical engagement—with as much emphasis on "critical" as on "engagement"—is the only way forward with Syria. I have two questions. First, how much more scope is there for engaging with Syrian civil society by, for example, expanding the network of Chevening and other scholarships and inviting young Syrians to spend time in this country? Secondly, can the Minister expand a little on what she said about including clauses on weapons of mass destruction in all other European agreements with Mediterranean countries? Does that, for example, include future association agreements with Israel?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we already have an association agreement with Israel. There are new European neighbourhood policy action plans—I am sorry to use such Foreign Office jargon in your Lordships' House—which involve clauses about weapons of mass destruction. Those who want to have a closer relationship with the EU will be asked to negotiate on that basis. I cannot tell your Lordships that there will be standard wording for every clause; one size does not fit all in negotiations. However, the issue will certainly be raised in all future agreements of that nature.
I agree with what the noble Lord said about Chevening scholarships. We regard them as one of the key areas for developing a relationship.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we all want better trade relations with Syria, and I know that the noble Baroness has been directly involved in discussions with Syria about its attitude. Does she think that the American decision to apply sanctions has helped the situation, given the very poor state of the Syrian economy? All the tourists have been driven away from Syria's marvellous sites, and Syrians have a very low standard of living.

9
Can the Minister confirm that the conditions that we seek are that Syria should not only denounce weapons of mass destruction but should truly cease to harbour terrorists and conceal any terrorists who may have fled over the border from Iraq? Are the Syrians even prepared to contemplate such things?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I myself have discussed those matters with the Syrians. The right way to tackle such issues is through a process of critical engagement, rather than by adopting the attitude of the United States of America, which has imposed sanctions that prohibit the export of goods and services from the US to Syria, with the exception of food, medicine, cellphones and Internet equipment—interestingly enough—and aircraft parts. It is also the case that US investment is still allowed. By tackling the issues of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction with the Syrians, we at least stand a chance of enhancing not only our relationship but the security of the region, which of course is our ultimate objective.

Public Appointments
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking following the findings of the Commissioner for Public Appointments concerning the rules on appointments to public posts and the practice in certain government departments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are aware of the commissioner's concerns about how Ministers are involved in the public appointments process. The current inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life is considering this issue. It is expected to report by the end of the year and we will study its findings very carefully.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House what has been done to civil servants to make possible these breaches of the Nolan rules, with Ministers adding names to short lists, drawing up their own short lists and taking names off short lists?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that the situation is as the noble Baroness suggests. There are wide-ranging differences between departments in regard to public appointments. I understand the fact and identify that the commissioner has drawn attention to four departments which have varied their practice from what she sees as being the appropriate procedure. But those departments have been entirely transparent; it has always been a part of their process and interventions are properly recorded.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, why have the Government not accepted the recommendations of the Public
10
Administration Select Committee that the commissioner's office should be responsible for the recruitment and training of all independent assessors, and that she, herself, should have power to report to Parliament material non-compliance with the appointments code?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we obviously welcome the advice we are given by the commissioner, but it is not always going to be the case that the Government will accept all of that advice. As it is, the commissioner has her own group of 12 independent assessors who offer advice, and we greatly value that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in the light of the commissioner's latest report showing that the percentage of female public body appointees remains the same as last year at 39 per cent, with the number of women chairmen of public bodies almost invisible, can the Minister say whether the 2005 target set by the Cabinet Office for achieving between 45 and 50 per cent of women on public bodies remains realistic? If not, what further measures will be taken?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are obviously disappointed that the appointment figures to which the noble Baroness refers are as they are, but we do not think that this is a new trend. We hope that our targets are realistic. I think everyone would accept that it is a highly desirable objective. There is some good news in the commissioner's report. I am particularly pleased to see that there has been an increase in the number of appointments for those with disabilities, up to 3.2 per cent from 2.7 per cent in the previous year.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am almost incredulous at the sheer complacency of the Government's answers to this most serious Question. It is the Commissioner for Public Appointments who has made an official complaint on the basis that appointments could be interpreted either as political interference or personal preference. Should not the Government be taking firm action now and drafting clauses for a Civil Service Bill to be presented to Parliament to deal with this terrible problem?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is conflating two separate issues. There is a disagreement between the commissioner and some departments about the appointments process. Those departments have always had Ministers involved at an early part of the appointments process, and that is accepted by the commissioner, those departments and all other departments. As I am sure the noble Lord will know from his own background and time in government, it is a part of the process that has been commonly accepted.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, if Ministers have traditionally taken a position whereby they make these appointments and make suggestions, what on earth was the point of appointing a commissioner to do the same job?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord should take a very close look at the report and at what

11
has been accepted practice in the past. We are very keen to ensure that there is integrity, openness, probity and transparency in these matters. The commissioner accepts that that is absolutely the case. There is a minor disagreement—some might even call it a misunderstanding—over this issue.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is the Minister satisfied that the membership of ethnic minorities on such bodies is in proportion to their representation in the community?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will accept that this Government have made great progress in ensuring that ethnic minorities have an appropriate level of representation in all public appointments. The figures suggest that we are making great progress. As I understand it, in 2002–03, 8.4 per cent of all appointments were to ethnic minorities, which is fractionally down on the previous year. But that does not disappoint us; it gives us greater encouragement that we are absolutely right to ensure a fair representation. We shall go on pursuing that objective. We do not see this as a long-term trend and, in any event, we intend to ensure that we get the balance absolutely right, fair and proper.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that it does not matter whether they are men, women, transvestites, black, white or yellow; the only criterion that should apply is that they are the best people for the job, approved by the commission and not interfered with by the Government?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not the commission that makes the appointments; these are public appointments made by the Minister. The noble Baroness is of course right that everyone should be appointed on merit.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I find slightly disturbing the way in which the discussion is going. We have fought for many years to have people from ethnic minorities included. I know that it is not my business to make a statement, but I should like to ask why the inclusion of ethnic minorities is such a problem.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is clearly not a problem for the Government. We celebrate our record in this respect. We have made great progress in opening up the public appointments process so that we have a diversity of appointments which genuinely reflects our society. The Government should be congratulated on their record, not condemned as some are seeking to do in your Lordships' House today.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the Commissioner for Public Appointments expresses the concerns she has expressed,
12
there is bound to be some public concern that matters are not right? May I suggest that the Secretary to the Cabinet should put out a statement, a set of rules, for all Permanent Secretaries to make it perfectly clear where they stand? This would probably help them in their relations with Ministers and, indeed, might help Ministers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it may be worth reading to your Lordships' House from the commissioner's report, in which she stated:
"I was concerned to discover in the course of last year that four Departments were routinely showing shortlists privately to Ministers during the appointments process. Ministers are given a choice of candidates at the end of the process and can, if they wish, be involved throughout the process".
She said that her particular concern is the unrecorded involvement of a Minister at such a late stage. Three Permanent Secretaries wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life as part of their evidence, and they dispute the fact that this is done privately. They state quite categorically that it is an open part of the process and has been a routine part of the process for many years. We are all concerned to ensure that there is transparency, integrity and openness in the process. All government departments believe that they are achieving that.

Civil Contingencies Bill
3.19 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Patents Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 90 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 13, page 8, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
"(6) In relation to a decision of the comptroller whether to issue an opinion under this section—

(a) for the purposes of section 101 below, only the person making the request under subsection (1) above shall be regarded as a party to a proceeding before the comptroller; and

13

(b) no appeal shall lie at the instance of any other person."

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
This amendment clarifies the drafting in Clause 13 in relation to a matter that might otherwise be in some doubt. It ensures that there is no general right of appeal to the Patents Court under Section 97 of the Patents Act 1977 on whether or not to grant a request for an opinion. It will be recalled that only the person who requested the non-binding opinion from the Patent Office will have the right to be heard under Section 101 on whether this request should be granted. For the same reason, only the requestor should have the right to appeal to the Patents Court against a final decision to refuse that request. Amendment No. 1 ensures that only decisions to refuse an opinion will be subject to appeal.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"Costs and expenses in infringement proceedings etc
(1) Section 106 of the 1977 Act (costs and expenses in proceedings before the Court under s. 40) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (relevance of parties' financial position), for the words from "proceedings" to "the court)" there is substituted "proceedings to which this section applies".
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(1A) This section applies to proceedings before the court (including proceedings on an appeal to the court) which are—

(a) proceedings under section 40;

(b) proceedings for infringement;

(c) proceedings under section 70; or

(d) proceedings on an application for a declaration or declarator under section 71."

(4) This section applies in relation to proceedings commenced on or after the commencement of this section."
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Noble Lords will recall that when we were considering the Bill previously, we had some useful exchanges about how to improve the enforcement framework for patent disputes. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, brought forward an amendment that enabled us to identify an additional improvement to the provisions in the Bill that adjust the threats provisions in the Patents Act 1977. We believe that Commons Amendment No. 2 provides another small improvement to the enforcement framework which may be particularly beneficial for SME patent holders in certain circumstances.
14
The amendment would ensure that the courts have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the financial position of the parties, when making an award of costs in a patent dispute where a decision has to be made regarding infringement. This amendment would still leave the courts with discretion over whether or not to require the losing party of a patent dispute to pay the costs of the winning party. There may well be circumstances in which financial circumstances should not be reflected in the actual award of costs. However, this amendment would put an SME engaged in a patent dispute against a wealthier party in a better position than the current one. It ensures that the financial position of the parties will always be a relevant factor to be weighed in the balance when the courts consider what award of costs to make.
We hope that the amendment will have an effect beyond those cases that reach the stage in the courts where costs are considered. With wealthier parties aware that they may not necessarily get an award of all their costs in a dispute against a less financially secure party, even when they win, there may be greater willingness to agree to settle the dispute more cheaply in the first place by, say, mediation or voluntary binding arbitration.
I hope that noble Lords will therefore agree with the sentiments in the other place that this is an amendment worth making. I stress, however, that it does not mean that we will not also continue to explore other approaches to facilitate quicker and cheaper enforcement of patent rights. For example, I am delighted to be able to confirm today that the Patent Office-led feasibility study into the patent enforcement project has concluded that there may be a way of constructing new, mutual insurance-based arrangements to help SMEs enforce their patent rights. We are looking at how best to work with insurers and others to make this happen. The Patent Office will publish the feasibility study by the end of the month.
With those comments, I invite noble Lords to approve this new clause and a small consequential repeal in Schedule 3, as made by Commons Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendment. My slight anxiety is that some cases will still never get to a final decision in the court and the plaintiff might drop out—a problem that the noble Lord has already identified. Let us just hope that it works.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 2, page 12, line 24, at end insert—
"In section 1 (patentable inventions), in subsection (1)(d), after "subsections (2) and (3)" there is inserted "or section 4A"."
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.

15
This amendment relates to the patentability of medical methods, and to the changes made by Clause 1. Noble Lords may recall that, under the existing law, a patent cannot be granted for a method of treatment or diagnosis. If such a patent is granted, it can later be revoked.
Clause 1 provides a new section, Section 4A, in the 1977 Act. This sets out, in a much simpler way than at present, that such medical methods are not patentable, while also clarifying the law in respect of the patenting of substances which are used in such medical methods. However, in Committee in another place, it was pointed out to us that the new provision in Clause 1 could have cast doubt on the fact that a patent can be revoked if it has wrongly been granted for a method of treatment or diagnosis. So we brought forward a small amendment—Amendment No. 3—which would make it clear in the 1977 Act that a patent may be revoked if it does not comply with any of the provisions of new Section 4A. It is a small improvement to the drafting that I hope will be welcomed by noble Lords on all sides.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Schedule 3, page 15, line 46, at end insert—

"In section 106, in the heading, the words "under s. 40"."

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
3.26 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Dissolution of the Tote]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) The order referred to in subsection (2) must not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is important to reiterate that we on these Benches support the principles behind Part 1 of the Bill. It is designed to fulfil the Government's 2001 manifesto commitment, which said:
"We are committed to sell the Tote to a racing trust to allow it to compete commercially, with all long-term profits invested in the sport".
Noble Lords will be aware that, since it was set up in 1928, the Tote has had a long and distinguished tradition of serving British horseracing. Last year it provided £11 million to racing. Similarly, the House will need no reminding of the importance of horseracing as an economic activity and a major spectator sport in the United Kingdom and in the world.
The Minister will be pleased to learn that we on these Benches are grateful for the reassurances he gave in Grand Committee when he set out the Government's good intentions for the Tote. However, it is clear that Part 1 is merely seeking approval for the Tote to be abolished, as set out in Clause 1, with its assets transferred to a successor company wholly owned by the state. This much is clearly contained in the Bill.
The other issues surrounding the transfer and sale are slightly less certain. The Government stated in Committee that the newly nationalised Tote will then be sold—it is to be hoped on the same day. The difficulty lies in the fact that Ministers are unable or unwilling to guarantee either that the nationalised Tote will be sold or to whom it will be sold, be it to the Racing Trust or a private bookmaker. Nor are the Government able to confirm what the sale price will be. That is essential, given that the racing trust will need to borrow the money to pay for the Tote.
We are concerned because these issues are of fundamental importance to our deliberations over the sale of the Tote, and yet so little is on the face of the Bill. I am afraid that the Government's amendment, which we shall debate shortly, makes matters even less certain.
The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to approve the Government's final decision to sell the Tote. This is necessary because the Government have not yet been able to conclude their negotiations with the shadow Racing Trust, although I understand that progress is being made and that a deal may be agreed before we return to the Bill at Third Reading.
To my mind, the best course of action would be if the Government were able to report to the House today that progress is being made, and at such a pace that we will delay Third Reading, if necessary, until such time as a deal has been agreed. I very much hope that that will not be the case; Third Reading is pencilled in for 7 September—154 days, or 22 working weeks, since the last day of Committee. I very much hope that that will be adequate time to finalise negotiations on the manifesto commitment which the Government are putting before the House today. If the Minister is able to give such an assurance to the House today, then this amendment may not be required, and I would be pleased to withdraw it.
As I said, our amendment provides the necessary check on the Government's intentions, because in previous discussions in Grand Committee, the Minister indicated that the Tote would not be abolished until an agreement was in place to transfer it

17
to the successor body—preferably to the Racing Trust under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. The Minister said:
"We intend that the sale to the Racing Trust will occur as soon as the Tote is vested, under the appointed day order, in the successor company.
More to the point, we can ensure that that is the case because we will not transfer the assets of the Tote until a deal is ready".—[Official Report, 31/3/04; col. GC 473.]
In other words, when the Government are ready to abolish the Tote, they should also be in a position to confirm to the House that an agreement is in place to meet the Government's manifesto commitment either, preferably, with the Racing Trust, or with another body. Similarly, the Government should be able to tell the House the price that they intend to charge for the transfer to the successor body.
The amendment is designed to ensure that this House would approve the final decision when all the facts are known. So much remains undecided and unclear at present that it is important that Parliament has final approval of the Government's plans. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches have little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. We agree that, if the Government were able to give us some assurances now, it would be unnecessary for us to proceed further with this amendment, which we are inclined to support. The transfer of the Tote to the Racing Trust has been well discussed in Grand Committee and it is not appropriate now to rehearse the same arguments or make Second Reading speeches. It is a complex issue, but we support the philosophy behind the move of the Tote to the private sector, preferably to the Racing Trust, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and is headed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who I am happy to see is in his place.
As the House is aware, there may be problems in arriving at the result that we all hope for—a transfer that benefits racing. The Treasury plays an important role in this and has its own agenda to follow. We would not argue with the criteria that the Treasury uses, which include its consideration of this transfer. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we understand that the Government are well forward with their negotiations for a sale along the lines that we all hope will result. If that is the case, the Minister will tell us now and we will have no need to discuss these matters further, but will wait until September.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who preceded me for declaring my interest for me as chairman of the shadow Racing Trust and the Racing Trust that is emerging from that. My Amendment No. 2 differs from Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. His amendment says that before anything is done to the Tote, the Government have to come back to the House. I quite understand that amendment but, personally, if a deal is done with my Racing Trust, I
18
hope that the House would then take it that we would not have done such a deal unless we wanted it to go ahead and that the parliamentary procedure is therefore not necessary. My amendment concentrates on a different position. After the negotiations, there may not be a deal and the Government may proceed to flog the Tote off to whoever they can get the most money from. In that event, my amendment would provide that there must be a vote in both Houses before the sale can proceed.
We may as well admit that there is suspicion in some quarters that underneath this legislation is a deep-laid Treasury plot to pretend to sell to the trust and, when both Houses have finished with the Bill, to sell to the highest bidder. Quite frankly, I do not believe that there is such a plot, not because I believe that the Treasury is incapable of plotting—I wrote a book about the Treasury so I have some authority on Treasury plots—but it would not benefit the Treasury to go down such a road. The Treasury's paramount objective in this is to get rid of the Tote. It is not a business that belongs in the public sector—it is an historic anachronism that it is there—and, while we still have it, there is a suspicion that the Treasury stands behind its debt, which could amount to many times any proceedings from the sale.
Secondly, the Treasury will not have failed to note that the proceedings, even from selling to the highest bidder, amount to peanuts—half of the peanuts that the Government want to go to racing, anyway. Thirdly, the Treasury did not get it where it is today by loosely ignoring manifesto pledges. There is a clear government manifesto pledge and it is no light thing for any official to say, "Ditch your manifesto pledge, Chancellor, so that we can make a bob or two". Therefore, I do not think that there is a plot of that kind.
My Amendment No. 2, however, guards against the possibility that things could go wrong. I will give some examples, all of which are slightly unlikely, but may help the House. There may be an adverse state aid ruling from Brussels or the Government's advisers on the sale—PwC—may lose all touch with reality and ask the Tote to pay a price that it could neither fund nor afford. I do not think that that is likely, but it could happen. Or, the tiny minority in racing that does not want to own the Tote and would rather take the money and run may get a temporary hold on racing's policy making and racing itself decides not to proceed. That is even less likely than the other scenarios, but it could happen.
If any of those things happened, a decision clearly falls to be made whether we stick with the status quo or sell the Tote on the open market. It would not be appropriate that, when Ministers have declared in this and the other House that their policy is to sell to the Racing Trust, they could turn on a sixpence and say, "Oh no, sorry that's dead. We Ministers in our wisdom have decided to abandon everything that we previously said and it has nothing to do with Parliament".

19
This Bill involves a manifesto pledge. It has been carried by both Houses of Parliament—with almost unanimous support—for a particular objective; namely, that racing should fulfil its long-held ambition to own the Tote. It would be wholly inappropriate—even constitutionally inappropriate—for that decision to be taken and implemented without reference back to the two Houses of Parliament. If the Government came back with good reason, the two Houses may agree with the Government—they usually agree with government proposals, after all. However, both Houses would at least have the right to a further and final say before the Government proceeded. To be honest, I have found it difficult to understand why the Government have been resistant to that, but resistant they are.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said in his speech, we have made useful progress in the negotiations in recent weeks. I am delighted to tell the House that the Minister recently wrote to me offering the Racing Trust a period of exclusive negotiations. They are not talking to anyone else. They are talking only to us and we will try to get the deal sorted. We will try as far as we can to get a deal—or as near as dammit—by 7 September. Therefore, this is not a decision that the House needs to finalise this afternoon. On 7 September, it will have the fullest and latest information at its disposal about how the negotiations have gone.
As I say, I hope that we will have a deal but, if we do not, we can consider the right course then. In the mean time, it is not necessarily the best solution to press these amendments. The best solution would be to have a deal that is signed, done and dusted and then we would not have to worry about wasting further time on hypothetical situations that I hope and believe will never arise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, we did indeed debate comparable amendments in Grand Committee. I can update the House on developments since then. The amendments are variations on a theme that was aired in Grand Committee and the intention is to make the Government return to Parliament for further approval before a sale of the Tote can be completed.
I entirely respect the motives behind these amendments. They are clearly intended to reflect the noble Lord's commitment to the horseracing industry. But I hope that they will agree that we share their commitment to the horseracing industry.
The Tote and the racing industry as a whole have achieved record figures under this Government. That has, in no small part, been due to the reform of the betting tax regime—a regime that was developed in the Treasury, which is the object of such suspicion for some Members of this House.
At every stage of the Bill, the Minister for Sport and I have gone out of our way to provide public assurances that there is no hidden agenda—no Treasury plot, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, puts it.
20
We want to effect a sale to the Racing Trust as soon as possible. There are no grounds for suspicion that we want to get the Bill safely on to the statute book on the basis of a sale to racing and then switch to a purchaser who will pay more.
But I have to make it clear to the House that it will not be possible to finalise the terms of the sale to racing while the Bill is before Parliament. We have to respect government accounting rules, which prohibit expenditure on new services—and this is a new service—before Royal Assent if that expenditure would be nugatory if Parliament were ultimately not to approve the Bill.
We can properly undertake planning and preparatory work and we are doing so. We are making useful progress in taking forward discussions with racing. We will go as far and as fast as we can with the negotiations, but we have to recognise that we cannot take them beyond a certain point or conclude them in advance of Royal Assent.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, used the example of state aid. It is certainly the case that before Royal Assent we could obtain an independent evaluation for the purpose of clearance of state aid. However, we cannot conclude negotiations beyond a point of no return before Royal Assent. This is not a Treasury plot. If it had been, we would not be in this position; we would not have this complicated Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, rightly says, does not express the ultimate intention of the Government on the face of the Bill.
The Tote does not belong to the Government; it belongs to Parliament. In the end, only Parliament can make the final decision, through passing legislation and achieving Royal Assent for that legislation.
Everything that we are doing and everything that we are saying is aimed at securing the sale to the Racing Trust. Absolutely no steps have been taken to prepare for any other eventuality.
As has been said, discussions are taking place between the Government's financial advisers and those of the Racing Trust. The Minister for Sport and I met the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and Peter Jones, the chief executive of the Tote, a week ago to restate the Government's support for the longstanding proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, we provided them with a letter promising that in the first instance we would commit to a period of exclusive negotiations with the Racing Trust.
I mention that only because they are the most recent examples in a very long line stretching back to 1998 of the Government's determination to sell the Tote to racing, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reminds us, was a Labour Party manifesto commitment in 1981.
I return to the specifics of the amendments. I remain convinced that they are unnecessary. As the Bill stands, dissolution of the Tote will take place on "the appointed day" and that appointment will be made by statutory instrument without any parliamentary procedure. There is nothing unusual in that, and the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform found no reason to comment on it.

21
It has been previously stated in debate that it is not for the Secretary of State to run, on behalf of the Crown, the Tote's successor. The clear intention is to effect the appointed day order contemporaneously with the sale.
We seek the approval of Parliament now for a Bill which leaves open the fall-back option of selling the Tote to someone other than a racing consortium. That much is obvious. If we remind ourselves of the Government's commitment to a sale to racing—and all the work that has been put into achieving that—that must be beyond doubt to any reasonable observer.
By Third Reading of the Bill on 7 September—or whenever it is; we cannot fix a date until this Report stage is completed—we will have made progress on the sale preparations, subject to the provisos that I have made about the rules of government accounting.
3.45 p.m.
I am sure that the rules of government accounting, which prevent the Government committing to expenditure without the approval of Parliament expressed through passing legislation, will be agreed by everyone on all sides of this House. There may still be negotiating problems that I do not know about, but that is the reason why, in principle, we cannot accept amendments that would commit the Government in advance of Royal Assent. That is why, with regret, I have to resist the amendments.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this amendment. A number of important points arise.
First, I want to clarify that the Tote—I think that noble Lords on the other side were about to jump to their feet on this point when the Minister stated it—is not owned by Parliament; the Tote is owned by no one. It would be owned by Parliament if the Government nationalised it, but until they do so in order to privatise it, it is not owned by Parliament. As a Minster in another place said, the Horserace Totaliser Board,
"is responsible for the assets owned by the Tote but the Tote itself is owned by no one".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/5/99; col. 152W.]
I move on to the substance of what the noble Lord stated. There is widespread support on all sides of the House for the Minister to continue his work to ensure that the Tote is successfully sold to a racing trust. He stated just now:
"We want to effect a sale to the Racing Trust as soon as possible".
He went further than that and said that it must be "beyond doubt" in this Chamber that that is the intention.
I fully appreciate the rules of government accounting and I am sure that noble Lords on all sides do also. But, equally, the rules of government accounting would apply had we placed the Racing Trust on the face of this legislation. Had the will of Parliament been expressed by an amendment to Part 1 that requested that the Tote should be sold to a racing
22
trust, then that sole condition on the face of the Bill would have to be observed and in due course it would be wholly appropriate, after the legislation was enacted, for the rules of government accounting to come into play and to be observed to the letter. No one doubts that.
The issue is not the rules of government accounting; it is whether or not Parliament should be requested to pass legislation which, as drafted at present, does not require the Government to sell to a racing trust. I do not deny the integrity or the wish of the Minister, nor that of the Minster for Sport, in achieving that goal. The more he states clearly that that is exactly what the Government wish, the more I ask why it is not placed on the face of the Bill.
Given that no alternative is under consideration by the Government and given that it is "beyond doubt" that that is the Government's intention, then it seems wholly reasonable to put that intention on the face of the legislation and ensure that, once it is passed, the Government can conclude their negotiations. That is the position taken by noble Lords on these Benches.
We have a good amount of time between now and the first day back in September for those negotiations to be completed in principle. I accept that it can only be in principle. But by completing these negotiations in principle and coming back to this House with the outcome of those negotiations, we would be in a position in early September where we had a deal in principle that could be put before the House. I should be very surprised if independent valuations had not already been taken by both sides. I understand that those negotiations are already under way, and so there is no time constraint and it would be perfectly possible for negotiations to be completed within that period.
The point at which a deal could be put before the House is the point—here I agree with the Minister—at which the House would need to consider whether to approve Part 1 as it stood or whether to amend it further. We have a great opportunity at Third Reading to have an admissibility of amendments to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill. Never was it more appropriate than in this Bill. In those circumstances, I will not press my amendment to a vote because the Government have every opportunity to return to the issue, to state that their intention to sell to the Racing Trust has been completed in principle and to give details about the work that has been done on exclusivity. This is the first time that we have heard that the Government will give the Racing Trust exclusivity. I hope that that will involve a standard exclusivity agreement and that it will have a deadline. I also hope that a deadline of early September, subject to parliamentary approval of the legislation, would be reasonable.
Why am I still therefore concerned about the Minister's position? I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who said that the Treasury's paramount objective was to sell the Tote. In my experience, the paramount objective of many Treasury mandarins is to maximise revenue for the Government. If the Treasury

23
had the opportunity to sell the Tote for £300 million, for example, rather than for £100 million while making an arrangement that was in the interests of racing, there would be people in the Treasury, I regret to say, who would urge very strongly that it should be sold for the maximum value achievable. That is the basis of my concern. I hope that all the good comments made by noble Lords and Ministers in another place prove that the will of Parliament, reflecting the manifesto commitment, recognise that in this case it is in the interests of racing for the Tote to be nationalised and then privatised again to a racing trust.
I remain unconvinced in this regard. I cannot understand why, if that is the whole purpose of Part 1, we do not include in it the sale to the Racing Trust and ask Parliament to approve that. Today we have not done so and we will hear in September about whether progress has been made to the point at which Parliament can be convinced that there is no need to refer to the Racing Trust in the Bill.
Until that time comes, I will leave the Minister with the following conclusion. Unless all the preparatory work has been done to reach an agreement in principle with the Racing Trust, as it stands the Opposition cannot support Part 1. Either there must be significant progress towards the delivery to a racing trust through the sale process that the Minister outlined or it should be argued that the Tote is better off staying as it is, rather than being nationalised and sold—at whatever price, in whatever circumstances and on whatever terms—by the Government to whomever they wish. I regret to say that that is exactly how Part 1 currently reads.
I hope that those provisos and remarks will encourage the Minister to get motoring and conclude the deal by the date on which we will return in September. I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who was concerned about the amount of parliamentary time that may be involved, by assuring him that if an adequate deal is done with the Racing Trust, proceedings on Part 1 will be covered very quickly indeed by both Houses.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, before I withdraw Amendment No. 2—
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Successor company: transfer]:
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) Any transfer to a successor company other than one that is owned by a consortium whose primary purpose is the improvement and support of horseracing shall not take place unless the transfer is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for interrupting just now. Before I do not move this amendment—I apologise; I am moving it. I will get my procedures right in a minute, perhaps.
I am interested in probing the nature of the constraint on the Government spending money. I said that I wanted the arrangement to be as near as dammit a deal and, to be frank, there is much that cannot be done by 7 September, including due diligence, a total funding package and state aid clearance for some matters, although we could be pretty much on top of various other issues. If the Government's position is that they cannot finalise the deal until we have the Bill, because we are not allowed to do so by the conventions, we will require an amendment of the kind moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, or myself to give Parliament a chance to come back if it does not like the consequences. The obvious thing to do on 7 September would be to say, "Sorry, we cannot really get as far as we had hoped, and we will accept one or other of the amendments", which would not cut across any parliamentary or accounting conventions. If enough progress is made—we will be some way short of the full deal, as I said—we may be able to dispense with that. I hope that the Minister will comment on the exact nature of the constraint, as he sees it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot go very much further than I did previously. I am afraid that there is still an element of misunderstanding in this regard about government accounting rules. We cannot conclude or complete negotiations even in principle in advance of Royal Assent. That means that we cannot take actions that are irreversible. Perhaps it would be better if I wrote in more detail about this to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate because, inevitably, I am simplifying. It does not matter whether the date is 7 September, 7 October or 7 November. There is preparatory work that we can do; I gave an example of that. We can have and agree an independent valuation, which we can submit for state aid purposes. However, we cannot conclude or complete negotiations in advance of Royal Assent. To do so would be for the Government to assume Parliament's wishes before it had expressed them.
We do not own the Tote—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right in one sense that no one owns it. However, even if no one owns it, Parliament is its guardian; I hope that the noble Lord can agree with that. We can make good progress and I hope that by early September we will have done so. But there is a point beyond which, for entirely proper reasons, we cannot go. I know that that sounds to some extent like Catch-22; there is an element of that. However, it is for the protection of the public interest and Parliament that we must act in that way.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the Bill as drafted receives Royal Assent and negotiations are subsequently completed with the Racing Trust, would it not be wholly in order for the House to amend Part 1 to ensure that the

25
commencement order was subject to consideration by the House after Royal Assent and the subsequent completion of negotiations? I hope that the Minister can answer that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we grouped Amendment No. 42 with these amendments but I understand that that was not acceptable. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with that; we simply believe that it would be the wrong thing to do.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and his offer to write a letter; we could do with clarification in this regard. However, I do not need clarification now for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Sections 1 and 2: supplemental]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) If, six months after the appointed day, the successor company is wholly owned by the Crown, Part 1 of this Act shall cease to have effect and the Horserace Totaliser Board shall be reestablished as on the day before this Act was passed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment puts in place a check on the length of time for which the newly nationalised Tote can remain wholly owned by the Crown. We have already debated whether there is a need to put a parliamentary check on the body to which the Tote is sold. However, the amendment covers a different issue. It requires the Tote to be sold rather than to remain wholly owned by the Crown. We have already heard from the Minister that the Government are nationalising the Tote only as a means of selling it to, I hope, the Racing Trust. My concern is that there is nothing in the Bill that requires the Government to sell the Tote once it has been nationalised. That concern has not been helped by the wording of the Government's later amendment, which includes the phrase "if" the Secretary of State disposes of the Tote, rather than "when".
In Grand Committee, there was considerable discussion about whether it would be preferable for the Tote to remain as it is in the unlikely event that it was not possible to sell it to the Racing Trust. I hope that this amendment is less contentious and that all sides of the House agree that it would be preferable for the Tote to remain as it is—owned by no one—rather than to become a nationalised industry. This amendment states that if the nationalised Tote has not been sold within six months, then Part 1 of the Bill falls and the Tote reverts back to its previous ownership.
4 p.m.
A similar amendment was debated in Committee, when I suggested that there should be a one-year limit on the time that the Tote could remain nationalised without reference back to Parliament. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the House of the Minister's response in Committee when he said:
26
"We do not want to retain Crown ownership of the Tote for more than a day. A few hours was suggested, and that would do very well … We intend that the sale to the Racing Trust will occur as soon as the Tote is vested … in the successor company. More to the point, we can ensure that that is the case because we will not transfer the assets of the Tote until a deal is ready. So there will be no question of the Crown being the owner of the successor company for a year".—[Official Report, 31/3/04; col. GC 473.]
The Minister's response in Committee was helpful and reassuring, although it fell somewhat short of the guarantee that was requested. I have no doubt that one year is far too long. Thus I have settled upon six months as a reasonable length of time, although I must admit that I was tempted to take the Minister at his word and to include a time limit of one day.
When this was debated in Grand Committee, the Minister pointed out that the wording of my amendment could be tightened. I am grateful for his suggestion, which I have duly taken on board. This amendment puts in place a safety check: something that it hopefully will never be necessary to use, but nevertheless a sensible strengthening of the Bill before us.
In order to assist understanding the argument in favour of such a safety check and the appropriateness of its inclusion within this Bill, it would perhaps be helpful to draw upon the precedents previously brought to the attention of the House by the Minister in Grand Committee. The Postal Services Act 2000 reorganised the Post Office by establishing it as a public limited company, wholly owned by the Crown. That is precisely what the Bill does with the Tote. However, while we are concerned that the Tote might remain nationalised, in 2000 there was concern that the Post Office might be privatised. To overcome this concern, the Government made sure that the Postal Services Act had checks to prevent such an occurrence. That is exactly the effect of my amendment.
The Post Office was subject to a manifesto commitment, as is the Tote. The Government have set up similar enabling legislation for both the Tote and the Post Office. I hope and trust that the Government will recognise the benefit of building upon this precedent and of putting in place a similar mechanism for this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that there is an issue of great principle here; there is an issue of priorities and of which is the more desirable of the options available to us.
We are all agreed that we want a sale to a racing trust. There is apparently a disagreement about what is the second-best option. We take the view that if, for reasons beyond our control, sale to a racing trust is not possible, we should sell it commercially with 50 per cent of the proceeds of the sale going to racing. The Opposition take the view that the second alternative should be a return to the status quo, with the Tote being as it is now.

27
I do not know what the view of the racing industry would be. I suspect that those concerned would rather have 50 per cent of the proceeds of a sale to the situation as it is now, but in any event it would be contrary to our manifesto commitment and, for that reason, I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I will not revisit the fact that it would be contrary to that manifesto commitment to sell to anybody but the Racing Trust. That said, however, it will not surprise the Minister that I am disappointed that the Government do not recognise the need for this amendment. It seems to do nothing but strengthen the Bill and it is entirely in keeping with the Government's stated wishes.
If the whole argument revolves around whether or not the racing industry will be in favour of returning the Tote to its current position, then I think that it would be wise to consult the racing industry in advance of Third Reading. As it stands, without this amendment, there is no requirement for the Government to sell the Tote once it has been nationalised.
As I mentioned at the start of the proceedings, these Benches welcome the principles behind Part 1 of the Bill but we continue to remain concerned that so much must be taken on trust. The Minister had previously accepted that the time-scale within the amendment was more than generous—compared, as I mentioned to the House, to the period of one day that he himself envisaged in Committee. Similarly, the Minister freely admits that the Government have no intention of owning the Tote for longer than it is necessary to permit the sale. I therefore cannot understand why the Minister is unable to accept this eminently sensible check on the Government's powers to retain the Tote as a nationalised industry.
However, this amendment is linked with the previous amendments which we have been discussing. It is something we shall need to revisit in the totality of Part 1, when we return after the Summer Recess. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Pre-sale issue of shares &c. to government]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 4 and to speak also to Amendment No. 5, the substantive amendment, the purpose of which is to put on the face of the Bill the policy that has already been announced in both Houses.
In the event of a sale to racing, the disposal will reflect the stake that racing has in the Tote. If the Secretary of State decides to sell to someone other than racing, then racing will receive 50 per cent of the proceeds of that sale—again reflecting the stake that racing has in the Tote.
I find it impossible to distinguish the argument for this amendment from the arguments on the preceding amendments, and in particular on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. It raises again the issue of how far we can go down the road of what we all intend, which is the sale to a racing trust before Royal Assent. I appreciate that the amendments which have been put down to my Amendment No. 5 are intended to press the Government further in that direction than it is possible, under government accounting rules, for them to go.
I very much sympathise with noble Lords opposite and with my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who find it frustrating that the Government are not able—for reasons which I think they understand better now but which were not adequately understood at an earlier stage of this Bill—to commit themselves on the face of the Bill to the outcome which we all desire. As a result, it must be extremely frustrating for those who have not been paying attention to the Bill's proceedings to find that we are now discussing matters which are not on the face of the legislation.
I do not intend to press this amendment. I put it down in order to show the extent to which we could go in putting on the face of the Bill, if we had to, a second option of a sale with 50 per cent of the proceeds going to racing. In other words, the intention was to cast aside any doubts there might be that, in the event that the sale to a racing trust was not possible, the Treasury would simply take the money and run—which is what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, though much more elegantly and politely.
I do not think that it is necessary to have an amendment of this kind on the face of the Bill. I put the amendment down solely because of the doubts which have been expressed. I think that the air is now clearer than it was, and that my undertaking to write to noble Lords and to put a copy of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses ought to straighten up the situation before we reach Third Reading.
I move Amendment No. 4 now and leave the following amendment before the House so that the amendments to it can be considered; but, when Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 have been debated, I give notice of my intention not to move Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. We are making good progress on Part 1 of the Bill as much will be left to what we hope will be successful negotiations between now and September. However, there is one aspect of this which I should be grateful if the noble Lord would cover in his correspondence that he intends to put in the Library of the House—I hope as soon as possible so that we can consider it over the recess—and that is the link between what the Minister has just said and European state aid rules.
I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm what discussions have taken place with the European Commission since Committee before Easter about the return to racing, which is at the heart of this

29
amendment, in the event of a sale to someone other than a racing trust. Having studied the DTI information on state aid, it clearly says:
"The Commission will take a minimum of two months from receipt of a complete notification to take a decision. Recently the average time taken is four-five months from the date of notification".
This is an important area for discussion. If the Commission says that the Government are unable to return the money to racing, or that they can return, say, 10 per cent only, what power does the House have over such a decision? Can the Minister confirm what would happen if the House refused to accept the European Commission's ruling on the percentage that the Government could legally return to racing? In other words, if the House today were to approve the amendment, or a similar amendment were reintroduced in September, on the basis that 50 per cent of the proceeds would be returned to racing, what would happen if the European Commission ruled against that and ruled that none of the money should be returned to racing, for example? What would happen if the House voted against such an order changing the percentage to zero?
It seems to me that we may be being offered a full sense of control by the Minister when, in fact, the power to vary this particular percentage rests almost entirely with Brussels. All I am seeking from the Minister in a spirit of co-operation is an explanation of how negotiations are progressing with Brussels. The earlier negotiations were time limited. They expired and now we are in a vacuum where further discussions are under way and are clearly critically relevant if at some stage of the Bill's proceedings we were to accept a percentage on the face of the Bill. For that reason I should be grateful if, first, the Minister could let us know how discussions are progressing with the European Commission and, secondly and more importantly, the specific answers to the points that I made with regard to Commission procedure in the event that it overrules any given percentage subsequent to the House considering this amendment if it were returned in this or a similar form in September.
It might also assist the Minister to know that, in the light of all these discussions, like him I will not vote on the relevant amendments nor will I put them before the House.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having tabled this amendment in the first place because it was designed to deal with certain worries racing had both as regards the price at which the Tote would be sold and the share that racing would get were it not to be sold to a racing trust. For that effort we are grateful. We are grateful even if the amendment is withdrawn today as it provides a statement of where the Government's policy stands, even if we cannot all agree with it.
Within racing there is something of a divide on this amendment. All racing thought that some of it was helpful but some of racing did not think that all of it was helpful. Therefore, it gets us off the hook as well
30
as the Government if the amendment is withdrawn this afternoon. We shall be much better able to consider whether an amendment of this type has value in the Bill, whether as a government amendment or otherwise, when we return on 7 September with the knowledge that we shall then have.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the correction; of course, we are debating Amendment No. 4 and we cannot advance on that formally. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lipsey, for what they have said.
I can help the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, some but perhaps not all of the way on the state aid issue. We recognise that there are two legitimate shareholders in the Tote; that is, racing and the taxpayer, although the legal position is that the Tote's assets are owned by the Tote board. It is right that taxpayers should receive market value for racing for their share in the Tote. In effect we are not selling the Tote but the public's share in the Tote. It will be subject to a full independent valuation at the time of sale and the price paid by racing will reflect this. I have already indicated that there is no reason why that independent valuation should not be prepared for state aid purposes before Royal Assent; in other words, we would work very hard to secure that that is done before Third Reading. If that were to mean moving Third Reading slightly, I think by agreement with the usual channels that might be possible. It might be a better outcome than having Third Reading too early.
The European Commission was originally notified of the sale plans in 2001 and we have submitted an updated notification. The Commission has responded with further questions and we shall reply shortly. I do not have in front of me the dates of our submission and the dates of the Commission's response and of our reply but I shall include them in correspondence to noble Lords. The Commission has indicated that it will not be able to give state aid clearance until a valuation is completed nearer the time of sale but we are hopeful that this will not be a problem. Again, I should like to take advice on whether that can be done before Royal Assent. My understanding is that it would be possible. I should like that to be achieved, if possible. Under those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, as amendments to Amendment No. 5, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should inform the House that Amendment No. 10 is misplaced in the Marshalled List. It is, in fact, an amendment to page 5, line 45. I shall therefore call it after Amendment No. 12.
Clause 8 [Exclusive licence]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 24, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, from our discussions in Committee there appeared to be a considerable degree of support for the principle behind this amendment; namely, that we should not rule out the possibility of extending the exclusive licence for pool betting. Noble Lords will be aware that there has been an exclusive licence for pool betting in place since the Tote came into existence in 1928. The arguments should be studied carefully—very carefully—before we agree to legislation that will remove this exclusive licence in seven years with no possibility of its renewal.
It is ironic that throughout our earlier discussions the Government argued that the Bill should allow them flexibility about how best to proceed and yet when we on these Benches suggest an amendment to provide such flexibility for future governments Ministers now seem reluctant to accept our suggestion. If I may, it is worth briefly recapping on our discussions with the Minister in Committee. First, the Minister appeared to suggest that the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading had insisted on a one-off seven year licence. When pressed the Minister then went on to say that the European Commission's rules on the single market did not allow the extension of the Tote's exclusive licence.
This latter point was quickly picked up by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who highlighted the exclusive pool betting licences in France, through the Pari Mutuel, as well as in Germany and Italy. Eventually the Minister changed tack and decided that it was safest to say that the Government had chosen the seven-year licence of their own free will although it appeared that they were aware of the possibility of challenge. The Minister said:
"I am not saying that the deal we have has been dictated by anyone, by the European Commission, the Office of Fair Trading or anyone else. The Government believe in competition because we believe in the single market and because we know that rules exist which, if they are breached, create at the very least a risk of challenge".—[Official Report, 5/4/04; col. GC 504.]
I fear that Ministers are seeing the spectre of legal challenges where none exists. There are clear precedents within Europe for exclusive pool-betting licences on horseracing. I am sure that many noble Lords will share my view that the European Commission would think long and hard before ruling against pool betting, particularly given the importance of the Pari Mutuel to the French, for example.
On the domestic front there is a clear precedent in support of the amendment, which I trust will reassure the Minister. As I mentioned in Grand Committee, the National Lottery, which is covered in Part 3 of the Bill, has an exclusive seven-year licence. My amendment is designed to follow the precedent of the National Lottery, although in this instance there is no requirement for the licence to be renewed.
It is worth restating that the amendment merely gives future Secretaries of State the option to renew the licence, or not to renew it, at the end of seven years. Noble Lords may recall my brief foray into economic theory to justify the retention of the exclusive licence. There is indeed a strong economic argument for such retention, although the precedent of the National Lottery is perhaps more compelling, particularly as both the Tote and the National Lottery return money to good causes.
The gambling market in the UK offers a number of alternative yet easily substitutable forms of betting on a horse race. Punters can use bookmakers, with either fixed price or starting price odds; there is the new option of the betting exchanges; and there is still the Tote. All these options are easily interchangeable, which limits the downside of a monopoly in any one betting market. This tripartite system for betting helps to ensure that all three markets run efficiently and smoothly.
The same logic applies to the Tote as to the National Lottery. It is clear that the bigger the pool, the more efficient it will be. We have only one National Lottery because this guarantees big prizes, increased efficiency and more money returned to good causes.
I briefly touched on the emergence of betting exchanges, which raises another important point. Development of new technologies within the gaming market is progressing quickly. Who could have imagined the importance of betting exchanges just a few years ago? This rapid advance in technology is yet another reason for the Government to retain sufficient flexibility within the provisions of the Bill, so that they can continue with the exclusive licence if this is found to be in the best interests of both racing and the public.
The amendment would remove the present subsection (11), which prohibits the renewal of the licence, and replace it with a new subsection (11), giving the Secretary of State the option to direct the Gaming Board to renew, not to renew or to revoke the exclusive licence at the end of seven years. Any decision made by future Secretaries of State would need parliamentary approval. This is a sensible check, and would provide future governments with specific authority in the public interest in the event of any challenge.
Paragraph (b) gives the Secretary of State the ability to award the licence either to the incumbent or to another company. This is designed to keep the licence holder on its toes by making sure that it does not abuse its market position. Again, the precedent for this arrangement is drawn from the National Lottery.
Finally, paragraph (c) would allow the exclusive licence to be renewed ad infinitum.
In conclusion, the amendment is sensible and seeks to give future governments sufficient flexibility to make the decision nearer to the time of the renewal or otherwise of the seven-year licence. The amendment makes no commitment to renew that licence. I trust

33
that the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling behind the amendment and respond accordingly. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I had not intended to enter into this debate, but since my name was mentioned in reference to the debate in Committee, I thought that I would reinforce the point that I made then with the additional point that in this country we have gone down a road that is uncommon, if not unique. We have bookmakers who offer odds to the betting public in competition with the Tote, which offers pool as opposed to fixed-odds betting. An inevitable result of this freedom of movement in the market in which bookmakers operate is that the success of the Tote pool has been patchy to say the least in areas where there is not a lot of interest from the public. Where public interest is present and large betting pools arise, the Tote does very well in competition with bookmakers.
In other countries they have opted to go down the other road. Indeed, gambling is illegal in France, as we discovered in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee on gambling. I had not known that, and I thought I knew a lot about France. Gambling there is illegal, but their way of dealing with these matters is to introduce exceptions to the ban when it is appropriate—very French, one might say. There are two fundamental exceptions. One is the Pari Mutuel, which was created in 1928. They decided not to allow bookmaking at all in the world of racing and to make it exclusively a betting pool. The other exception of course is casinos in resorts and spas in France. An additional exception has also been introduced recently whereby towns with populations of more than 500,000 may apply for one casino.
That is by the by. We have a curious situation here which may mean that, psychologically, there is a underrating of the role of the Tote in its relationship with bookmakers. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said in comparing the Tote to the National Lottery, the size of the pool is fundamental to the success of the Tote in raising money. People can choose which horses to support in racing, but the bigger the pool the better.
Recent talk about dividing the pool up into small parts does not offer a practical or realistic solution. It is just unfortunate that the phrase "Tote monopoly" has been current for so many years. For most of us, "monopoly" has a pejorative note to it. In reality, however, in the day-to-day world, the bigger a pool, sweepstake or totaliser is, the better it will be for all those who benefit from it. To divide that up into small pools and to allow other operators to compete is a prescription for the end of pool betting.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, for all the reasons so eloquently set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the Racing Trust and the Tote sought a longer period of exclusivity than seven years—that is no secret. We also took the view that seven years was enough. It was the lowest number of years at which a deal could be done, and a deal was agreed.
34
I am about to go into negotiations with the Government on this deal and this price. I would like to do so with a reasonably intact reputation for keeping my word. Having signed up to this deal—although I understand the strong arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—I do not seek an extension or even a power for the Government to extend the exclusive licence.
If that sounds rather high-minded, I am afraid there is also a low-minded reason. We are negotiating the price that will have to be paid. Obviously, a Tote with a seven-year exclusive licence is worth more than a Tote with a nought-year exclusive licence, and less than a Tote with an infinitely long exclusive licence. If we accept the seven-year exclusive licence, that brings the price down.
That is not an abstract point. At this very moment—I trust—the Tote will be negotiating arrangements with the racecourses designed to cement its position after the seven years have expired. Those arrangements will be costing it current cash out of the accounts, but they are designed to cement its position in the long term in light of the seven-year exclusive licence. They are all reducing the value of the Tote. So there will be money off in return for the Government rejecting the amendment. At this stage in the negotiations, I recommend that Tote supporters in the House go for that.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with both the high-minded and low-minded arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I would like to retain a reputation for consistency as well. It has always been the view of the Government that an exclusive licence is a transitional measure to foster a strong pool-betting market, so far as we can obtain it, and allow the Racing Trust-owned successor an opportunity to establish itself in a fully commercial environment. The business should not be in public ownership.
Any provision that would permit the continuation beyond the seven years would run counter to our objective of opening up the pool-betting market to greater competition. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rightly said, seven years without the option to continue was the deal. In the interests of consistency and in view of how we have been making progress, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not to press the amendment.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on 99 per cent of issues when it comes to the interests of racing, but I differ with him and the Minister on this matter. I simply do not accept the economic argument that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, put to the House. Competition in racing is effectively between different opportunities to individual punters when it comes to choice. Removing one of those choices reduces competition; it does not enhance it.
I understand that Ministers within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have found it a struggle to convince their colleagues in government to permit even a

35
seven-year exclusive licence, and I praise the Minister for the achievement. In those circumstances, it is wholly understandable that he is unwilling to accept any amendments that might upset that arrangement. However, future Ministers for Sport and, if I may say so, future chairmen of the Racing Trust might have a different point of view from those that we heard this afternoon. The Minister said in Committee that this deal was the only deal on the table; that is his prerogative. However, it is the duty of this House to decide whether the deal before us is acceptable.
In the context of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about competition, I remind the House that the Government's own regulatory impact assessment stated that without an exclusive licence there would be:
"Lower Tote contributions to Racing",
and the:
"Possible loss of pool betting at some race meetings/racecourses".
That is the crux of the matter—the safeguarding of the Tote's contribution to racing and helping to make sure that all race meetings, particularly the smaller meetings and courses, benefit from pool betting well into the future. For those reasons, I have no doubt that the amendments strengthen the Bill and British horseracing. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on the issue.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Higgins, L.

Attlee, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Avebury, L.

Howe, E.

Barker, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Blatch, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bowness, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Colwyn, L.

Luke, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Dholakia, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elles, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Maddock, B.

Elton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Moynihan, L.

Fookes, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fowler, L.

Naseby, L.

Garden, L.

Neuberger, B.

Glentoran, L.

Newby, L.

Goodhart, L.

Noakes, B.

36

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Onslow, E.

Sharples, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Prior, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Rawlings, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Taverne, L.

Rees, L.

Tebbit, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rogan, L.

Ullswater, V.

Roper, L.

Waddington, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Walmsley, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Walpole, L.

Sandberg, L.

Wilcox, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Haskel, L.

Alli, L.

Haworth, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Hayman, B.

Henig, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Borrie, L.

Jones, L.

Brennan, L.

Jordan, L.

Brett, L.

Judd, L.

Brookman, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Leitch, L.

Carter of Coles, L.

Lipsey, L.

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McDonagh, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Manchester, Bp.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mitchell, L.

Drayson, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Patel, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pendry, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Pitkeathley, B.

Prosser, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Filkin, L.

Puttnam, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Radice, L.

Gale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Giddens, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilbert, L.

Richard, L.

Golding, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rosser, L.

Goudie, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Snape, L.

Harrison, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

37

Strabolgi, L.

Uddin, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Thornton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Triesman, L.

Whitaker, B.

Truscott, L.

Whitty, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turnberg, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(a) may make an order revoking the exclusive licence if a material term or condition of the licence has been materially breached and that breach has not been remedied within 28 days of written notice having been given by the Gaming Board to the successor company notifying it that if it does not remedy the breach the Gaming Board may make an order revoking the exclusive licence, and"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have just been arguing about the status of the seven-year exclusive licence for the Tote and we said, "Seven years; nothing but seven years; the whole seven years". The amendment provides a kind of protection for that because at the moment the Bill allows the Gaming Board to remove the exclusive licence without very much ceremony, I fear. So the aim of the amendments in the group is to inject ceremony—for example, the 28 day rule—and I hope that the Government, who rightly put so much store on the seven years, will accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendments m this group, which bear more than a passing resemblance to those tabled in Grand Committee. I hope and trust that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in his brevity has been more successful in convincing the Minister with his compelling argument than I was in Grand Committee.
Perhaps I may elaborate a little, as the issues involved are important. They relate closely to those that affect the amendment that I have tabled, to which I shall speak in a moment. Having re-read our discussions in Grand Committee I am afraid that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I am no wiser as to what, if any, circumstances could justify the immediate removal of an exclusive licence. I hope that when the Minister addresses the amendment he can give a clear answer to that simple question.
It would also be appreciated if the Minister could clarify whether the removal of the exclusive licence would prevent the successor body continuing to offer pool betting on a non-exclusive basis. The amendments in the group similarly concern the ability of the Gaming Board to remove the exclusive licence of the successor body. As currently drafted, the Bill gives the Gaming Board the ability to remove the successor body's exclusive licence,
"if they think that a term or condition of the licence has been breached".
38
In Grand Committee it was clear that there was concern among a number of noble Lords that the Bill gave the Gaming Board too much power and could be against the principles of natural justice. Their concern was heightened when we learned that the only appeal against such a decision would be through judicial review, which can often be clumsy, time consuming and expensive.
Nevertheless, the Minister was, as always, robust in his defence of government policy and went on to say that the Gaming Board already had those powers. By way of an example, he went on to draw an analogy with its powers to close down casinos. It is greatly appreciated that the Minister subsequently reflected upon his comments and wrote to me and other Members who attended the Grand Committee to clarify that point. His letter recognised that he may have somewhat overstated the existing powers of the Gaming Board. The letter also went on to set out the powers which it is anticipated would be given to the new gambling commission with which the Draft Gambling Bill proposes to replace the Gaming Board.
These new powers will require that before any licence can be revoked it will be necessary to have a review to which the licence holder rightly has the opportunity to make representations. Similarly the putative Gambling Bill proposes that there should be a gambling appeal tribunal to hear any appeals against the decision to suspend the licence. Those safeguards form the basis of my amendment, which, together with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, improve the Bill by adding checks and balances to the powers that the Gaming Board will have over the successor company and the operation of its exclusive licence.
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining in his letter of 26 April the latest government thinking about the regulation of gambling and I trust that my proposal sits within that framework and that the amendments have been drafted in a manner that the Government may find acceptable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the intention of my letter of 26 April was to head off amendments like this at the pass. It was not my intention that we should continue to debate this issue. The Government intend to sell the Tote to a consortium of racing interests. As part of the sale, the Tote will be given a seven-year exclusive licence to provide pool betting. As I said in response to the previous amendment, this is a transitional measure to foster a strong pool betting market and to allow the Racing Trust-owned successor company an opportunity to establish itself in a fully commercial environment. After the seven-year period of exclusivity the licence will expire and under the terms of this Bill any bookmaker holding a permit will be able to provide pool betting services on horseracing.
The Bill does contain a reserve power for the Gaming Board to revoke the exclusive licence in the event that the terms and conditions are breached. But we do not believe that the Gaming Board will ever need to exercise this power. We believe that the successor company—assumed to be the Racing Trust-owned

39
Tote—will co-operate fully with the Gaming Board in complying with the terms of the licence. The Tote, which has an excellent reputation, would have to commit an extremely serious breach in order for the licence to be revoked. A revocation in any circumstances other than a serious breach would be unreasonable and, on that basis, open to judicial review.
We do not believe that it is appropriate to set up a review procedure and an appeals process. A licence of this kind would not be revoked lightly. If the holder of an exclusive licence committed an offence so serious that the Gaming Board decided to revoke it, we believe that it would be in the public interest to revoke the licence without delay; in other words, if there were something so seriously wrong that it had to be done immediately and any damage may be compounded by leaving it for 28 days. However, under the Bill, the Gaming Board is already obliged to specify the reasons of any decision to revoke a licence. If the holder of a pool operating licence disagrees with the Gaming Board's decision, he or she can challenge the decision through judicial review. We do not consider that an additional statutory right of appeal is necessary.
My officials are already working on a draft code of practice that will inform the licence as a whole. It will be circulated to the current Tote management and to the Gaming Board shortly. A meeting has already been arranged for early August to discuss it. I am sure that a collaborative approach of that kind will deliver sufficient clarity on the issue without any need for provisions appearing in primary legislation. I believe that those discussions and the final code will greatly assist in spelling out the relationships between the parties and their responsibilities and should be an entirely satisfactory way of proceeding. A formal system of review, representation and appeal may simply serve to harden the relative positions of the parties at an early stage, when an informal approach may be good enough to resolve matters.
As I have been able to give additional information about the way in which negotiations are proceeding, the results of which should be available before Third Reading, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for saying that the code will be available before Third Reading. I take his point that in such extreme circumstances there would be a case—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I qualified that remark. I believe I said that I hope it will be available before Third Reading.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has clarified his clarification. It enables me, even more comfortably, to end up where I hoped to end up. I can see the point about taking it away if something really disastrous takes place and it turns out that the chairman of the Tote is taking 20 per cent out of the pools and putting it into his Mauritian bank account. Of course, that could not happen under the current chairman; but
40
in the past there have been some strange chairmen of the Tote. Nevertheless, I do not find the promise of judicial review as a backstop very comforting. The judicial review hoops are relatively easy to jump through as long as one follows the procedure, but they may have little to do with justice.
In the circumstances, given what the Minister has said, I hope that the code will be available and that we shall be able to study it before Third Reading. That will give us a good idea about where the balance between the Minister's argument and that of the proponents of these amendments stands. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Section 8: supplemental]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) An exclusive licence shall not be revoked under subsection (1)(c) unless the Gaming Board has previously published a code of practice for the interpretation of subsection (1)(c)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 follows on from our entertaining and informative discussion in Grand Committee on Clause 9. My understanding is that the clause to which my amendment refers is designed to replace the requirement that the Tote is a fit and proper organisation. Today we are in a somewhat strange position as the Bill seeks to incorporate a clause of the Draft Gambling Bill which may or may not find parliamentary time this Session.
I was indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his explanation in Grand Committee of the terms contained within this clause. There can be no doubt that we all benefited from his experience on the Greenway committee, examining the detail of the Draft Gambling Bill. Nevertheless, now that the Minister has had three months to consider the issue, I trust that he is in a better position to provide a full response to what the Government mean by the terms referred to and the scope of the definition in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of Clause 9(1)(c). In Grand Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, best summed up the meaning when he said:
"anyone who has money and goes to a racecourse, casino or amusement arcade is vulnerable by the very fact that he or she is going to lose money … It is a question of common sense".—[Official Report, 5/4/04; col. GC 517.]
While it is undoubtedly correct that it is a matter of common sense, I think that our duty today is to make sure that the Government set out very clearly what they intend the clause to achieve. Clause 9 sets out the conditions of the exclusive licence, which the successor body will be required to promote, and which it could forfeit if it were seen not to be protecting vulnerable adults.
To return to the detail of the amendment, I trust that it is non-controversial and that Members on all sides of the House will recognise that it is not only right but manifestly sensible that the Gaming Board clearly set out

41
what is expected from the successor body and how it is supposed to fulfil its obligations to protect vulnerable adults.
It would be appreciated if the Minister were able to clarify whether the on-course bookmakers will also be subject to the same obligations to protect vulnerable persons. I ask that because it seems to be a somewhat hollow and superficial exercise for the successor body's staff to protect drunken punters from throwing away their money on long shots on the Tote if the same punters can walk to the rails and give their money to the bookmakers instead.
To conclude, I trust that the Minister is able to provide the House with a clear indication of what the Government intend the new subsection to achieve and what is meant by,
"protecting … vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by betting".
I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, reminded the Grand Committee that Clause 9(1)(c) duplicates the intended objectives of gambling regulations under the Draft Gambling Bill. The intention in this Bill is that the issue should apply also to the exclusive licence of the Racing Trust or whoever it is.
Clause 9(1) provides that the Secretary of State, in considering whether to require the Gaming Board to issue or to revoke a licence, is to consider whether such issue or revocation would satisfy the objectives of the Draft Gambling Bill. Straightaway I say that those objectives have been welcomed by the Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny and have achieved the general recognition that they are desirable objectives.
The Secretary of State can exercise this power only while the Crown wholly owns the successor company. I can envisage only very limited circumstances where it has come to her notice that there was good evidence to suggest that the holder of the licence was somehow failing with regard to the objectives in paragraph (c). In other words, something would have to come to light after the successor company had been issued with a licence to cause the Secretary of State to reassess her decision to require the Gaming Board to issue the licence in the first place.
The circumstances in which the Secretary of State could do that would be fairly obvious and would not require any detailed interpretation of the paragraph. For example, if the Secretary of State discovered that the successor company was letting children into its betting shops to place bets, depending on the extent of the problem, she might be entitled to consider whether it was a suitable body to conduct pool betting. Of course, she would have to ensure that good administrative practice—namely, that she acted lawfully and reasonably—was followed in reaching such a decision.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the assurance that he wants—that on-track betting is covered in the licensing objectives. In Schedule 4, paragraph 2 of the Draft Gambling Bill all forms of
42
gambling are included, including on-track betting. However, I think that the power of revocation and the occasions on which it might be necessary are so limited that it would be unnecessary to include the proposed amendment, and I hope it will not be pressed.
5 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his clarification of the scope of Clause 9. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Control when no exclusive licence]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 1, leave out "4" and insert "7"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in his place. He tabled an amendment in Grand Committee, which I call the "Larkhill amendment". Its purpose was to remove the number of race days which qualify a racecourse for point-to-point exemption notices for the purpose of conducting pool betting once the exclusive licence comes to an end. He said that there were racecourses which hold point-to-point races on more than four days a year—the number of days stated in the Bill. He mentioned Larkhill as an example. I was sympathetic to what he said and stated that I would give it consideration.
I should explain that this provision is not limited to Larkhill. Otherwise, I suppose it would become a hybrid Bill; it would mean that any racecourse could apply for a point-to-point exemption notice. That is what would happen if the original amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, had been agreed to. It would defeat the purpose of the notice, which is to provide a lighter regulatory regime for pool betting on point-to-point racecourses. The right thing to do is to raise the limit from four to seven days. That is what the amendment does. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for tabling this government amendment in response to the amendment that I put down in Grand Committee. It deals with almost all the concerns that I raised at that stage. Since then, I have been informed that point-to-point courses receive certificates of approval from the Levy Board to conduct betting. That appears to make the restriction in the Bill ineffective. I trust that when the gambling commission inherits the issuing of these certificates of approval from the Levy Board, it will look again at this matter and make sure that no point-to-point courses are disadvantaged.
I think I stressed at the time that the Bill introduces a new regime for point-to-point meetings. Responsibility is now placed on the course managers rather than on the point-to-point secretaries. Of course, in many instances that may be the same individual. Applications must be made before the commencement of the calendar year, which means that decisions must be made long beforehand by the different organisers if they wish to run their own tote.

43
At present, the Tote grants an "authority" to run pool betting to the organisers of a meeting during the year. Not all courses wish to run pool betting systems.
Larkhill, as the Minister mentioned, is the only course that runs eight meetings. I did not want the number seven. That is why I said that the amendment addressed almost all the concerns. But I am an old hand and seven-eighths is much better than four-eighths; so I would not want to query the number at this time. Presumably, on most point-to-point courses, eight days is self-limiting in that the ground would not stand more than eight days' racing on the same turf. Where there is more than one meeting, discussions can be held with the Gaming Board of Great Britain to see how many exemption notices would be appropriate for that course.
I am very grateful to the Minister. With that, I hope that the House will agree to his amendment.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, in Grand Committee, we took the separate but related point of harness racing and the possibility of exemption certificates for harness racing to complement those extended to point-to-points by the amendment originally suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I declare my interest as president of the British Harness Racing Club, and indeed a provisional driver under its rules. I want to square off the circle by reporting that it has emerged that it is possible to make progress in harness racing without a change to primary legislation. Discussions are well advanced with the Levy Board on how to permit that. That fully discharges the commitment made by the Minister in Grand Committee to deal with this problem. I am extremely grateful to him and his department for their assistance.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, before I start, I should also like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for drawing this important issue to the attention of the House. As he mentioned, Larkhill had eight days of racing last year, but applied on only seven days for the use of a totalisator.
It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could explain how the figure of seven was reached. Having re-read the excellent speech of my noble friend, I am concerned that the Government may have simply looked at the number of licences awarded in 2003 and used that as the basis for the higher figure. I am not certain that that is the best way to draft primary legislation.
Nevertheless, I recognise that the amendment represents a significant step forward by the Government in protecting point-to-point racing. Subject to clarification from the Minister on the rationale for the number seven, I am very pleased to support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, seven is better than four. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said so. I rely on what he said. We could not have had the number uncontrolled, as I have explained. Seven is satisfactory for all point-to-point racing, except for
44
Larkhill, as far as I can see. This is a compromise; I hope it is an acceptable compromise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for his remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Property of the Levy Board]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) In exercising his responsibilities under this section, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the Horserace Forensic Laboratory is established as an independent agency with the same aims and purposes as it had at the time which this Act is passed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment covers the critically important area of drugs in sport. This is a very important subject and my analysis, far from digressing from the amendment, is central to it. I am therefore pleased to have this opportunity to facilitate the House's understanding of the arguments involved and to explain how it is central to the amendment.
As noble Lords are aware, the Government propose to transfer the Horserace Forensic Laboratory to the British Horseracing Board, which is of course the governing body for the sport. I am concerned that such a proposal is fundamentally flawed and that it would not be in the best long-term interests of racing.
Anti-doping arrangements for any sport, including horseracing, should be independent of the governance of that sport and should at all times avoid conflicts of interest and the possibility of governing bodies being put in the invidious position of being gamekeeper turned poacher. Parliament has a duty to hold the Government to account in that respect, especially if sports bodies do not wish to tackle the problem of drugs seriously and in an open and transparent manner. I should stress that there is no implication whatever that horseracing is anything but totally committed to the fight against drugs in sport.
Before I address the detail of my amendment, it may be helpful to recap briefly on the excellent work of the Horserace Forensic Laboratory so that the House has a fuller understanding of the purpose behind the amendment. Since 1963, the HFL has successfully provided drug surveillance services to British horseracing to help to maintain the integrity of the sport, both for participants and the betting industry. The laboratory is now one of the leading authorities in the world on drug testing horses and dogs. This is an achievement of which racing can rightly be proud. It is the mark of the excellent work done by the laboratory that it has been successful in its application to the World Anti-Doping Agency for accreditation to test human samples.
There are only 32 such laboratories in the world, with the UK joining Germany and Spain as the only countries with two accredited laboratories. That was achieved only last week. I congratulate the staff at the laboratory on that impressive achievement.
Many noble Lords already know that I have a passionate interest in ensuring that sport remains drug-free. No doubt that is in part influenced by the memory of being beaten to an Olympic gold medal by

45
athletes who were, as documented by subsequent analysis following the collapse of Communism, in all probability part of a systematic doping policy.
I believe that the Government have a fundamental role to play in helping sports to remain drug-free. In Committee, the Minister accepted that the Government have a responsibility for anti-doping in sport. That responsibility has been ably demonstrated by the strong lead that we took, and the Government took, in the establishment of the world anti-doping code, and the Government's decision, led by the Minister for Sport, to sign up to the declaration on the code. It is worth reviewing the wording of the WADA code, which in Article 8 outlines the right to a fair and impartial hearing as a fundamental basis for drug testing. That is particularly important, because there is the potential for significant breaches of that right in the Government's proposals for the transfer of the Levy Board's assets under Clause 16. As the Minister said in Committee, talking about the transfer of assets:
"Although we have not reached a final decision on that, our approach has been to look to the British Horseracing Board, as the governing body of the sport, to be the most appropriate home for many of the assets held at present by the Levy Board. The BHB is the guardian of the sport".—[Official Report, 5/4/04; col. GC 544.]
I stress again that no criticism of the British Horseracing Board is intended, either explicitly or implicitly, in the amendment. It is about the principle of independence, and it applies equally to any sport. It just so happens that this Bill, and hence this amendment, covers horseracing and the transfer of the Horserace Forensic Laboratory.
The House will be aware of the high stakes that are now involved in drug testing in sport, particularly since the financial rewards of sport have increased so significantly. Just as the incentives for the few greed-ridden athletes to cheat have increased, so has the pressure on the sports organisers to limit the damage done to their sports by positive drug tests. There is always a danger that sports bodies will seek to overlook or minimise the publicity associated with potentially embarrassing drug findings. Perhaps equally important, there will always be the perception that governing bodies want to avoid positive findings, which has not been helped by cases such as the United States Track and Field Federation, which allegedly covered up adverse drug tests by its athletes in the past.
It is essential that the Government take a strong lead in promoting drug-free sport. It is simply not good practice for the sports governing body to control the drug testing laboratory that carries out tests in its own sport. Such a system lays itself open to possible accusations, however false, that the anti-doping process will never be free from interference by that governing body. It is to prevent such accusations that I have tabled this amendment to Clause 16. There have already been cases where sports governing bodies have had to hold hearings for players accused of doping offences when the governing body itself had supplied the drugs. That is no one-off occurrence. In tennis, there was the well publicised case of Greg Rusedski, who was given an ATP-approved supplement that
46
may have been contaminated. Similarly, in rugby there was Keiron Cunningham, the Welsh rugby league captain, who was given HGH by a bogus fitness adviser employed by the Rugby Football League. I am sure that the House can imagine how much more complicated it would be if the same governing body was also responsible for the drug-testing laboratory and the collection of samples. It cannot be right for the Government to hand over control of an anti-doping laboratory to the selfsame governing body responsible for prosecuting adverse drug tests on its athletes, as well as handing out and enforcing any punishments.
To put it bluntly, in Part 2 of the Bill the Government are proposing the principle that the national governing body be responsible for choosing the athlete to be tested, testing the sample, holding the hearing to determine any guilt, deciding any penalty, and then enforcing the penalty. How can such a system ensure a free and fair hearing for anyone accused of a doping offence? It will make it all but impossible for an athlete or an owner of a horse to receive a free and fair hearing, particularly if there was a concern over the actions of the national governing body, as had been the case for Greg Rusedski and Keiron Cunningham. It is that aspect of the system that represents dereliction of the Government's responsibilities under the World Anti-Doping Agency.
5.15 p.m.
My amendment proposes that the laboratory be set up as an independent agency, free from any undue interference or, what is more likely, the perception of undue interference. It is that perception that is important from sporting interests. The appearance, the very suspicion, of undue interference, is one of the key issues here. This year has seen a couple of unfortunate instances where the integrity of racing and jockeys has been questioned. It is of key importance that punters maintain their faith in racing and their faith in the sport as a whole. It would be a tragedy for the sport if the industry were in any way compromised.
My amendment will not resolve the many conflicts of interest that already exist within the UK's anti-doping policy. It would at least prevent another potential flaw being introduced by the Government. The clause, which encodes the Government's intention to give the drug-testing laboratory to the British Horseracing Board, sets a worrying precedent. What is to stop other sports—in particular professional football, where the athletes are often worth as much as the best thoroughbred horses—following a similar route? We have already seen unconfirmed press reports that the football authorities are thinking of moving drug testing away from UK Sport, the Government's anti-doping agency. Can we really expect the international sporting community to believe that we are tough on drugs in sport if we allow a leading sport to control its own drug-testing?
I am aware that racing has put significant resources, particularly financial, into the Horserace Forensic Laboratory. It is right that should be recognised. It seems clear that the terms of the transfer scheme

47
should take account of that investment, perhaps including free tests for horseracing in the future. It is also worth reflecting on the current uncertainty in the racing industry owing to the OFT investigation. While an agreement has been reached, it is still subject to public consultation, and we still cannot be certain that either the British Horseracing Board or the other racing bodies will remain unchanged. It makes far more sense for the future of such an important drug-testing laboratory to be safeguarded through its establishment as an independent agency. I stress again that there is no criticism of the British Horseracing Board implied in anything that I have said. It is the perception and the principle of the sports governing body owning the anti-doping laboratory and testing procedures for its own sport that troubles me. My amendment would dispel such concerns.
I trust that the Minister will agree that on this occasion I have not strayed from the amendment. In the interests of assisting him, it might be helpful if I highlighted three key points, which I would be grateful if he could consider in his reply. First, does the Minister agree that the Government have a lead role, perhaps even a statutory role, in the fight against drugs in sport? Does he further recognise that when his colleague the Minister for Sport signed up to the declaration of the World Anti-Doping Code, that committed the Government to upholding the principle of the right to a fair hearing under Article 8? Finally, does the Minister recognise that handing the drug-testing laboratory and drug-testing collection process for a sport to its own governing body could fundamentally jeopardise the right of an athlete, or anyone involved in the sport, to a fair hearing before that same governing body?
I ask the Minister whether his department has sought advice from the World Anti-Doping Agency, whose chairman, in Parliament, responded to a question I put to him upstairs as to whether it would be better to have an independent anti-doping agency with an unambiguous, "Yes". I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on so fully and comprehensively explaining his amendment. His arguments were persuasive, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge in his response.
We are talking about an exceptional institution. Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting it know that it is a centre of excellence. It has scientists of the highest repute internationally, as indeed has the British Horseracing Board. The perceptions mentioned by the noble Lord are important in racing, for the reasons that he gave. Many of the rows and disagreements—I do not want to put it too strongly—involve the public perception of what, people hope, is a fair and honest sport. By and large, it is fair and honest, but we must maintain the utmost vigilance to sustain the reputation that racing rightly has worldwide.
Apart from that, it was clear to the All-Party Group on Racing and Bloodstock, when we visited, that the work of the laboratory was much wider than just racing.
48
It deals with all kinds of scientific research with regard to animals—dogs and horses mainly, but others too. It is appropriate, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has argued, for such a body to stand independently of any sport. I agree with the noble Lord that that is no criticism of the British Horseracing Board, which has been suggested as the successor. I am sure that it would not want its ownership to inhibit in any way the ability of the laboratory to maintain its high scientific reputation. I hope that the Minister will say that, ultimately, he and the Government hope that the laboratory will stand independently as a centre of excellence and that this is only a temporary measure.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I understand, as will the whole House, the logic behind the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, but I am not sure whether their practical impact is the same. The thing about the British Horseracing Board and racing as a whole is that it is vital to the continuation of racing that there should be a fair system of drug testing and that cheats should be discovered and dealt with. The BHB has such a strong vested interest in that that I find it hard to see how there would be a conflict of interest with the HFL, which is trying to do the same thing.
I have another point to make about the HFL. I must declare a third quadrupedal interest as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. Greyhound racing is not an area, perhaps, into which the HFL will be moving, as human drug testing is. The HFL is already absolutely central to it, and a huge amount of greyhound drug testing goes on. The number of drug-positives has diminished tremendously, although, as noble Lords will know, we lost a Derby winner last year through a drug test. That work must continue, and it seems to me that the British greyhound racing industry has an important interest in the HFL. I trust that, when the ownership arrangements are sorted, that interest will be duly recognised.
Sometimes, our poor old dogs are the poor cousins of the horseracing industry, with all its grand and noble advocates, but attendances at the races are two-thirds the size of those at horseraces. I hope that, with regard to the ownership and control of the HFL, the Minister will not downgrade the importance of greyhound racing just because it is a sport of the working classes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can go some way along the path outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others. I can confirm, as I did in Committee, that the Horserace Forensic Laboratory is a world-renowned centre for equine drug testing. It conducts nearly 9,000 tests a year for the Jockey Club and provides services for other clients, such as the National Greyhound Racing Club, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey reminded us. It is also true that the Horserace Forensic Laboratory has gained accreditation from the World Anti-Doping Agency for testing human sport samples, which significantly enhances its international status. It has also gained a

49
major two-year contract to participate in UK Sport's anti-doping programme. So far, we are all entirely in agreement.
I yield to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in my understanding of drug testing in sport. I acknowledge his expertise, and I admire the passion with which he pursues his concerns. I fully support what he says about drug testing, but it does not lead me to the same conclusion about the amendment and the future of the Horserace Forensic Laboratory.
The first point is that the HFL was established via the Levy Board with racing's money. That means that it should be transferred to racing, along with other Levy Board assets. That is what Clause 16 does, and our intention is to transfer it to the British Horseracing Board. As the governing body of the sport, it is the most appropriate home for the HFL. It will be for the BHB to decide what terms of payment are most suitable for services provided to the Jockey Club and other clients of HFL.
This is the fundamental point: the amendment is based on the assumption that there is a conflict of interest if the same body decides which horses will be tested, how the testing should be done and who should adjudicate on the results. There is not. The testing done by the Horserace Forensic Laboratory is not done for the British Horseracing Board; it is done for the Jockey Club. The British Horseracing Board is the governing body, but the Jockey Club is the regulator. The testing is done for a different organisation. I am sorry to say that, therefore, the whole thrust of the noble Lord's argument is misconceived.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it is far from misconceived. The fact that the BHB pays for the Jockey Club seems to render any distinction somewhat arbitrary.
I shall move from dismissing the Minister's last argument to the fundamental point. It is and will remain the case that the principle here is one of having an independent anti-doping agency. It is wrong that UK Sport should meet, one day, to consider which elite athletes to fund and, the next day, meet under the same chairman to determine who will be tested in an anti-doping programme. Even if that works with all the professionalism evident in UK Sport—Michelle Verroken ran the anti-doping agency with integrity and professionalism that was second to none in the world—it remains possible that there will be a perception that there is a conflict of interest. That perception could be dealt with by separating the two functions. That is the thrust of the amendment.
It is clear that we have a difference of opinion on the matter, and I would like to test the opinion of the House on whether there is merit in setting up the anti-doping laboratory for horseracing—the HFL—as an independent body. I fully recognise the Minister's second point that the Horserace Forensic Laboratory has received significant money from racing. That must be recognised in the terms of any transfer scheme. The scheme must take into account that investment.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bowness, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Burnham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Buscombe, B.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Naseby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Elles, B.

Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Fowler, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rogan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Higgins, L.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jopling, L.

Waddington, L.

Laird, L.

Walpole, L.

Lucas, L.

Wilcox, B.

Luke, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Crawley, B.

Ahmed, L.

David, B.

Alli, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Andrews, B.

Desai, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dixon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Berkeley, L.

Drayson, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dubs, L.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Eatwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elder, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bragg, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brennan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookman, L.

Filkin, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Burlison, L.

Gale, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Giddens, L.

Carter, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter of Coles, L.

Golding, B.

Christopher, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Goudie, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

51

Grantchester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Prosser, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Radice, L.

Harrison, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Haskel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haworth, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Henig, B.

Rooker, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rosser, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sainsbury of Turvile, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Snape, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jones, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jordan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thornton, B.

Lipsey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Triesman, L.

McDonagh, B.

Truscott, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tunnicliffe, L

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turnberg, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Uddin, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mitchell, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitaker, B.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Patel, L.

Wilkins, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Paul, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Pendry, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"EXEMPTION OF OLYMPIC LOTTERY FROM LOTTERY DUTY
After section 24(4)(e) of the Finance Act 1993 (c. 34) there is inserted—
"(f) of an Olympic Lottery within the meaning of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move to Part 3 and the London 2012 Olympic bid. In Committee it was clear that the exemption of the Olympic lottery from duty was one of the key points of difference in the Bill between the Government and these Benches. The purpose of Part 3 is to create a new lottery game specifically to raise money for the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympic Games.
We believe that all the money raised through the new Olympic lottery game should go to the Olympics and Paralympics rather than the Treasury. This is the first lottery game exclusively hypothecated to one good cause and we hope that it will help to rejuvenate the lottery that John Major set up so successfully in 1995. If the opportunity to stage the Olympic and
52
Paralympic Games in London is so important that it merits a new hypothecated game, then it also merits a decision by the Treasury to hypothecate its usual 12p lottery duty to the games.
The scale of the tax raid on the Olympic lottery is worth highlighting. As the House is aware, the new Olympic lottery games are expected to raise £750 million towards the cost of staging the games. However, the fact that the new Olympic lottery will also raise £340 million for the Treasury may not be so well known. In seeking to understand the Government's justification for levying a £340 million tax on the nation's efforts to raise money for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it might be helpful to revisit what the Minister said in Committee. He stated:
"The lottery is a mainstream gambling activity in competition with other gambling activities".—[Official Report, 6/4/04; col. GC 566.]
The more I think about this statement, the more I am concerned that the Government have not fully understood the unique contribution of the National Lottery to the nation's good causes. It is both perplexing and inconsistent that, on the one hand, the House is being asked to approve a special measure to raise money for the London 2012 Olympic Games, and yet, on the other hand, the Minister considers this to be no more than another mainstream gambling opportunity.
Perhaps this is the reason for the difference of opinion between us and the Government on the merits of the amendment. We do not consider the lottery—and especially the Olympic lottery being set up under the Bill—to be simply a mainstream gambling opportunity. Our view is shared by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, and I fear the Minister may be on his own in this case.
I shall quote for the Minister's benefit the Select Committee's report on the reform of the National Lottery. The Select Committee viewed the taxation of lottery returns for good causes as an,
"inappropriate double hit for the Treasury".
The report continued:
"Returns for good causes should be treated more like charitable giving than other spending on gambling products. Within the gambling sector we note that the Government recognises the unique status of the Lottery for the purposes of regulation but not for the purposes of taxation. This is inconsistent and wrong".
The Select Committee concluded that there was a strong case for treating the lottery as charitable giving rather than mainstream gambling, thereby qualifying it for gift aid rather than the 12p lottery duty. The Minister will be relieved to know that the amendment stops short of the Select Committee's recommendation. Instead it would enable the new Olympic lottery games to be treated as one of the special exemptions qualifying for zero-rate lottery duty within the 1993 financial legislation which governs the tax on all lotteries. There are clear precedents for lotteries to be exempt from the duty; these include private lotteries, society lotteries and perhaps, my personal favourite, a lottery promoted in accordance with the Art Unions Act 1846.
As I have said before, if the Olympic lottery were tax free it would send out a very strong message signalling the Government's commitment to hosting the Olympics to lottery ticket buyers, to supporters of the London Olympics, to the international sporting community as a whole and, most important, to the IOC. The importance of this message should not be underestimated. It is clear from the International Olympic Committee report on the bidding cities that the London bid would benefit from stronger governmental support.
If the new game is to raise the required £750 million towards the cost of staging the 2012 games, then why place obstacles in its way. If more money from each lottery ticket sold went to the Olympics, then the sales of tickets would be boosted and the Olympic lottery financial goals would be secured. Similarly, if the Olympic lottery is tax free, this will help to impress upon the international sporting community just how serious we are in our desire to bring the Olympics and Paralympics to London in 2012.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, eloquently put forward the view, supported by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, that the new Olympic lottery game should be tax free as this would reduce the need to raid quite so much from other good causes. The Minister's rejection of these arguments in Committee begs a closer examination of the Treasury's financial commitment to the London 2012 bid. On first examination of the figures for the funding of a London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games it is now clear how much money the Exchequer will be contributing. We know that the Treasury remains the ultimate guarantor of the Games, but in the small print even this ultimate responsibility is shifted onto the lottery and the Mayor of London. The fact of the matter is that after winning the bid in Singapore next July, if we still have a Labour Chancellor, the Treasury will not put a single penny towards the cost of the Games.
Indeed, it is possible that because of the financial arrangements and the burden placed on the lottery, the Treasury will actually make a direct profit from the Games. That is why, when asked about the Chancellor's support for the London bid, Michael Howard said:
"To describe Gordon Brown as a little half-hearted in his support for the bid is possibly a compliment".
As we know, the Treasury is currently reviewing the taxation of the National Lottery. In Committee I quoted the words of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who said that the Government were in "listening mode" about possible changes to the way in which the lottery is taxed. Why then in Committee did the Government appear to go suddenly and conveniently deaf?
On that occasion, the Minister tried to pour cold water on these proposals by stating that the Treasury review would be in the context of maintaining Exchequer revenues. This is not as disappointing as it might initially appear to be. It is clear that a significant part of the revenue from the new Olympic lottery game will be additional ticket sales and will therefore
54
represent a bonus to the Exchequer. Thus the hypothecated Olympic lottery games will, as I mentioned before, if anything be helpful to the maintenance of the Exchequer coffers.
The amendment provides an opportunity for the Minister to demonstrate before the House just how seriously the Government are listening to the arguments for reduced taxation on the National Lottery. The House is, of course, limited in its powers with regard to financial issues and especially Finance Acts, but we owe it to sport, as we do to the other good causes, to send a clear message to the Treasury that where there is a hypothecated game with a specific intent—in this case to raise money for a successful bid and to host, from that successful bid, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games—and where Parliament is being asked to agree to the first ever hypothecated game for a purpose, it must be right that the Treasury does not pocket 12p of every ticket sold for that purpose. It should ensure that our disabled athletes and our able-bodied athletes receive every part of the pound that is spent in order to back the London Olympics, rather than pocketing 12p and making sure that the tax does not go to the games.
That is the fundamental principle behind the amendment. From these Benches, the Conservative Party has not only committed to ensuring the 12p goes to the London Games, but that, in practice, represents more than four times as much money as the total sports budget of the DCMS. That is a commitment from these Benches and from the Conservative Party to the success of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, which we believe should be at the heart of any party's sports policy at the present time.
I hope that the Treasury will be persuaded to forgo the tax on the new Olympic Lottery. It certainly should. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, having recovered from my surprise at seeing an amendment on the Marshalled List which purports to amend a Finance Act—which I have not seen in this House before—I reflect that the Public Bill Office must have accepted the amendment. It must have snuck in somehow from round the corner and must be legitimate, but it does not seem to me that if I went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with this suggestion he would be terribly happy.
If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, were to press the amendment and succeed in a Division, the Commons would of course reject it on the grounds of privilege, not only because it purports to amend a Finance Act but it would cause a considerable reduction of Exchequer income.
There has been no secrecy about this issue all the way through. We have said that although the Chancellor is always looking at the current tax treatment of the lottery—he keeps the lottery duty under review and gives consideration to representations made in the course of the Budget and Finance Bill process—he does not, and we do not, think it appropriate to make this exception to the rules set out when the lottery was established by a Conservative administration. I do not find the argument that this is hypothecated to a single cause at all

55
convincing. After all, the lottery funds have been set up—again, by a Conservative administration—to be hypothecated to good causes. Although the good causes then have the freedom to distribute their funds, they are nevertheless hypothecated to a very substantial degree.
The principle of the taxation of the National Lottery was accepted by Parliament when the lottery was introduced. Lottery duty—that is, the 12 per cent—brings in more than £500 million a year for spending on essential public services such as schools and hospitals. When the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says, with great confidence, that his party supports this amendment, I hope that he will understand that we will be using that statement in any future election. He had better be very clear that he has Mr Letwin's agreement that additional expenditure will be added to the sums on which it is proposed that the Conservative Party will fight an election.
The National Lottery is a mainstream gambling activity, in competition with other gambling activities. It is reasonable that it should make a fair contribution to revenue for public expenditure at the same time as raising money for good causes. We debated in Grand Committee how much of the money raised from the Olympic lottery would in fact be diverted from other good causes. The figure that I have is 51 per cent. I hope that when the Conservative Party is fighting an election, it will be expecting some reaction from sport, the arts, heritage and the projects funded by the New Opportunities Fund if such an exception were to be made for only one of the National Lottery good causes.
We intend that the same principles that apply to the existing National Lottery should apply to any Olympic-themed games. There are not, at this stage, any plans to exempt the National Lottery from tax. It has not, and it has never been, the Government's intention to fund the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games from central Government tax receipts. Indeed, the public funding package for the games does not rely on central Government revenue, and that did not cause an adverse reaction from the International Olympic Committee. Hypothecating taxes from the Olympic lottery, as this amendment proposes, runs contrary to this principle.
Of course I am sympathetic to any desire to boost the Olympic cause, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will plead that cause. However, this amendment is a departure from the principles on which, right from the outset, we have proposed to fund the Olympic Games, and it is not acceptable to the Government.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, let me respond to the Minister's comments. First, I am well aware that tax matters are the responsibility of another place. However, I would be doing this House, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Pendry, among others, a disservice if I failed to mention that we have previously managed to persuade the Treasury on the merits of tax cuts for sport, most recently tax breaks for community amateur sports
56
clubs. However, I take the Minister's point about the Finance Act and, in that context, I shall not be pressing the amendment to a Division.
Before I conclude my remarks, I should like to make a few points. The Minister is concerned about the hit on other good causes to which the amendment would, in his view, lead. I have already demonstrated in Committee—some might argue at somewhat too great a length; it was certainly a long speech—the merits for starting the Olympic lottery game at the time of the Athens Olympics rather than in a year's time. I did so because I was driven by the fact that we would reduce the take on other good causes if we were to raid a contingent fee in order to host the games in London 2012 at any stage between winning the bid next summer and 2012.
Had we been able to launch the hypothecated game at the same time as the Athens games started, there would have been a direct benefit to other good causes. Such an amendment has not been tabled before your Lordships today simply because it has been a long time since we last considered the Bill. In fact, the day before the Easter Recess was the last day of the Committee stage, and we are so close to the Athens games that it is impractical—it is too late—to launch the game at the same time as the Athens Olympics, which will take place in a matter of weeks. So in that regard I reject the Minister's argument.
The noble Lord also questioned whether I had support for the amendment. I have the support not only of the Leader of the Conservative Party, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and every member of the shadow Cabinet, but, I believe, of every Londoner committed to sport and recreation to ensure that that 12 pence tax take goes towards hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. It is simply not credible to argue that the generic term "good causes", which is very widely drawn, is a hypothecated single cause. It is not. If it were, there would be no need for Part 3 of the Bill. We would have no need for a specific hypothecated game because it could easily be managed within the context of good causes.
In bringing forward this legislation, the Government recognised that they required parliamentary approval to have the first ever hypothecated game—a game that was specific in its intent and totally directed towards hosting the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Government recognise that this is the first ever hypothecated game. They are seeking parliamentary approval to recognise and to launch that hypothecated game. The Government cannot accept that proposal while taking the opportunity to pocket the 12 pence, which, quite frankly, in a hypothecated game, should go towards the games.
Londoners would expect this to go towards the games. Sportsmen and women the length and breadth of this country will expect that all but a very small administrative charge on the pound they spend in choosing to buy an Olympic 2012 ticket after the decision in Singapore next year should go to the games. We back Londoners in that view; we back the sportsmen and women the length and breadth of

57
this country, with whom I have spoken on many occasions about the intent of this amendment. We have complete support from the shadow Cabinet and on these Benches. I believe, from many discussions with noble Lords opposite, that there is a lot of support on their Benches as well.
I take the point that the Minister made at the beginning of his reply. There was unquestionably a major discussion within Cabinet over whether a bid should be backed. We have had prevarication for three and a half months. There were two schools of thought: one said no; but the other recognised there would be tremendous benefit for the sporting world and particularly for the pride of London if we were successful in hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The decision finally came down to a yes, with the proviso that the Treasury would not pay for the games. Ultimately, Londoners, through an increased precept, would pay a significant part of every additional pound that was required to host the games as well as paying for the games. I argue that that is one very strong reason why the IOC did not recognise the level of government support as being high when it undertook its interim adjudication of all the competing cities. We were not at the top; we were very close to the bottom.
We need to address the financing of the games, and we need to look at how we can encourage the private sector to play a far greater role. After all, these games will be right next door to the City of London. Within two miles of the City of London, we should have a structure to encourage private sector support for the games which is far more prominent than that which we have seen to date. It is for all those reasons that, in tabling the amendment, I believed the Government had an opportunity to demonstrate their support for our able-bodied and our disabled athletes in their bid to back my noble friend Lord Coe and his team in winning the bid in Singapore next year to host the games in London in 2012. However, I am grateful, as always, to the Minister for his reply. For the reasons I have given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel): My Lords, I remind the House that, if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 22 to 27, because of pre-emption.
6 p.m.
Clause 22 [Timing]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 13, line 22, leave out from "has" to end of line 29 and insert "made an order under subsection (3).
(3) If a United Kingdom city has decided to bid to host the Olympic Gaines, the Secretary of State shall, by order, make a declaration to that effect.
(3A) Where the Secretary of State has made a declaration under subsection (3), he shall then make a progress report every three months to Parliament on the bid and its financing until the International Olympic Committee has elected a host city for the Olympic Games.
(3B) The duty in subsection (3A) continues after the election but only in relation to a successful bid by a United Kingdom city to host the Olympic Games; and the duty then ceases once the Olympic Games have taken place or have been fully financed, whichever is the later.
(3C) Subsection (4) applies if the Secretary of State by order declares—

(a) that the International Olympic Committee has elected a host city other than a bidding United Kingdom city as the host city for the Olympic Games in any bidding round, or

(b) that the election by the International Olympic Committee of a United Kingdom city as the host city for the Olympic Games has been revoked."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat complicated amendment, but its aims are simple. First, proposed subsection (3) would permit an early start to the Olympic lottery for the 2012 London Olympics bid or any subsequent British bid. That is to say that the lottery could start once it has been announced that a British city is bidding for the games. Secondly, subsection (3A) would ensure that the Secretary of State makes regular reports to Parliament on the progress of the bid with an update on the financing. Finally, subsection (3B) would require that those regular reports continue once the British city has won the bid until the Olympics have taken place and the financing has been signed off.
Noble Lords may recall that we on these Benches have previously argued that the proposed Olympic lottery games should have been launched to coincide with the Olympic Games in Athens this summer. I referred to that a moment ago. In Grand Committee in April—some three months ago—I highlighted the benefits that an early start would bring. Not only would it help to raise the domestic profile of the London 2012 bid, which is essential to any successful bid, but it would also raise an additional £50 million and save the other good causes money.
As many noble Lords will already be aware, the International Olympic Committee rules require that the proceeds from the Olympic lottery be used towards Olympic purposes, including funding for the British Olympic Association, the British Paralympic Association and Olympic athletes as well as the cost of staging the Olympics. The Minister and no doubt the House will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to develop that argument further today, mainly because delays in bringing forward the Report stage have removed many of the benefits of starting the lottery game early.
However, the main purpose of this amendment is to require the Government to make regular reports on the progress of our London bid as well as the latest financial projections. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government are a key stakeholder in the London 2012 Olympic bid, even though they have discharged their financial responsibilities through the National Lottery and London council tax payers. It is therefore right and proper that Parliament receives regular updates on how our bid is progressing.
A great deal has happened to the London 2012 Olympic bid since our discussions in Grand Committee. I feel sure that all sides of the House will join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Coe,

59
on his new position as chairman of the London 2012 Olympic bid. I was fortunate enough to compete at the same time as the noble Lord in both the 1980 and 1984 Olympics and I know that we have an excellent chairman for the bid.
The other major development in our Olympic bid has been the publication of the report by the IOC Candidature Acceptance Working Group to the IOC Executive Board on 18 May 2004. The report was the basis for the short-listing of the bids in which London came third out of the nine applicant cities. It must now act as a road map of what the Government need to do in order to achieve our aim of winning a gold medal in the race to host the 2012 Olympics. With this proposed clause at the heart of the Bill, we would have regular reports and that road map would form the basis for regular reports to government.
The amendment would ensure that we have the opportunity to study the 11 key criteria by which our bid would be judged, with a ranking given to each one. On government support, legal issues and public opinion, London finished eighth out of nine, but we would have the opportunity, through this amendment, constantly to see the improvement that I believe must and will come if we are to win the bid. On general infrastructure we were third and on sports venues, fourth. Our Olympic village concept was rated sixth. On environmental impact we came joint second. On accommodation, one of the few areas outside government control, we came first. Our transport concept came a distant fourth, with parts of our transport system being described as "often obsolete".
Again, if the amendment were passed, we would have the opportunity to consider and review the improvements that I am sure we will see—and must see—in the transport system between now and when the decision is made in July next year, and to monitor, consider and discuss those improvements. When necessary we must cajole the Government to make those improvements, but I hope to return to this House regularly to congratulate the Government on making those improvements.
On finance, we were ranked joint second. On the overall project and legacy, we came third. Perhaps one of the advantages of this amendment being passed is that, although experience of past sports events is critical, London's ability to host those events would be considered by your Lordships. We would be promoting London and the Government would be supporting London through UK Sport to host more international events successfully, as we have done with Wimbledon and as I hope that we would do on future occasions within Olympic sports. The fact of the matter is that we were judged sixth out of the nine bidding cities on those criteria.
Agreeing to the amendment would enable the Minister to come back and show the good progress that I am sure he intends to make between now and July next year. As the Minister knows, we have a long way to go if London is to be successful, but we should not be downhearted. We now know what needs to be done and it is up to the bid team, the Government and the GLA to learn from the IOC report, to strengthen those areas that need
60
strengthening and to deliver a much improved final bid book to the IOC on 15 November. However, the bid team can only do so much on its own. It needs dedicated and committed government support. That is the key to success.
Government support for an Olympic bid is essential for success. That is why the amendment calls for regular updates from the Government on the progress of our bid, so that we can monitor much needed improvement and higher levels of support from the Government. So far, most of the Government's comments on the bid have come from Parliamentary Questions and media speculation. Although Parliamentary Questions and their Answers are helpful, I am afraid that they can only do so much. There would be merit in regular reports, when both Houses would have the opportunity to hold the Government to account and continue, as we consistently have from these Benches, to make positive contributions to the Government's thinking.
For example, it worries me deeply that Ministers can write to me on 14 July saying that:
"London did not score badly for Government support".—[Official Report, 14/7/04; WA 153.]
That followed on from the Secretary of State with responsibility for the Olympic bid saying, no doubt somewhat tongue in cheek, that London scored badly on the IOC criteria for government support,
"because of the uncertainty created by the forthcoming mayoral elections".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/04; col. 15.]
The House will recall that, at the time the IOC report was completed, none of our London mayoral candidates had been officially adopted.
It is clear that the Government need to accept the facts, learn from them and then move on by stepping up at least two gears in their support. Noble Lords may have seen the speculation in the media that the Prime Minister will use his summer reshuffle to appoint a Minister with specific responsibility for our Olympic bid. That is to be welcomed. I have been calling for that appointment for over a year. I hope that the Minister is able to feed back the support of these Benches and indeed, the House, for a government response to a classic example of a positive contribution to government thinking.
The other major area that the Government rather than the bid team will need to address if we are to win the race to host the games is, as I have mentioned, the state of London's transport infrastructure. The scale of the investment needed is such that that clearly falls within the Government's area of responsibility. The Government are responsible for the delivery of the East London Line extension and improvements to the Jubilee Line. Both those developments were promised within our initial bid to the IOC and the Government's credibility will not be improved if they cannot find the funding required to deliver those projects in time for the 2012 games. I hope that, as a result of what was in the press this morning, the Minister will report to this House that that money has been found and that we are moving forward on a

61
timetable to meet the Games. Indeed, I hope that he can confirm that the same applies to Crossrail, which was mentioned on the front page of The Times today.
Amendments such as this provide an opportunity for the Minister to report to the House on progress towards this important Olympic bid. The opportunity to report to the House at regular intervals on all the issues that I have mentioned will, I hope, be warmly welcomed by the Minister. I hope that he is about to stand in front of us and address those key issues on transport infrastructure.
The House will be aware that noble Lords on these Benches are passionate supporters of the London Olympic bid and we are committed to doing everything in our power to help deliver the games to London. I believe that this amendment will further strengthen the excellent work being done by the London bid team.
I trust that my suggestions will be acceptable to the Minister, who will, with his colleagues—in every aspect of the IOC interim report conclusions—consider them, react to them and push London to the top of the tree so that we win in Singapore in July next year. I also trust that, with this amendment, we shall have the opportunity in your Lordships' House to consider all the points that I have outlined consistently at regular opportunities and in detail. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. As the noble Lord told us, the Government did not come out of the initial bidding process very well.
The idea that the Government should report every three months is an interesting one. If this amendment is not accepted, can the Minister give us some idea about what plans there are for reporting progress to Parliament on this matter? What ministerial responsibility has been assigned for doing this job?
We need parliamentary backing—and noisy backing. To speak as charitably as I can, the Government have not been banging their own gong enough about what they have been doing. Do the Government have a plan of how they will keep this House and the other place informed about what is going on? It would give a better perception of what is going on and a better perception of the Government's commitment.
If the Minister can give us a satisfactory answer on that matter, I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is not needed. But that will be the case only if we have a firm commitment to have regular reporting on what is going on and not a process where we have to drag information out of the Government.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I want to add my support to my noble friend's amendments and make a couple of sharp comments to the Government.
The Government had to take—and did take—the lead in our Olympic bid and we have supported them in that for some time. They appointed the first director, Mrs Cassani. That was not the greatest success as she did not stay very long. We now have my
62
noble friend Lord Coe, and the press is giving us some strange messages about how the team is coming together.
Bearing in mind that the Government are still responsible for driving this bid, we have not seen a great deal of commitment in the work that they have done. The communication to win over the support of the rest of the country does not seem to have had an impact. So far, I have not read anything or seen a great deal about the promotion of our Olympic bid nationwide. The French, who are perhaps our major competitors on this side of the Atlantic, have the whole of their government machine behind them. Their bid is driven loudly and obviously by the French Government.
I do not believe that it is too late. I am not one to give up a race until the race is well and truly lost. I wish to make the point that the British Government have an awful lot of work to do, and we are looking to some serious initiatives and some serious public support and leadership to get our bid well and truly up front.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, started by saying that his amendment was complicated. I can forgive him for that. Clause 22, in which it is placed, is also complicated. He need not be ashamed of that.
If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, thinks that I am going to make a stump speech of the kind that he has just made—it was a very fine stump speech; the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, added to it and I admired it—I am going to disappoint him. My responsibility in this legislation is to respond to the amendment before us rather than to the very interesting, but more general, views which have been expressed.
The amendment would enable Olympic lottery games to begin as soon as any UK city had decided to bid for the Olympics. It would therefore allow Olympic lottery games to begin before the International Olympic Committee had elected a host city. We argued against that in relation to the London 2012 Games and the same arguments apply to any future bid.
6.15 p.m.
We believe—and the distributors of lottery funds also agree—that only the unique opportunity of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games can justify the establishment of a lottery fund specifically for that purpose. If Olympic lottery games were to begin before the IOC had elected a host and a UK bid was unsuccessful, the funds raised in relation to that bid would need to be allocated to Olympic and Paralympic sport. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right and open about that. He knows what can and cannot be spent before a host city is selected. Olympic and Paralympic sport are worthy causes but they do not justify a hypothecated funding stream separate from the existing sports lottery funding stream.
We have asked the existing distributors and their funding sectors to work with us, in the event of a successful bid, to manage the impact that the Olympic lottery games would have on the income to their good

63
causes. They have agreed to that because of the wide-ranging benefits that hosting the games would bring. The majority of lottery distributors have confirmed that they would not want Olympic lottery games to begin before a decision had been made on the host city because of the probable impact on the income to their good causes. I have no doubt that they would hold the same views in relation to any future bids.
To amend the Bill to extend the opportunity to run Olympic lottery games to any time in the future, provided that a UK city had simply declared an intention to bid for the Olympics, would certainly cause widespread concern among the lottery distributors and the good causes. Effectively, the lottery would be held hostage to fortune.
The amendment is also drafted to enable legislation to apply to any future Olympic bids. We do not believe that that is appropriate in advance of more detailed knowledge of all relevant considerations. I will consider that matter when I respond to the next group of amendments.
The remainder of this amendment places a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to submit progress and finance reports to Parliament on this current bid and any future UK Olympic bid every three months. If the bid is successful, the Secretary of State will be required to continue submitting three-monthly progress and finance reports to Parliament—presumably on the staging of the Games—until the Olympic Games have taken place or they are fully financed, whichever is later.
That is a real burden. It is not necessary to place such a requirement on the face of the Bill because robust accounting and governance arrangements are already in place in relation to the bid. London 2012, the bidding company, is already obliged to produce annual accounts that will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In addition, the stakeholders have in place arrangements—including meetings and updates—to ensure appropriate and rigorous oversight of the progress and financing of the bid company.
Speaking as someone who does not usually pay a great deal of attention to the sporting pages, there has not exactly been a shortage of public comment on the progress of the Olympic bid. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to it himself. It has certainly attracted my attention in a way that it might not otherwise have done.
In the event of a successful London bid for the 2012 Olympics, the bodies directly involved in the delivery of the Games will be required to give full account of any public monies received.
An additional requirement to lay three-monthly reports before Parliament on progress and financing arrangements of the Olympic bid—and, if successful, on the staging arrangements—would be extremely onerous. It would duplicate reporting structures and accountability arrangements that are in place with the stakeholders and the International Olympic Committee and could lead to unnecessary delay or interference.
64
We recognise the legitimate and important role of Parliament in the scrutiny of public expenditure. However, we believe that existing arrangements, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which is extremely active, in conjunction with the laying of annual reports as described, will ensure an adequate level of parliamentary involvement. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed because it would, in effect, allow for the immediate introduction of an Olympic lottery bid before a host city was announced, and because of the reporting requirements.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I believe that I should thank the Minister for referring to my speech and that of my noble friend Lord Glentoran as being very fine stump speeches. If that description reflects the passion for sport that my noble friend and I have, we shall take the Minister's comments as a compliment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they were intended as a compliment.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I very much appreciate that confirmation.
Briefly, the specific point is that publication of annual accounts is insufficient to monitor progress on the bid, as we should do in Parliament. I hope that we will win the bid; the one critical factor that can ensure that we do so is government leadership. With that, with strong government policies to support the bid and with government commitment, the excellent work that is being done will lead to a winning bid. Looking at the examples of the active support of Chirac when he was mayor in Paris—he now leads his country—or at what is happening in Madrid shows that that is the litmus test of success for a bid.
The Minister should reflect between now and the announcement next year in Singapore on the fact that the reporting structure that the amendment would put in place would, I am sure, take us from pretty low in terms of ranking in terms of government support to the very top. All those working on the London 2012 Olympic bid and every sportsman and sportswoman the length and breadth of the country deserve and expect government leadership, commitment and strong policies towards success. I hope that they will be forthcoming. However, in light of our debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 13, line 23, leave out "London" and insert "a United Kingdom city"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one that we debated in Grand Committee. Briefly, its purpose, and that of those grouped with it, is to extend the Bill's shelf life. If London is unsuccessful in the 2012 bid—we all hope that that will not be the case—we on these Benches believe that there is a strong case for retaining the legislation so that it could be used to support subsequent bids.
We are all aware that primary legislation is time-consuming and that it is not always easy to find parliamentary time. These relatively simple amendments are designed to ensure that we do not need to revisit our deliberations if the government of the day decide to bid once more for the Olympics and Paralympics. Having re-read our discussions in Grand Committee in Hansard, I am slightly unclear about whether the Minister was unable to accept the amendments because the Bill is a bespoke Bill for the London 2012 games or if it was because there was not the necessary Cabinet authority to extend the Bill's shelf life.
I do not wish to embarrass the Minister, who has always been helpful, not least today, but it would be appreciated if he could clear up a few queries arising from the Committee stage. The Minister agreed that if we did not have the amendments, there would be a need for primary legislation to set up an Olympic lottery Bill for any subsequent bid. However, he also said that even if we accepted the amendment, there would still be a need for primary legislation because,
"the Bill is so specific to London and the funding arrangements".—[Official Report, 6/4/04; col. GC 586.]
I have studied the Bill carefully and I can see nothing in Part 3 that could not be altered to include another city besides London. The other cities across the UK that are capable of bidding for the games will almost all have a mayor. Likewise, they will need to have a suitable local government structure that is analogous to the Greater London Authority. Similarly, and very importantly, I can see nothing in Part 3 that refers to any specific funding arrangements for the London 2012 bid. There is no reference to the expected £750 million that we anticipate the Bill will provide; there is no reference to the £750 million from the other lottery good causes; and there is no reference to the £625 million from the council tax levy or to the £250 million from the London Development Agency. I could go on.
It should be clear that all that the Bill does is to permit the setting up of an Olympic lottery with its specific remit to fund the Olympic Games. Of course, all funding arrangements have been carefully worked out. The memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Mayor of London on funding to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games is very helpful in that respect but it does not appear in the Bill and is not referred to by it.
Is the Minister able to highlight which clauses of the Bill are so specific that they cannot be altered? Similarly, could he kindly point out the clauses on funding that are specific to the London 2012 bid, which it appears I may have missed? If nothing else, the Minister's response in Committee made a refreshing change from the exchanges on Parts 1 and 2, when the Government stressed the need to maintain sufficient flexibility in the Bill to handle events beyond the Government's control. When these Benches sought to extend that flexibility, the Government suddenly appeared to be keen on making sure that the legislation is very specific.
In light of the Minister's comments in Committee, I considered altering my original amendments so that they referred only to future London bids. That would have
66
been easier to draft. I am also very much aware that there is a strong view in the OIC that it would prefer a London bid. However, after much deliberation, I decided to stick with my original wording because it is vitally important that those cities are not excluded from bidding.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the Minister were concerned that the amendment might be portrayed as undermining the London 2012 bid. They will be the first to know that I completely reject that suggestion. Anyone who underestimates the commitment of the London bid team and its chairman, my noble friend Lord Coe, does so at his peril. London remains a serious bid and is now putting in place a world-class bid team with world-class plans. In parenthesis, I mention that it saddens me to think that there have been those who apparently do not realise what a great honour it is to be associated with an Olympic bid. Everyone involved with the bid is there to serve the sportsmen and sportswomen of this country, not to serve vanity. At least my noble friend Lord Coe is now putting together such a group, with the welcome appointment of Mr Sloman.
To conclude, all our amendments are designed to support and strengthen the London 2012 bid. Those amendments in particular will help to ensure that if the unthinkable happens and we get pipped at the post, we are able to learn from the London bid and to try again. I believe that we owe it to future Ministers of Sport to ensure that this legislation is not lost. That is what the amendments are designed to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord has been consistent in his idea that we should have something on the shelf that we could wheel out for more bids. However, one of the most important points about 2012— this does not undermine the noble Lord's support for it but is merely a difference in approach—is that we have a one-shot deal in this regard. In a few years, we will not be able to advance with this type of Bill. We would probably need new financing arrangements in that case. Over-reliance on the lottery, as is currently the case, would not have been my ideal. However, we have the current show and we must support it—let us go with what we have now. That is the only reason why I am not 100 per cent behind the noble Lord in this regard.
I feel that we could do better. If we put our heads together we could come up with a more aggressive stance than that in the Bill. However, this Bill is what we have now. Racking up the process for a couple more goes would probably not be as advantageous. The politics behind our being able to win the bid are pretty well known. These amendments contain an approach that I recommend we do not follow. A bespoke Bill, for this occasion or in relation to any future bid in which we believe we stand a realistic chance, is the least that the Olympic bid deserves.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if it was thought at any stage that I accused the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, of attempting to weaken the London bid through these amendments, that was a mistake. I certainly did not intend to make that accusation; that is not what he intends to do. I know that he is fully behind the London bid and I applaud him for it. We are at one on that.

67
6.30 p.m.
This is a series of very modest amendments. They are designed to see if it is possible to have a Bill which could be brought off the shelf again on a future occasion if, as we hope will not happen, the London bid fails. As such, I am very sympathetic to it. I should like to think that it would work, because I should like to think that we could avoid primary legislation. Alas, I have been persuaded by those more expert in these matters than I am that it would not work and therefore, regretfully, I am not able to support it.
It is an attractive and flexible proposal, but we think that it would be unwise to have the broader powers and such open-ended legislation as proposed by these amendments. We do not think that it would remove the need for more specific legislation, if at a future date there were another UK city bidding for the Olympics.
The provisions of the Bill are focused on the London Olympics in 2012. They set up a hypothecated lottery stream to fund those Games. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there are those who wish it was not financed in that way; there are those who think that the balance between lottery and local funding should be different. These are legitimate points of view. The Bill as it stands, however, reflects current lottery funding arrangements and the bespoke funding package that has been put in place by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, together with the London Development Agency and the Greater London Authority, to help fund the 2012 Olympics, and it would not work anywhere else.
In order to reach this agreement, we had extensive cost-benefit analysis by the consultants, Arup; we had negotiations between the Government and the Mayor; we needed to have Cabinet agreement to back the bid; and a bespoke policy framework for the 2012 Olympics in London. The results are in this Bill. It was undertaken in respect of the London 2012 bid but not with the possibility of it being extended to other cities and to later dates.
The assessment of the amount of money to be raised from the Olympic lottery by Camelot was based on the current lottery performance. We cannot be sure that that would be true for another city at another date. I know that the figures are not on the face of the Bill, but this is the primary legislation which was necessary to bring into force the deal which has been reached between the London Development Agency, the Mayor, and the Government. All of these things could well be different and could make it necessary to have a quite different pattern of legislation for another city at a future date.
I am enormously sympathetic to the idea of saving parliamentary time. Nobody is more sympathetic than me. However, valuable time and effort have gone into the preparation and consideration of this Bill. That consideration and effort need not be lost. The Bill could provide a useful framework in the future. It could even be amended by future legislation to enable it to be extended to another city at another date, but that should not be done without more detailed knowledge of the proposals and the circumstances in
68
which the support of Olympic lottery games would be expected. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not to press these amendments.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it has taken a long time during this Bill to reach one of those magic moments in parliamentary procedure when one hears the Minister respond to an opposition amendment by saying, "This is a series of modest amendments", and then almost immediately to follow it up with the phrase that he is "very sympathetic". For the first time in I do not know how many hours of deliberation on this Bill, I thought that the Government were going to make a concession and accept my amendment.
The magic moment passed and, like Ernie Els, my optimism was dashed. I move forward to fight another day, in particular with the next amendment standing in my name, which I very much hope will find a consensus in the House and lead to agreement by the Government.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Above all, I am grateful to him for pointing out one persuasive argument. That is, should we not win the London 2012 bid—which all of us are united in hoping that we shall, when it is determined in Singapore—it is possible, and indeed likely, that any future bid from another city in the United Kingdom would be tailored in a different way from that in which this one was originally construed, and which this legislation seeks to enact. In those circumstances, it is probably wise to have that flexibility. It would then be appropriate for the government of the day to bring new primary legislation to back the different circumstances, to support the British Olympic Association and the bidding city.
In those circumstances, and given the lucid explanation by the Minister on that specific point, while I am disappointed and I think that we owe it to future Ministers for Sport to make sure that this legislation is not lost—and that is what these amendments were designed to achieve—nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Payments out of Fund]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) to the British Paralympic Association;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I very much hope the Government will accept this amendment, which I am particularly pleased to introduce. It is designed to include the British Paralympic Association within the list of bodies that can receive funding direct from the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund rather than through the Olympic lottery distributor.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the British Olympic Association, the Greater London Authority, the National lottery distributor, and even the Secretary of

69
State can receive money directly from the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund. It seems to me that if the Secretary of State can receive such money, then there is a very compelling and strong case for including the British Paralympic Association, which looks after our disabled athletes, in the list which includes the British Olympic Association.
There is a great deal of support for the excellent work of the British Paralympic Association and there is a general feeling that the Bill before us today could, and should, do more to recognise that work. The Government have made a start with the very welcome indication that they intend to support my amendment to Clause 31 in favour of the British Paralympic Association. However, this amendment provides the Government with the opportunity to back up their fine words with the necessary finances.
We must never forget that the London bid for the 2012 Olympics is also a bid for the 2012 Paralympic Games. It is the intention of these Benches that the London Olympic bid and the proposed Olympic lottery should give sufficient emphasis to the Paralympics.
I am very aware of the comments of the Minister for Sport in another place that the reason for the inclusion of the British Olympic Association within the list of beneficiaries in Clause 26 is because they are required to transfer their commercial rights—including their ability to market the Olympic symbol of the five rings—to the London organising committee. This will result in a loss of income to the BOA, and Clause 26 is designed to compensate for that loss.
I must admit, however, to being unclear why the BOA, and indeed the Greater London Authority, cannot just receive this compensation from the Olympic lottery distributor. If the Minister is able to clarify this point, it would be appreciated.
The reason for bringing back this amendment is that there have been a number of developments since it was debated in another place. First, UK Sport announced on 13 July that it is providing some £800,000 to the British Olympic Association to help pay for Team GB's pre-Games preparation camps in Cyprus and Barcelona. That changes the historic independence of the BOA from any source of government or government-influenced funding.
Secondly, the British Paralympic Association has announced that it needs to find some £200,000 in order to stave off financial problems and impending bankruptcy after the Paralympics in Athens this September.
I know that this House contains many friends of disability sport in general and the British Paralympic Association in particular. Noble Lords will be aware that our Paralympic athletes were outstandingly successful at the Sydney 2000 Paralympics, landing an impressive medal haul of 41 gold medals, 43 silvers and 47 bronzes. That was enough to secure Britain second place in the overall medal table: a performance only bettered by the host nation, Australia.
While I welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that the British Paralympic Association and the British Olympic Association are treated similarly, I am afraid that there is still some way to go. As a nation our sports policy must ensure that we reward winners and this should start as much with the British Olympic Association as with the British Paralympic Association and their athletes to enable them to go one better in the medal table in Athens in September. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this amendment is absolutely right. The British Paralympic Association has added considerable lustre to the British colours for quite a while. Apart from that, if we are serious about equality for the disabled, we must try to start thinking outside the box of, "Let's help him across the road". We need full participation in all aspects of life. If that means that an Olympic athlete with a disability is funded differently from one without a disability, I suggest that he or she should receive support on those grounds alone, irrespective of any medal haul. This measure constitutes a sensible step towards that. I appreciate that the Government have not yet got round to dealing with this. I hope that that is the case. If they do not think that this body is big enough, they are wrong. If they do not think that the issue is important enough, they are wrong. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable response or at least tell us why the amendment is not needed. That would be enough. If he cannot do either of those two things, I certainly would support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I endorse everything that both the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, have said about the importance of the Paralympic Games. Clearly, not only are they important for this country but they are also important worldwide. They are symbolic of an attitude that ought to apply throughout our lives. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, through this amendment intends to give equal treatment to the British Paralympic Association and to the British Olympic Association. If I may trespass on the next group of amendments, our willingness to support Amendments Nos. 37 and 39, which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has already indicated, shows that we are entirely in agreement with him about that. I am sorry to say that I have a boring technical reason why Amendment No. 29 does not achieve what it sets out to achieve and would introduce unnecessary discrimination.
There is a specific reason why the British Olympic Association appears in the legislation as a potential recipient of Olympic funds, and why the British Paralympic Association does not. I believe that once I have explained the reason it will be clear why there is no need for this amendment.
If London is successful in its bid, the International Olympic Committee requires the British Olympic Association to enter into a joint marketing programme with the London Organising Committee for the

71
Olympic Games. Under this arrangement the British Olympic Association must give the London Organising Committee,
"a sole and irrevocable licence to use and reproduce the whole or any part of the BOA property".
Effectively, the British Olympic Association transfers commercial rights, including the ability to market the Olympic emblems, to the London Organising Committee.
That arrangement greatly reduces the British Olympic Association's ability to generate sponsorship income, which is its main source of funding. The IOC joint marketing programme must include financial provision to the British Olympic Association in consideration for the rights granted to the London Organising Committee.
The British Olympic Association will have a key role to play during this period, both in helping to stage the Games and in supporting Team GB. It will be vital for the British Olympic Association to receive revenues, in spite of its decreased ability to generate income. The inclusion of the British Olympic Association as a possible recipient of Olympic Lottery Distribution Funds was designed in case it was necessary to compensate the British Olympic Association for the transfer of its rights to the London Organising Committee, as required by the IOC, from the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund. I told noble Lords that this was a boring explanation but I am afraid that it is logical.
It is possible that the funding for the British Olympic Association will come directly from the London Organising Committee marketing and sponsorship programmes. That would mean that the power to transfer funds from the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund to the British Olympic Association would not be used. However, the power was included in the Bill to ensure that the BOA could receive essential revenue from the Olympic Lottery Fund if necessary.
The British Paralympic Association is in a different position. There is currently no requirement from the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee for the British Paralympic Association to surrender its rights. Additionally, the British Paralympic Association does not rely so heavily on marketing and sponsorship income as the British Olympic Association. The BPA receives Exchequer funding for its running costs, unlike the BOA.
The possible requirement to compensate the BOA for loss of income is the only reason why the BOA appears as a possible recipient of Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund payments. There is no need for a similar arrangement for the British Paralympic Association. However, I shall support Amendments Nos. 37 and 39.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I was aware that there would be a technical response—indeed, I flagged it up during my opening
72
remarks—due to the possibility of a loss of income for the BOA. I refer to the explanation that the Minister has just given regarding compensating for this loss. However, I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument about the wider benefits of the British Paralympic Association being excluded. There is real merit in including the British Paralympic Association within the overall list, which goes much wider than the British Olympic Association. As I mentioned, it covers the Greater London Authority and the National Lottery distributor. Even the Secretary of State can receive money directly from the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund. For those reasons I should like to test the will of the House on this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 29 shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order. 54. A Division cannot therefore take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 30 [Distribution]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Distribution policy]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 18. at end insert ", and
(iv) the British Paralympic Association"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to introduce these amendments, which include the British Paralympic Association in the list of consultees on the Olympic lottery strategy. I hope that they will meet with approval from both the Government and the House. A similar amendment was debated in Committee and it was encouraging to learn from the Minister that the Government were minded to look favourably on the principle contained in the amendment, provided that some changes were made.
I am also grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrats, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in Committee. Subsequently, the Minister wrote to me on 12 July and indicated the Government's support for the amendment, for which I am grateful. I have always believed that many sporting issues cut across party lines in the House, and in many cases those lines are erased altogether.
All sections of the House have worked together in the past to bring about improvements to legislation to the overall benefit of sport. This amendment is one of those areas where there should be no difference between the political parties. There is a great deal of support for the excellent work of the British Paralympic Association, and there is a general feeling that the Bill could and should do more to recognise that work. That is the underlying rationale for the

73
amendment. It is designed to ensure that when the new Olympic lottery distributor prepares or revises its distribution policy, it will have a statutory requirement to consult with the British Paralympic Association.
As the Bill is presently worded, when the Olympic lottery distributor draws up its distribution policy it is under a statutory requirement under Clause 31(4)(b) to consult with the National Lottery Commission, the Mayor of London and the British Olympic Association. It is eminently sensible that the key stakeholders in the London 2012 bid are consulted. They are well placed to help to set the main parameters for the spending of the £750 million of lottery funding for the bid.
Yet the original Bill made no reference to the British Paralympic Association. Were anyone tempted to ask why it is so important for the British Paralympic Association to be included in the list of statutory consultees for the Olympic lottery distributor, the answer is simple. It is because the British Paralympic Association can bring uniquely valuable experience and expertise to the distribution policy, and can help to ensure that the Olympic lottery distributor takes proper account of the Paralympic Games.
One of the more satisfying aspects of my time in another place as Minister for Sport was the opportunity to help oversee the setting up and funding of the first million pounds to go to the British Paralympic Association, in 1989. Since that time, the role and reputation of the British Paralympic Association has grown immensely. It sends teams to every Paralympic Games, and supports the development of elite athletes. In so doing, the BPA has developed a body of expertise in high performance disability sports which is second to none.
The Paralympic Games have their own special organisational requirements. To give the House an idea of the scale of the task ahead, it is helpful to look back on the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. A record 122 countries participated at those games, the largest games in paralympic history. During the games, the paralympic village was home to 6,943 people, of whom 3,284 were athletes, 2,315 were team officials and 804 were technical officials.
Clearly, there were a number of specific issues concerning the staging of the Paralympic Games and it is important that the Olympic lottery distributor has access to the best advice available. The British Paralympic Association is in a position to supply that advice, and it is more than happy to do so. It is essential that the Bill is amended to take maximum advantage of the skills in the BPA and to ensure that the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games are a huge success.
The amendment will help to ensure that the London 2012 games are fully inclusive and that that inclusiveness starts right at the very top, with the lottery distribution policy, and then permeates down to every level of the games. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, what happens should reflect the reality of the situation, and I hope that the Government will still support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh: My Lords, I endorse every word that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said and I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert ", and
(d) the British Paralympic Association"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved manuscript Amendment No. 41A:
Insert the following new Clause—
"Reports on financing of Olympics
"(1) A report about the financing of the Olympic Games in London, including the raising and distribution of Lottery money, shall be commissioned following—

(a) the decision of the International Olympic Committee to elect a city to host the 2012 Olympic Games, and

(b) the completion of 2012 Olympic Games in London, that is published and presented to both Houses of Parliament.

(2) Such a report shall incorporate any additional reports on the same subject by—

(a) the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee,

(b) the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee,

(c) the National Audit Office, and

(d) the Organising Committee of the 2012 Olympic Gaines.

(3) Such a report shall contain an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of establishing National Lottery games to raise money in connection with future sporting and cultural events in the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for having a manuscript amendment—it appears that my original drafting was slightly outside the scope of the Bill. This is a fairly simple point. This is a narrow Bill, which deals with the 2012 Olympic bid for London. The amendment is an attempt to guarantee that if something goes wrong within the scope of the Bill, a report can be produced or any reports can be brought together so that we know what happened and what went wrong for all future events. The primary reason for the amendment is that the lessons learned will not only apply to any future Olympic bid but to any major event we care to take part in, such as the cities of culture competition or other games or championships.
It was suggested in Committee that this information is generally available if one knows where to look. The amendment is an attempt to bring it together coherently, so that there is at least a starting point for making an assessment with regard to future activities. That is the aim and objective of the amendment and I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I am pleased to support the principle behind the amendment. What the noble Lord proposes seems eminently sensible

75
and should be of benefit to sport in the United Kingdom. It is hard to believe it, but now is the first time that London has bid for the Olympic Games since it last hosted them in 1948. If the unthinkable happens and London is not chosen to host the 2012 Olympic Games, there should be an inquiry into how we could have done better. That should include such areas as government support and transport, as well as finance. I very much hope that the Minister will support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we considered a comparable amendment in Committee, and I said that I was very happy to discuss the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and wrote to him to that effect to invite him to a meeting. However, I had no response.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if a letter were sent, it never got to me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry; it must have been one of those things. I am afraid that my answer is very similar to what it was on the comparable amendment. The amendment would make the creation of two reports—one to be commissioned when the IOC decides who will host the games in 2012, and a further on completion of a London games—a statutory requirement. Certainly there must be due process to capture and make the most of all the available information in relation to staging the Games, but I do not believe that the amendment is the best way to achieve that.
As we said in Committee, there are already a number of arrangements in place to capture key information, and hold accountable those bodies charged with delivering the Games and ensuring an appropriate sporting legacy from them. In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, there are appropriate measures through existing parliamentary powers, and I am confident that those would be exercised. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has already demonstrated a close interest in the London Olympic bid. We have welcomed that and contributed to it. I am sure that the committee will continue to do so, and the Public Accounts Committee will play an appropriate role. My department already works closely with other key stakeholders in the bid, including the sports lottery bodies and the devolved administrations, to consider how best to capture the benefits of the Games, whatever the outcome, so that knowledge can be transferred and used for future bids.
As for the report on the completion of the Games, the host-city contract that will be entered into with the International Olympic Committee requires that within three months of the conclusion of the Games, the organising committee for the Olympic Games it has the horrible acronym of OCOG—submits to the IOC a report on all aspects of the organisation of the Games, including an analysis of performance. A report has been produced for each Olympic Games since Athens in 1896. I cannot see how commissioning a further report with the same purpose will enhance the legislation, nor can I see a good reason for such a provision to appear in the Bill.
76
The proposals should not be translated into additional statutory requirements as part of the legislation. I honestly think that the issues are already covered by the arrangements in Parliament and from the International Olympic Committee. I shall be very happy to discuss the matter in more detail with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, without the necessity for a letter, which might not reach its destination.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if there is a letter in future, we hope that the parliamentary postal service will meet its normally excellent standards and will not let us down. I have a nagging suspicion that I shall discover that the letter has fallen down the back of a file somewhere; that is the normal fate of letters that do not get through. I shall leave the mess of my office aside.
We have not moved any further forward. My thrust was to try to bring the matter to one coherent whole, so that people can actually find out what is going on and so that there is a report that is better designed for the reference purposes of those who look at it from outside. If there is some way to achieve that, it would help dramatically in the whole process through which we are going. It might even help in all future relevant situations in which we try to get something to encourage public attention, as there would be something from which we were able to break down information for other sporting events.
One of the changes in tack between the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and myself is that I regard the Olympics as the best thing on a conveyor belt going past us, although other events are very important. The Olympics are the cherry on top of the cake—they are something to strive for, but there are many other sporting and cultural events for which we should go. That is one reason why it is so important that we have better information.
Given the very favourable response and the fact that the Minister has been prepared to discuss the matter, it would be totally inappropriate to take the amendment to a Division at the moment, but I shall endeavour to get in touch with the Minister's office this time. Let us see if I can get a message through. We can discuss the matter and see whether there is some caveat, or something else that can be done. There is a practical point here that is not addressed by the current systems, which seem only to address the top-level organised professionals. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Commencement]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 21, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) No part of Part I shall be brought into force unless a draft of a statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that Parliament has the final approval on the Government's decision to sell the Tote. I recognise that there has been much debate about the need to hold the Government to their manifesto commitment to sell the Tote to a racing trust. As such, I will endeavour to provide a brief

77
overview of the benefits of the amendment, while recognising that it clearly falls into the category of an amendment that has far greater relevance if the Government fail to fulfil their undertakings given earlier this afternoon when we return in September.
As we know, so many of the Government's intentions for the Tote are to be taken on trust. Although I recognise that there has been some movement during the passage of the Bill, the Government still refuse to specify the Racing Trust in the Bill. Noble Lords will also be aware that the price charged for the Tote is of vital importance to the Racing Trust. That is because the trust will need to borrow the money to pay the Government, and so is limited by the cost of interest payments on the debt. In other words, the promise to sell to the Racing Trust is worthless unless the price is one that the trust can afford.
I shall not develop the full detail of the argument during my short speech. I want to underline that the amendment is designed to do the next best thing to delaying Third Reading until a satisfactory sale of the Tote to a racing trust is achieved. It does so by allowing the Government a free hand to negotiate or complete the sale of the Tote, with the proviso that the final agreement is then subject to parliamentary approval. If Parliament does not agree with the Government's intentions, the whole of Part 1 will fall and the Tote will remain as it is currently constituted.
The amendment overcomes all the concerns that the Minister put before the House earlier. It overcomes the concerns about finalising the negotiations and waiting until the European Commission has come up with its ruling—if any. It overcomes all the concerns shared by many people, both inside this House and outside, that there is a possibility, if Part 1 is passed unamended, that the Government could simply nationalise the Tote and sell it to whomever they like, whenever, at whatever price and under whatever circumstances.
The Minister and the Minister for Sport have been eloquent in arguing that selling the Tote to a racing trust is sacrosanct—that it is a manifesto commitment and a policy that the Government will see through. The amendment allows them to go ahead and deliver, with Parliament having the final say. I am sure that that final say would take only minutes, if that, when it was finally requested, but at least it would be a backstop. It would enable myself or someone in my position in future to praise the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, as chairman of the Racing Trust, for their work in achieving the goal that they set out before Parliament.
The amendment has the benefit of allowing flexibility for the Government and the House. I humbly suggest that it offers more flexibility than the Government's own amendment. It has also the not inconsiderable advantage that, rather than relying on the Secretary of State's opinions about whether someone is a person,
"representing the interests of the sport of horse racing",
it relies on the facts as presented to both Houses of Parliament.
As I mentioned at the start of this speech, the principle behind the amendment has already been well debated. I am conscious that it would be unwise to move to a Division at this stage, because it is absolutely the type of amendment that we would need to consider when we return in September on the first day after the Recess to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of the Government's commitment to negotiate a successful sale with the Racing Trust.
Every day between now and mid-September, therefore, is focused towards that goal and the amendment could be returned to if the undertakings that the Minister has given the House today are not achieved. For those reasons the principle behind the amendment is important and becomes even more important as a result of today's proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I greatly welcome the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not to press the amendment to a vote this afternoon. I have been reflecting, while your Lordships have been debating the Olympic lottery, which is not a subject upon which I could contribute, that we have seen two important developments today.
First, the Minister has said what the Government can and cannot do under the conventions in terms of negotiating a deal and he has promised to write to noble Lords with his view. That letter will be of great importance to all of us in assessing what we should do when we return to the Bill. We need to assess that letter before we decide on fundamental steps.
Secondly, the Minister said that he would have no objection if the date of 7 September goes—I paraphrase him although it is perhaps not entirely accurate. I can see wisdom in shifting that date back—perhaps not too far, but to give us a little time to take stock at the beginning of September when we are all assembled. In those circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would be doing the right thing in coming finally to the right decision and withdrawing the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have little to add to what I said at the beginning. In so far as there are new matters raised by the amendment, I undertake that they will be addressed in the letter that I propose to write.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Schedule 1 [New Schedule 1A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963]:
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 22, line 18, at end insert "in all material respects"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having been almost reprimanded by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for being brief in moving certain earlier amendments

79
which were of value in protecting the Tote, I had drafted a two and three-quarter hour speech on the amendment. But I suspect that at this time of night that might not be wholly welcome to the House.
I should say that, given that the breach of the condition set out in the schedule constitutes a criminal offence, only material failures should constitute such an offence. If a totalisator is not working one morning because someone has put glue in it or it is not operated properly, that would constitute an immaterial factor and it would not be fair for anyone to go to gaol as a result. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, which is minor and technical but will provide some comfort to the wives and husbands of Tote employees who will find that their spouse is not likely to be locked up as a result of this drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given that I am not surrounded by my Whips at this stage of our proceedings, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is not planning to push the amendment to a vote. However, I am delighted to support the amendment which is similar to Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 which we debated earlier and bears more than a passing resemblance to an amendment in my name that we considered in Grand Committee.
I hope and trust that in being brief the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has more success convincing the Minister with his compelling arguments than I had in Grand Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no such luck. I am afraid that the words, "in all material respects" do not add anything at all to the meaning of the schedule. Parliamentary counsel are deeply reluctant to add words that do not have any meaning and I have some sympathy with that. However, I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is looking for is an assurance that the wives and children of unfortunate operators of totalisators will not find themselves in prison as a result of a minor infringement which could hardly be called their fault. A minor technical glitch will happen from time to time and the Gaming Board will have to decide whether a pool betting operator has failed to comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1A. I believe that the Gaming Board will not behave unreasonably. It will be required by administrative law not to behave unreasonably and it would not be constrained by the phrase "in all material respects".
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister's comforting words will no doubt be nailed above the beds of the partners of every Tote employee in the land. In view of his comments I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that House do now adjourn during Pleasure until 7.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.16 to 7.30 p.m.]

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before I speak to the Bill, I offer an apology to the House for causing the adjournment 10 minutes ago. I have found that it is impossible to be in two places at once. At the time, I was in the Grand Committee.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to bring this Bill to your Lordships' House. It is a very short Bill, with one substantive clause. That clause does two very simple things to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. First, in subsection (2) the Bill extends the circumstances in which the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is better known as the Ombudsman, will investigate a complaint; and, secondly, in subsection (3), it adds the Government Actuary's Department to the list of bodies that are within the Parliamentary Commissioner's remit as set out in Schedule 2 of the 1967 Act.
Before explaining those two subsections, it might be of assistance to the House if I paint a little of the background that has led me to introduce the Bill for consideration. The Parliamentary Commissioner has an important role in carrying out independent investigations into the administrative actions of government departments and other public bodies. The Parliamentary Commissioner is an important part of the framework of checks and balances in our constitution and is held in very high regard. My Bill extends the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner's work.
The real background to my Bill is the sorry story of Equitable Life Assurance Society, which was closed to new business in December 2000. I am extremely pleased to be able to report to the House that I have absolutely no interests to declare in this regard as neither I nor any of my family invested a penny piece in Equitable. But I feel sure that many noble Lords join me in having at least second-hand experience of the sense of outrage felt by those whose financial security was removed or severely dented by Equitable.
I shall not delve into the fall of Equitable itself. Earlier this year, we had the very extensive study into Equitable by the learned Lord Penrose, and we have had the opportunity to debate that. The driving force behind my Bill is the role of government departments in the financial misery meted out to Equitable policy holders. The Penrose report highlighted the management and governance failures that beset the conduct of the company's affairs. But the report also singled out the role

81
of other agencies involved, notably the Financial Services Agency, the Treasury and the Government Actuary's Department.
The Penrose report did not, of course, opine on maladministration as such, but it offered much evidence to contribute to a judgment about the relevant administrative actions—that is, it is very relevant to a consideration by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
As would be expected, the Parliamentary Commissioner received many complaints from aggrieved policy holders. Having resisted initially, the Parliamentary Commissioner eventually decided in October 2001 to examine one representative complaint. That investigation was to cover only the work of the FSA and only for a period of a little less than two years from 1 January 1999.
In November 2002, a new Parliamentary Commissioner was appointed and she confirmed that the investigation would not cover a longer period. She repeated that conclusion in June 2003, when her report on the representative complaint was eventually made to Parliament. She also stated that she had no legal power to examine the Government Actuary's Department as it was not listed in the 1967 Act.
It was not surprising that those Equitable policy holders who lost so much financially could not comprehend the Parliamentary Commissioner's decision, and could not understand why she would not look at the whole sorry history of Equitable, as the learned Lord Penrose did. They also did not understand why the Parliamentary Commissioner would not look at the Government Actuary's Department along with the DTI and the Treasury before 1999. Honourable and right honourable Members of another place could not understand it either, which is why there was much pressure for the Parliamentary Commissioner to think again.
In April this year, the Parliamentary Commissioner said that she would look again at whether she should re-investigate matters related to Equitable Life. A few hours ago she announced her decision, which is that she will re-open the case and investigate the period before 1999. That is a welcome decision for all those who have suffered because of Equitable. But the bad news is that she confirmed that she had no power to examine the Government Actuary's Department, although she has asked the Treasury to extend her powers in that regard.
I now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Under the 1967 Act, the Parliamentary Commissioner may conduct an investigation outside the normal time limit for complaints if he considers that there are special circumstances that make it proper to do so. The Bill that I present to the House goes one step further and says that the Parliamentary Commissioner shall conduct an investigation if the House of Commons so resolves.
The Parliamentary Commissioner reports to the House of Commons and receives complaints via MPs, so it seems right that the other place should be able to direct that the Parliamentary Commissioner carries out an investigation, even if it is outside the normal
82
timeframe. That deals with a general frustration that has been felt that the other place ought to have a little more say in what cases the Parliamentary Commissioner should investigate. It is a modest extension of the powers of the other place.
Subsection (2) brings the Government Actuary's Department within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 by adding it to Schedule 2. The Penrose report describes the Government Actuary's Department as "persistently naive" and "complacent". In her report today the Parliamentary Commissioner says at paragraph 33:
"I consider there is sufficient initial evidence to suggest that the actions of GAD are key to an assessment of whether maladministration by the prudential regulator constituted an unremediated injustice to complainants".
As I said earlier, the Parliamentary Commissioner has asked the Treasury for her jurisdiction to be extended to cover the Government Actuary's Department. My Bill is directly in point. I am delighted that the Minister is here this evening to respond to the Bill. I hope that he will say that the Government support my Bill. If the Minister cannot say that, I hope that he will at least indicate how the Government intend to respond to the Parliamentary Commissioner's request. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Noakes.)
7.38 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on bringing forward the Bill today. Whether she is unusually prescient or whether she has precipitated the ombudsman to bring forward her report, I am not sure. The timing is absolutely perfect.
We, on these Benches, have supported the ombudsman route as the most likely way, post Penrose, of achieving progress on Equitable Life. Therefore, we are extremely pleased that the ombudsman has decided, in principle, that she would like to investigate Equitable. However, the question is whether the Government will allow her to do so by extending the scope of the Act that we are discussing tonight to bring the Government Actuary's Department within it. A failure by the Government to agree fairly rapidly to do that would suggest that they are obstructing a possible definitive ruling on at least one aspect of the Equitable Life debacle. Therefore, I hope very much that they accede to the ombudsman's request.
Given that we have a Bill before us which does that—here is one that the noble Baroness prepared earlier—it would seem that the sensible way forward from the Government's point of view is just to agree to it and be done with it, save the time and let the ombudsman get cracking. One of the main problems with this whole sorry story is the amount of time that has passed since the problems arose and even the possibility of any redress.

83
So I hope that the Minister will be very forthcoming this evening. If not, I hope that the Government will come forward with a speedy response. It is a very simple request. The legislation required is short and sweet. There can be no "in principle" argument against introducing it. So I am afraid that it is over to you, Minister.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her prescience in bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House and on pursuing this matter with her usual vigour.
As the noble Baroness said, the parliamentary ombudsman has this afternoon announced that she will conduct a further investigation into the prudential regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society—Equitable Life.
I know that the House is aware of the background. The ombudsman agreed to give further consideration to the position following the publication of the Penrose report and the Government's response to that report. In the special report laid before Parliament today, the ombudsman makes clear the reasons for her decision. Her decision was reached following an extensive consultation exercise. In her report, she states that she,
"received approximately 2,000 responses, including 211 from Members of Parliament, 1,603 from policyholders or former policyholders, three from policyholder action groups, and responses from Equitable Life, the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority, the Government Actuary's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry".
So I think we need be under no illusion that there is considerable concern about the whole issue—a very sorry saga, as the noble Baroness described it.
As part of the consultation exercise, the ombudsman also invited a number of interested parties to meet her, and the details are set out in the report.
The ombudsman states in her report that the new investigation will focus on the actions of the government departments responsible under the relevant legislation for the prudential regulation of Equitable Life. She makes clear that her investigation will, subject to the approval of a request she has made of the Government, also include the actions of the Government Actuary's Department.
This afternoon the Government received a formal request from the ombudsman to make the necessary arrangements to include the Government Actuary's Department within her jurisdiction. We have only just received this request and we will give it urgent consideration, not least because of the time that has elapsed since the onset of problems with this particular issue relating to Equitable Life. We will reply to the ombudsman as soon as we possibly can.
I have been invited to make some observations on the noble Baroness's Bill. I shall keep these brief. First, if the Government agree to the request to include the Government Actuary's Department within the ombudsman's jurisdiction, Section 4(3) of the
84
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 provides that public bodies which meet certain criteria can be added to her jurisdiction by Order in Council. Bodies not meeting those criteria could only be added by primary legislation.
Therefore, if the Government agree to the ombudsman's request to include the Government Actuary's Department within her jurisdiction, they could be expected to do this by Order in Council rather than primary legislation. The Government are therefore not convinced of the need for this part of the Bill.
Secondly, in addition to including the Government Actuary's Department within the ombudsman's jurisdiction, the noble Baroness's Bill also proposes amending Section 6(3) of the 1967 Act. That section of the Act provides that, where there are special circumstances which make it proper to do so, the ombudsman may consider complaints more than 12 months old.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would add a new paragraph, which would provide that the commissioner,
"(b) shall conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint not made within that period if the House of Commons so resolves".
At present, the ombudsman decides what cases to investigate. To give the other place the power to tell the ombudsman that she must investigate would, I believe, have implications for the operation of the office of ombudsman. I also think it unlikely that the ombudsman herself would support a Bill that sought to fetter her decision-making powers.
I make these observations on the noble Baroness's Bill, not in the spirit of great hostility because I recognise the spirit in which the Bill has been constructed. I am prepared to give an undertaking, which is a quite easy one to give, that we will reply to the ombudsman on the issue of including the Government Actuary's Department within her jurisdiction as soon as possible because we recognise the urgency of the issue.
The ombudsman's report is most helpful. We will make a rapid response. While we are not hostile to the Bill, it is deficient in the ways we have described. So, it is not for us obviously to deal with that matter today. Much as we welcome the opportunity to make our views known with regard to the usefulness of the ombudsman's report, it is probably best if we leave it there.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his support for the Bill and I thank the Minister for his response. Perhaps I may say to both noble Lords that I do not feel that I had prescience in the matter; I think I was lucky with my timing.
The Minister used the sorts of formulations that we often hear from the Government Front Bench—that the matter will be given urgent consideration and that a reply will be made as soon as possible. We know that that can mean many things to many Ministers. I hope that the Minister will send a message back to

85
colleagues in the Treasury that this really is an important matter which needs to be dealt with earlier.
If the Government do agree, I accept that the simplest procedure would be to add the Government Actuary's Department by Order in Council. But until we see the Government's response we must wait and see.
I hear the Minister's comment that the additional power to the other place may well be deemed to be excessive, but I would say to the Minister that the purpose of the existence of the parliamentary ombudsman is as a check on the executive, not as a
86
check on the other place. If we can improve ways in which the executive can be held to account, then I cannot see that anybody really can object to that.
Inevitably, today's report of the parliamentary commissioner has changed the scenario. Over the summer obviously I shall be considering what to do with my Bill alongside consideration of any government response.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Pensions Bill
(Fifth Day)
Monday, 19 July 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 107 [Investment of funds]:
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: On the last occasion, the Question was put whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill and I responded by saying that this was obviously an important clause. Our proceedings were then cut short by a Division in the House.
During the weekend, I contemplated the progress we had made on the Bill. We have spent a considerable time debating the membership of the regulator and the board of the pension protection fund. In the light of our earlier discussions, I though I might make a constructive suggestion; namely, that Members of this Grand Committee shall forthwith be appointed to the board of the pension protection fund. We have every possible expertise. We have my noble friend Lord Hunt on insolvency; my noble friend Lady Noakes on accountancy; the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, on fund management; and the noble Lord, Lord Lea, on trade union representation. I was not going to leave out the noble Baroness—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I thought that first we should all take the trustees examination that Peter Lilley has taken. That would be an essential requirement and I am beginning to think that at the end of this procedure we might all have a fair crack at it.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Some of us are puzzled by why noble Lords opposite were so concerned about knowing the composition of the remuneration committee.
Lord Higgins: We have even more expertise, such as my noble friend Lord Borrie. We could negotiate the remuneration on a reasonable basis, including a pension arrangement.
Be that as it may, Clause 107 is indeed important, concerned with the investment of funds of the pension protection fund. References have been made to a number of reports by outside individuals appointed by the Government to look into various aspects of
GC 2
corporate governance. In this context, a report by Mr Myners dealt with the way in which pension funds might operate in investing. On the last occasion, I reflected that whenever such an individual was appointed to this sort of job, his own business tends to deteriorate. I am not sure where that will leave Marks & Spencer at the present time. However, the Myners' report makes a number of valuable remarks which are relevant to Clause 107.
We need to consider carefully, in the context of the pension protection fund, exactly how the money it acquires by taking over eligible funds is to be invested, and in particular the principles involved when it operates in that way. The clause begins by stating:
"The Board may invest for the purposes of the prudent management of its financial affairs".
No one could object to that in one sense, except that what "prudent management" means is not made clear. We should note that this will comprise a massive conglomerate of pension funds—if, tragically, a number of funds and companies with funds do fail—which the PPF will need to manage. In essence it will operate as a pension fund, but of a rather strange kind because, as we discussed during our deliberations on earlier clauses, all these funds are effectively for deferred pensioners. Therefore the investment funds may be somewhat different from that which would apply to an ordinary final salary pension fund.
The crucial question arose when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was kind enough to arrange a meeting ahead of our discussion of this Bill, concerning asset allocation. We asked in what way the pension protection fund ought to allocate its assets. If one were to interpret,
"the prudent management of its financial affairs",
very precisely, I suppose it could be said that the sensible thing to do would be to put the whole lot in gilts. I am not sure whether that is what the Government have in mind, but it would certainly tend to relieve pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his effort to finance his very considerable borrowing requirements.
However, if that is the case, as is likely, the costs of the levy will be greater than need be. Even though, as I understand, all the pensioners will, in effect, be deferred pensioners, there would be none the less a case for a mix of assets between gilts on the one hand and investment in equities, hedge funds or similar on the other rather than all of them in gilts. That would minimise the long-term cost of the operation to those paying the levy. We need to be clear about exactly what the Government have in mind when they state in the Bill that:
"The Board may invest for the purposes of the prudent management of its financial affairs".
The clause goes on to state that,
"there should be at least two fund managers",
which is also certainly my view because that is sensible. However, other Members of the Committee have greater experience of that side of things. I refer also to the various recommendations made in the Myners report that the trustees should be paid. Perhaps I have

GC 3
not studied the Bill adequately, but I am not yet clear whether the pension protection fund will have trustees as such or whether it will comprise a board. If it is not to have trustees, I do not understand the argument against it. There would seem to be a case for a board.
Myners goes on to ask particular funds—I think this would apply to normal funds as well as to the pension protection fund—about their attitude to risk, which is important. In order to minimise the burden on those paying the levy, will the PPF take some degree of risk in terms of the,
"prudent management of its financial affairs'"?
As regards the appointment of fund managers, are we to understand that there will be straightforward, open competition? I hope that there will be. But will we have rules laid down, which at the moment I cannot find in the Bill, about commission and transaction costs and whether or not they should—which I think not—engage in operations with soft options and so forth? Those are matters that I think, at this stage, it would be appropriate for us to have an idea about exactly how the Government think operations should be conducted under this clause.
Rather more fundamentally, will there be investments in active funds or in passive funds, and so forth? They will all be of very great importance to the success and ultimate cost of the operation. Given that the cost of the operation is a deterrent to people continuing to operate final salary schemes and to bear the cost of the levy, this is a matter about which we ought to be concerned. I shall not burden the Committee more, but this clause raises a number of very important issues. We shall come to some of the others at Clause 108. It would be helpful to have the Government's views. There is great expertise in the Committee and some Members may have views on how we should operate this fund.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I, too, wish to press the Minister on some of those questions. The key point that should be stated in the Bill, about which we must be clear, is the broad parameter of the investment policy that the PPF should pursue. What is the benchmark? How will we know whether the board has done a good or a bad job?
Some of the more detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, such as investment tactics, commission or costs, are not matters for the face of the Bill, but it is obviously perfectly proper to raise them now. No doubt, the Minister will answer us on those.
The basic investment policy—the strategy—cannot be divorced from the nature of the risks that the fund faces. As a little taster for the debate that we will have later about the circumstances, if any, under which the Government should stand behind the fund as a lender of last resort, if the Government hold to their view that they cannot stand behind the fund under any circumstances, that will inevitably mean that the PPF will have to pursue a much more risk-averse policy. Indeed, it is questionable whether it would be prudent to have equities in any proportion at all which,
GC 4
inevitably, will lead to a greater cost in the long run. I make that point of principle that will, in turn, affect investment strategy.
Lord Borrie: I hope that the Minister has a number of answers to the points about the way in which the provision of funds will be implemented. I am sure that the Government have given considerable thought to this and that the Minister will respond in a way that none of the rest of us can.
Perhaps I may comment on one or two points, especially those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I have not read the Bill as though there will be any trustees. I have read these provisions as though there is the board, as mentioned in the previous clause. Although Clause 107 states that the board "may invest", it makes it clear that the board will appoint two fund managers, which received congratulatory comment from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Clause 107(1) includes the phrase "prudent management". I should be surprised if that meant always and forever investing in gilts because I would not have thought that was, at all times, the prudent thing to do in order to invest money and safeguard its value. It all depends on what is going on out there in the world, and the managers will determine that and determine the right balance.
3.45 p.m.
Indeed, I should also have thought that the managers will keep a balance between investment, which we are discussing specifically under this clause, and the other matter of levy. In so far as managers are successful in investing, the levy will be that much less burdensome—and the opposite is true as well. Perhaps the Minister can put the matter more clearly than I can.
Finally, I am sometimes critical of Her Majesty's Opposition, or for that matter the Liberal Democrat opposition. I mention the two separately because the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, criticised me last week for not making the proper distinction between the two groups that sit opposite me. I have sometimes criticised the Opposition for wanting to put in the Bill more than seems appropriate—usually when they want to state the obvious. But in this instance, I must say to the Minister that subsection (4) is stating the obvious, as it says that in appointing a fund manager, the board must chose someone with the "appropriate knowledge and experience". That is so obvious that it does not need saying. I do not mind that it is there, but if the Opposition had proposed it, I must admit that I would question whether we needed those additional words.
Lord Lucas: I start by wishing the Minister the very best of fortune. The last sitting week in July is always trying, and even the best of Ministers must have some collywobbles. I hope that we can keep her mind off it, at least for this afternoon.
I find this a very exciting part of the Bill. We are seeing here the birth of a creature that may be the forerunner of solutions to two substantial problems, one of which is the annuity difficulty and one of which relates to stakeholder pensions. This sort of vehicle is in effect a public/private pension fund, which is to be run as a public body but will be just like being in a private pension fund in terms of the structure operation and the management of investment. It may be something which, if it can be made to work, we can extend to people who do not wish to turn their pensions into annuities at an early stage, and which would certainly offer, because of the scale of its operations, the opportunity for a low-cost, high-quality pension for people investing small amounts—in other words, a stakeholder pension fund. Here we have a structure because we need it.
If we can make it work, and if we think carefully about it, try to avoid the pitfalls and think around all the characteristics and make it something that will function, we may have something that will be extremely valuable. It is worth spending time on this matter; it is the birth of an idea, and one of the key parts of the Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not see the need to amend or reframe Clause 107, which seems entirely adequate. I regard this as an insurance scheme. It is a very good idea to protect the interests of people in schemes, and I hope that it is successful. I see no need at all to alter either Clause 107 or Clause 108, since the investment principle is spelt out in the next clause.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend Lady Turner made tellingly the substance of the point that I was going to make.
I would be reluctant to describe the fund as a pension scheme, although it has some of those features, or even as an insurance scheme, as my noble friend did. It is a compensation scheme, but it obviously has features of both pensions and insurance in it.
As for its structure, my noble friend Lord Borrie was right in his response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. We are talking about a board, rather than trustees. The sort of responsibility that we would expect when advertising for non-executive directors under the Nolan principle is for a commitment to around 20 days a year for a fee of about £15,000. I have no idea whether that will hold over time, but it is our current expectation.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are getting to a particularly interesting part of the Bill: trying to find a way through the moral hazard issues of backstopping what has hitherto been a private contract, and doing so in a public law way without recourse to public funds. Clause 107 allows the board to invest for the prudent management of its financial affairs. It is common for NDPBs to be allowed to invest funds—there is a precedent with the Pensions Compensation Board (PCB). Under Section 85 of the Pensions Act 1995, the PCB is currently permitted to invest any funds which it considers to be surplus to its immediate requirements.
The principle of allowing an NDPB to invest is to ensure value for money; in other words, investment by the board may increase the assets in the pension protection fund and therefore over time reduce the amount required to be raised by the pension protection levies. It will be very hard to achieve averages. A small number of schemes might join in one period or possibly a large number of quite small schemes will join in another, but there might suddenly be a major collapse. Resources will be needed to even out that very uneven profile, particularly if a certain sector of the economy is hit. Of the 10 major American companies that joined the scheme, live were steel, four were airlines and the last was Polaroid—I think that that is the right way around. A particular sector was hit, which produced a very jagged profile of liabilities.
We have been keen to stress that the PPF will operate at arm's length from government—investment is one example where that principle is seen in practice. This means that the board along with its advisers will be required to be responsible for its own financial management, including its investment strategy. It would not be sensible to require the board to be accountable for its financial management if we restricted its investment powers unduly. If we prescribed how the board should invest, it would put pressure on future governments to step in if investment returns went down. However, the power to invest is subject to some reasonable restrictions—under subsection (2) of this clause, the board must appoint at least two fund managers. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that appointment will be by straightforward, open competition, to use his phrase. Before doing so, however, the board must be satisfied that the individuals or firms have the appropriate knowledge and experience.
We will discuss accountability later, but it may be worth highlighting a few key aspects. First, the board must ensure that a written statement of the principles governing decisions about investments is prepared and reviewed regularly—my noble friend Lady Turner was absolutely right in this regard. We expect the principles to cover such aspects as choosing investments: the kind of investments to be held; the balance between the different types of investment—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made—risk; projected returns on investment; and social, environmental or ethical considerations in the selection, retention and realisation of investments.
I would be happy to circulate to Members of the Committee three examples of statements of investment principle, because I myself was interested in how they were done. Clause 108 deals with the issue more fully. One example held to be a model of good practice is the university superannuation scheme. Its statement of investment principles lays down clearly what proportion of its investments and assets it expects to be held in UK equities, overseas equities, fixed interest and property, and what proportion of divergence there is on either side. Members opposite may well be entirely familiar with this. The three examples are the BP pension fund, a local government fund and a university superannuation scheme, which are all very

GC 7
similar. If they are models of best practice, I would be surprised if ours diverged greatly from them. If it would help noble Lords, I would be happy to circulate the examples so that they can see what they might look like. This approach is more appropriate than including such a provision in the Bill.
Secondly, the PPF will be required to produce annual reports, together with audited accounts. Furthermore, the non-executive committee of the PPF board will monitor performance, strategy and risk management and the organisation will have key targets and performance indicators.
Given all that, we obviously cannot define the word "prudent" in the abstract or lay down precisely what should be gilts, hedge funds, equities, derivatives or whatever, but the combination of the accountability of the PPF board through its annual report, through the Secretary of State and to Parliament, together with the statement of investment principles and the open competition for fund managers, should address any concerns that the Committee may have about the nature and structure of the financial investment policies of the board. With that, I hope that the Committee will accept that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position, specifically the fact that there will be no trustees, it will be the board. These are important issues. It is difficult to know to what extent one should write matters into the Bill—that may be more difficult for Clause 108 than for Clause 107. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the way in which the provisions for appointing appropriate managers, and so on, are spelt out in Clause 107 is perhaps a little over the top.
On other matters, I shall need to consider what the noble Baroness said—in particular, whether there will be an opportunity for a parliamentary debate on the report. However, again, we shall come to that in later clauses, so I shall not pursue the matter further at this stage.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Investment principles]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 75, line 26, leave out "made by the Board about investments" and insert "about investments made by or on behalf of the Board"
The noble Baroness said: I hope to be brief on this. This government amendment relates to Clause 108—the statement of investment principles—and provides that the board's statement must govern decisions made not only by the board but by those making decisions on behalf of the board. In other words, it is effectively a drafting amendment that covers the major point. Those making decisions on behalf of the board will primarily be the fund managers.
It is envisaged that the board must set out in its statement of investment those principles that govern decisions made by the board or by the fund managers
GC 8
on behalf of the board in relation to the sort of issues that I mentioned earlier—investments, the balance of risk, projected returns and whatever environmental, social or other considerations may be appropriate. Without the amendment, the fund managers could legitimately act in a manner contrary to the statement of investment principles. I am sure that they would not want to if they sought to have their contracts renewed, but they could. Hence, I hope that the Committee will accept that this amendment is useful and necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: May I clarify one aspect of the amendment that I am sure is straightforward, but I am not sure that I understand it at present? Could statements of investment principles be made by someone else on behalf of the board? Under the amendment, the clause will state that a,
"'statement of investment principles' means a written statement of the investment principles governing determinations about investments made by or on behalf of the Board".
Does that mean investments made by or on behalf of the board or determinations—determination of the written statement of principles? I suggest that the amendment is ambiguous and could be read as implying that someone else could be setting the statement of investment principles, which would be wrong.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry. What it does is ensure that fund managers are caught within the responsibility to adhere to the statement of investment principles. In other words, not only the board but the board's agents must act in conformity with the statement of investment principles. It is obvious that they should but, technically, there could be a lacuna without the amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I completely accept that they should be bound by the statement of investment principles, but I was concerned that the amendment implied that someone other than the board could make that statement of investment principles on the board's behalf.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I am assured not, but I will check to make sure that it could not be read in that way.
4 p.m.
Lord Lucas: The draftsmen are terrible commaphobics. They clearly need to read the wonderful book on grammar, Eats, Shoots and Leaves. It is equally possible to read the clause in either direction. I would be very grateful to know the rule that says it should be read the Government's way rather than in the way suggested by my noble friend.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have read and enjoyed that book. We know that the understanding of the clause will be shaped in the context of the discussion here. I hope that it is now sufficiently clear, thanks to the question of the noble Baroness. There should be no ambiguity.
Lord Borrie: It becomes clearer if one looks at the whole of the clause, including subsections (1) and (3). If one looks at them, it is perfectly straightforward that the statement is made by the board. Subsection (2), as amended, then slots into place because the investment principles are concerned with principles about investments made by or on behalf of the board.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 108, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: We have already gone over some of the ground covered by this clause in our discussion on Clause 107. I referred earlier to the Myners report. One should not put too much weight on the various gurus who pontificate on these subjects in relation to the requests of the Government for them to carry out studies—we were discussing Higgs the other day. But it seems to me that some of the provisions in the Myners report are sensible and many, if not all, pension funds will make clear whether they are Myners compliant. To the extent that it is relevant to this fund, is it the Government's intention that it should be so?
As far as the statement of investment principles is concerned, generally speaking they are all similar. Many Members of the Committee will be familiar with this problem. None the less, it is important that it is clear what those principles are. Myners suggests that a statement of the investment principles should be sent to all the members of the funds. What will the situation be regarding communication between the pensions protection fund board and the members of that fund, who have been taken over as a result of the failure of an eligible scheme with which the fund is now dealing? Do the Government propose that the statement of investment principles should be sent out to those who are members of fund and who are depending on the success of the fund for the continued payment of their pensions, in the same way that they would be if they were in an ordinary pension fund?
It is important that members are aware of what the fund's investment objectives are. Generally speaking, despite what was said earlier, I think that there is a case for putting it on the face of the Bill. This will be a very unusual fund, as my noble friend said a moment or two ago. It will be a rather strange public/private hybrid with many of the features of an insurance fund, as the noble Baroness said, or a pension fund or, as the Minister said, a compensation fund. I do not think that it is a compensation fund. It is much closer to a pension fund. It has taken over pension liabilities, is investing assets and is trying to pay out. It is not compensating people. In effect, it is perpetuating the operation. It may be that the Minister can give us a little more information on what the Government envisage in relation to these investment principles.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Picking up the Minister's reply, we certainly do not need to be too prescriptive but, as I listened to her, I heard no prescription at all. Her answer boiled down to repeating value for money and prudence. Frankly,
GC 10
from the point of view of an investment manager or an investment committee that is so vague as to be operationally meaningless. There is surely some third way between being over-prescriptive on detail and giving no investment policy guidelines at all. So far, that is all that the Bill and the Minister's answer amount to.
The Minister implied that there should be some sort of minimum liquidity requirement, given that she spoke about the fact that the calls on the fund would be quite lumpy. That is something that should be addressed. How far might one need to have a certain amount of liquidity? It is no good just to say, "We do not want to be too prescriptive" and then give no guidance at all. Operationally, and in terms of strategy, that is what the Minister's answer added up to.
Lord Lucas: My concern with this clause is subsection (3). Historically, the bugbear of anything that has involved a government managing investments has been that, after a while, a government will chose to manage investments in their own interests. A generation or two ago, investments would have been used to prop up ailing industries. These days, perhaps it would be mandated that a certain proportion must be invested in new industries. These get included as investment principles or direction of investments for reasons that are not in any way connected with the reasons that should govern the fund, which are its own internal requirements and the requirements of the people funding it.
I am concerned about the breadth of subsection (3). I know how it will be set up to begin with: it will be set up so that there is a sensible set of requirements. But things creep in. There will be a chunk of money sitting around in the fund. Political pressures will be put on it because it is possible under subsection (3). There will be pressures to use the fund to rescue an industry that is in trouble or to consolidate it. There will be pressures to do things British rather than overseas. There will be pressures to put money into government debt rather than equities. All these are pressures that are not properly put upon this fund. It has nothing to do with a government's investment objectives or the public's investment objectives. There has to be a degree of insulation and I do not see it in subsection (3). I would like to know how that will be provided.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall not trouble the Committee by repeating what I said earlier. I hope that what we expect such a statement of investment principles to contain and the issues it should address is very clear, given the shopping list that I read out. Therefore, the fund does not have a blank sheet of paper. There is plenty of experience in developing and drafting a statement of investment principles that would be appropriate under these circumstances.
However, I do not think it is appropriate to put it in the Bill. I shall give an example. I think that 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, it would have been pretty unlikely that an investment strategy would have taken environmental considerations into account. We might

GC 11
now. Ethical considerations would probably have been included 20 years ago but 10 years before that they would not have been. The context and the salience of the issues of which one would expect investors to take account will change. The attitude toward particular industries—smoking or arms—will be for society to determine as significant. That is one broad-brush reason why it is unwise to put it in the Bill. However, I have given an indication of the half-dozen criteria that we would expect to be reflected when the board draws up its statement of investment principles.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether it would be sent out to all members. I am not expecting that to happen. As a member of the Universities Superannuation Scheme I do not get a statement of its SIP sent to me automatically. I have access to the web and if I write in for a statement, I can get it. I would also expect it to be included in the annual report. All of that is publicly available, without expecting that it be sent to me. Indeed, as a modest pensioner of a university scheme I do not have sent to me the annual statement of investment principles. The information will be fully available without expecting it to be sent. Furthermore, considerable costs would have to be borne by the levy payers if they were to receive all the information.
Much of the discussion has been around whether this is a pension scheme and whether it should follow Myners' principle. Because it is not a pension scheme, we do not regard it as being necessary to be Myners-compliant. The basic reason is that a pension scheme would be expected to honour the commitment between the employer and the employees' contract for 100 per cent of all benefits. The scheme is coming into the PPF because that contract has failed.
Although we expect to see 100 per cent of benefit for existing pensioners, deferred pensioners—everyone else will be a deferred pensioner—will receive only 90 per cent. That is why it is compensation and not a pension. We cannot honour the original contract because those who are parties to it were unable to honour it. That is why we are calling it compensation. It would not be appropriate to regard it as a pension. If it were, one would expect every existing scheme that entered to continue its existing pension contract or commitment. They cannot do that. It will be a pool scheme, with possibly some rough and ready bits to it.
Perhaps I may give an example. I going through information about survivors' benefit. I believe that some two thirds of all existing DB schemes have survivors' benefits at about 50 per cent of the value of the employee. I also believe that about 20 per cent offer a higher value—possibly two-thirds or 60 per cent. Although I do not understand how they get away with it, some honour less than that.
In the PPF, we are not taking over those pension commitments; we are saying that all survivors will receive 50 per cent. There is also a rough and ready element because it is a pooled fund and we cannot continue to track each individual commitment. That is a second reason why it does not make sense to call this a pension and it is misleading to do so. It is a
GC 12
compensation fund. In good faith, it will seek to honour, and should do so, the expectations we are laying on it to meet 90 per cent of the pensions rights approved for deferred pensioners.
I should have added that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, might like to cross-read Amendment No. 181 in the light of Amendment No. 194, which is the general clause about information sent out. That may give him a sense of how we are operating. Amendment No. 194 includes a requirement to disclose the statement of investment principles. I wonder whether I have said enough to address Members' questions without repeating myself from previous discussions. I hope that with that response, Members will feel able to accept the clause.
Lord Higgins: A division of opinion is developing between us as to the exact nature of this particular animal. As the Minister said, it is true that those who will benefit from the scheme will not be receiving their original entitlement. It is a certain percentage, but I would have thought that once that quantum is decided, it will operate exactly like a pension scheme. If that is not so, whether or not the board says, "We are compensating you", it is a little less certain what they will receive. Once we are clear what they will receive, I do not see how it differs from a pension scheme, albeit one consisting entirely of deferred pensioners.
As to how much should be on the face of the Bill, I am now slightly worried by the noble Baroness's response. Clause 108(3) states:
"Before preparing or revising a statement of investment principles, the Board must comply with any prescribed requirements".
Suddenly, this public/private body becomes a bit more public because we are not putting the provisions on the face of the Bill—albeit, there is the possibility of making amendment by statutory instrument—we will have a series of regulations. Therefore, although the provision will not go on the face of the Bill, the regulations will state the prescribed requirements for these investment principles.
Before we agree to all that, we are entitled to know from the Government the requirements which, in the first instance, will be prescribed. Indeed, subsection (4) states:
"A statement of investment principles must be in the prescribed form and cover, amongst other things, the prescribed matters".
That being so, I do not see why at the outset we cannot have the provision on the face of the Bill and amend it by statutory instrument rather than have it done by regulation.
The noble Baroness says that 10 years ago we would not have been concerned with, for example, environmental issues. Four or five years ago, a Secretary of State sought to almost intimidate pension funds into investing in particular types of asset and asked trustees for a response. A number of trustees were fairly forthright on the matter. They wrote back, saying, "The object of our pension fund is not to achieve various government objectives by investing in this and that. The object of our

GC 13
fund is to maximise the size of the fund to the benefit of our members and we shall select our investments accordingly".
If the noble Baroness is going to say, "Well, of course the Government can intervene suddenly and prescribe that the fund must be invested to X per cent in a particular type of fund for environmental reasons", that will clearly put up the cost of the levy and in my view that should not be done. We do not have trustees, we have a board, but trustees would, or ought to, take the view that their objective is to maximise the size of the fund and not to engage in various political issues which the government of the day happen to believe they should.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Would the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, believe it might be necessary to say that the investment should be conducted in accordance with prudential requirements? In other words, one must ensure that the fund is prudentially managed in order that people will benefit from it.
Lord Higgins: I agree 1,000 per cent with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner; I am all for them investing in a prudential way. However, the Minister was saying that compared with 10 years ago we might now suddenly find that we must take into account environmental matters; for example, funds must not invest in tobacco companies. I am against tobacco smoking and so on. None the less, one will suddenly find that the board is prescribed from investing in tobacco companies. At that point, there is a slippery slope and we need to be clearer what subsections (3) and (4) will produce. It may be going too far to have the provision on the face of the Bill, but we want a clear statement of what initially these prescribed matters will be before we agree to a totally blank cheque in that sense.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: If there is prescribing to do, I believe that this House should do a certain amount of it first. I listened carefully to the Minister and her various shopping lists and possibilities, but in investment policy it is important to know one's overriding objective. I suggest an objective that is common in pension fund and long-term investment generally; that the overriding investment policy objective should be to maximise the long-term total return, taking capital in together with the funds entrusted to the PPF. If people want to add on something subject to levels of risk or liquidity, I would accept that, but one must have an overriding objective.
Lord Lucas: I echo that suggestion. It solves many problems and makes clear in whose interests the fund is being managed. It is clearly being managed in the interests of the pensioners and the levy payers. To my mind, those are the people whose interests should be taken into account. Furthermore, we should have a clear statement. The noble Lord's suggestion is along the right lines and certainly better than anything I have been able to dream up in the past five minutes.
We must pin this down; there must be a restriction on what the Government can do under subsection (3) so that it is only in the interests of the pensioners and levy payers. It should not be able to introduce some other set of interests that are extraneous to the fund.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am a little puzzled. I can see that one could maximise profits by having no requirement to observe equal pay legislation and so on, but we do not operate in that fashion. All that I was doing with my example of environmental considerations was to show how people's expectations about the considerations that should be brought to bear when making investment decisions have changed over time—neither more nor less—as indeed they have.
I shall have a go at unpicking some of the words to see whether that will allay some of the fears expressed by Members of the Committee. We have already discussed one—that the board must secure that a statement of investment principles is prepared and maintained, is reviewed at such intervals and on such occasions as may be prescribed and is, if necessary, revised. The board will be required to establish whether anything has changed since the last statement was produced, whether it is the nature of the liabilities, the investment market, and so on.
Subsection (2) refers to,
"a written statement of the investment principles",
which must be available in written form, whether people write in to request it or whether it is on the web.
Subsection (3) was the source of some concern. It states:
"Before preparing or revising a statement of investment principles, the Board must comply with any prescribed requirements".
The regulations will set out what the statement is to cover, but not specify any strategy. For example, it would specify that it must cover environmental strategy, but not what that might look like. Regulations will require the board to meet certain requirements before preparing a statement of investment principles.
Lord Higgins: I wonder whether the Minister could read the paragraph again, as I was surprised by one of the words in it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Well, I read subsection (3) and then made two points: that regulations under Clause 108 will require the board to meet certain requirements before preparing a statement of investment principles. For example, it is intended that the regulations will require the board to obtain written advice from a person with appropriate knowledge and experience of investment management, and require the board to assess the nature of the its liabilities and the risk environment in which it is operating, thus considering the appropriate diversification for the fund. That will come in under the reference that it must comply with any prescribed requirements.
Finally, in response to the noble Lord's question about overriding objectives, I was trying to say that the regulations will state what the statement must cover

GC 15
but will not specify any strategy. In other words, any investment principles statement must include, for example, a consideration of environmental strategy, but not what that may turn out to be or how the managers respond to it.
It is a shopping list of issues to consider or principles to take on board—not how those are translated into particular investment decisions, which is as I understand it a job for fund managers working within the framework of the board.
Lord Higgins: I believe that the Minister used the expression, "environmental strategy", but it may be that again I did not hear her correctly. Did she say that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
Lord Higgins: What did she mean by it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is something that I have been concerned with when wearing another hat. It may be, for example, that if one was acquiring a property asset for some function or other to happen—not particularly associated with the PPF but in another consideration—the cheapest site may be outside the city centre on a greenfield site. But there are hidden environmental costs—additional transport costs—which are dumped on to other bodies. This may be something to bear in mind when producing a green strategy such as the handling of the DWP estate. I am not saying that this is how the pension fund investment principle would operate, but it is the sort of area in which environmental considerations might come into play.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Are not our colleagues opposite inviting the Minister to predict on the hoof what the regulations might be, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, put it very differently five minutes ago when he said, "If there is any prescribing to be done, we want to be part of it"? Parliament will be part of the prescribing in that it would have to approve. This is not the moment to raise any further debate. Noble Lords opposite have given us three different versions in the space of around three minutes of what substantively the requirements should be. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said that it was obviously a very good model of long-term maximisation of value; another noble Lord said that it was self-evident that the object should be slightly similar. The short answer is that this is not the time to predict what the substance of the prescribing should be, but simply to note that prescribing will be necessary. We cannot go any further than that.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I am sorry if I was not entirely clear. I was not referring to any prescribing; I said that the single main objective should be prescribed. The noble Baroness is very good at this. She has just read out the shopping list again, which I am sure that we have all heard before, but has not
GC 16
responded to my point—one which, to some extent, other noble Lords are also making—that there should be a statement in the Bill of the overriding objective.
The noble Baroness may not wish to respond to my specific proposal today. The problem is that there is no effective objective in the Bill. The Minister has drawn to our attention the reports of some very good pension funds such as those of the FSSU and BP. I would be very surprised if they did not contain an overriding objective of the type I seek. Will she look into those reports and let us know why such an overriding objective as a principle should not be in the Bill? I do not need an answer now; it is a matter to consider.
Lord Higgins: I am astonished at the way in which the debate has developed. There is no inconsistency in what is said. Both opposition parties have said that there are various alternatives. The Government propose simply to operate by regulation. We are not asking the noble Baroness to respond on the hoof, but we certainly need before Report a clearer indication of exactly what the regulations will cover.
I am somewhat horrified by the noble Baroness's remarks regarding environmental considerations, because they are wholly inconsistent with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, with which I sympathise, on what the basic objective of the fund should be. The basic objective should be common to that of many pension funds: effectively to maximise the size of the fund for the benefit of members or alternatively to minimise the contributions of levy payers. In any event, the objective is not to go off on some frolic involving environmental considerations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. His view is not shared by the three bodies whose statements of principle I have read—I only have three so they may not be consistent with others. The BP statement of principle says, for example:
"Consistent with its obligation to act in the best financial interest of the fund the trustee supports a bias towards investments in companies with positive social, environmental and ethical policies".
The noble Lord talks about being horrified and queries the shopping list that I produced. All I am saying is that, so far as I can see, the list reflects closely the sort of considerations for taking social, environmental and ethical statements of policy into account. Equally, other companies talk about minimising environmental damage in various ways.
The noble Lord goes on to ask about the main objective. That is already carried in the phrase:
"The Board may invest for the purposes of the prudent management of its financial affairs".
I do not see why that is not the overriding objective. We know that the purpose of the fund is to be able to meet the liabilities that will arise from ensuring that members are compensated for the loss of their pension schemes. It is asked to attend to the prudent management of its financial affairs and to put itself into a position in which it can best meet those liabilities. But, in addition, through its investment principle it will bear these issues in mind. It must take

GC 17
cognisance of certain issues, although it may decide to ignore them by saying that they are not relevant to its investment principle.
This is almost a checklist of considerations to which the statement of investment principles must be exposed in order to measure against it. I see no problem with that. Certainly the three examples I have looked at follow very closely in their formats what we are suggesting will happen here. So I am slightly surprised that noble Lords are finding this difficult, because it appears to be consistent with best practice already established in the field: the prudent management of funds for the purposes outlined. These are some of the issues on the shopping list which must be taken into account when the board draws up its statement of investment principles.
Lord Borrie: I rise briefly to intervene. Two different things are being considered here, the second of which was first initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and followed by other noble Lords. The first was whether something more specific should be set out in the Bill as regards Parliament's statement of the objectives of the board.
At an earlier meeting the Minister pointed out that the board is to be at arm's length from the Government and Parliament. When established it is meant to set out its investment principles in accordance with Clause 107(1):
"The Board may invest for the purposes of the prudent management of its financial affairs".
I should say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, because he read out something which outlined a rather more ideal and detailed objective, that that could be interpreted as favouring the short term over the long term. That would not do because the board must operate for a very long time and will have to deal with matters arising not only in the immediate future but also in the long term. It is right that on the face of the Bill it is left to the board to determine at arm's length the investment principles.
However, I do have some sympathy with Members opposite, and certainly with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who initiated this point. Subsection (3) of Clause 108 states:
"Before preparing or revising a statement of investment principles, the Board must comply with any prescribed requirements".
As I understand from my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, those are not prescribed requirements on the statement of investment principles, rather the prescribed requirements for what the board must do to build up its preliminary work and knowledge in order to set out its statement of investment principles. It must take professional advice and so forth.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.33 to 4.44 p.m.]
Lord Lucas: I turn back to a point made by the noble Baroness on the last occasion. She said that this Bill is
GC 18
of necessity being pushed through quickly and that there are areas in it that ultimately we shall just have to take on trust.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I want to make a point in response to that remark by the noble Lord. I did not say that the Bill was being pushed through quickly, but that some of its clauses are coming through quickly. Were I to delay the whole Bill for the sake of those late clauses, more pensions would be put at risk. I should like to make that distinction.
I can tell noble Lords that, to my certain knowledge, 85 to 90 per cent of this Bill has been worked on for three years or even longer. This is not a swift piece of legislation being pushed through at the last minute. However, some clauses, of which pensions liberation is the most extreme example, along with the financial assistance scheme, have come through very late. That is the reason why they were not scrutinised in the Commons. We had to choose between either deferring the Bill—Members of the Committee know about the problems associated with such a move—or going ahead. I want to make that distinction absolutely clear.
The Bill follows a Green Paper and its subsequent elaborate consultation. It then went into a quasi-White Paper issued as a Statement which in turn generated consultation that was included in the Bill. The amount of work that went into the origins of this Bill far exceeds that undertaken for any other Bill I have worked on. I should not like that canard to be repeated in quite the way indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas: I consider myself suitably put down. However, my point, however inexpertly made, is nonetheless relevant. We all recognise that certain things will have to be taken on trust. Ideally we would like to have seen this Bill produced in draft form and considered by a committee able to deal with something so technical and far-reaching. However, we do not have that and so, in some cases, we shall have take decisions based on our trust that the Government have done all the work.
However, the quid pro quo is that the Government must recognise that some points cause us real problems, although in fact they are not difficult to solve. While I accept that that is not what is written, noble Lords on this side share the universal feeling that there is a considerable difficulty here. However, as I have said, I do not think that it will be difficult to solve. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, has suggested that we set out in the Bill a basic statement of investment principles which outlines in whose interests these investments are being managed. If we were to go down that road, many of the subsidiary problems would fall into place. It would then be impossible to use Clause 108(3) in the wrong way because it would be subject to the basic and overriding principle that presumably would be set out somewhere in Clause 7.
I have spent some of my life as a tenant of the Church Commissioners—and an extremely unpleasant experience that has been. The commissioners interpret the mandate in the interests of their beneficiaries

GC 19
extremely severely and their tenants do not come into the equation at all. The noble Baroness wants to introduce some kind of softening of the absolute mandate. I suggest that the right way to do that is by a reference to general best practice rather than allowing a means by which particular special interests can fight Clause 108 in ways that might damage the fund and its beneficiaries as well as those who will have to pay for the fund.
There is a way through here, one that I do not think threatens in any way either the integrity of the Bill as a whole or this part of it—of which, as I have said, I am a great fan. I hope very much that the Government will be able to take this in a positive light, saying that they will do their best to meet our concerns rather than defending the purity of their own belief in what is already set out. That would be more in keeping with the spirit in which the Bill is being taken through this place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall certainly reflect on what has been said because it is obviously a matter of major concern. Normally, if Members of both the main Opposition party and the Liberal Democrats press me on something, I can see where they are coming from and I am able to understand the nature of their concerns. Then it may or may not be the case that I can meet those concerns.
On this occasion, however, my difficulty is that I still remain baffled. Noble Lords have made their points very clearly, but I do not think that we shall advance much further today. The least I can do is to reflect and consider our debate to see whether I have missed something rather important, although I must repeat that I am baffled. Obviously that is a shortcoming on my part, but I really do not understand what the extra words proposed would do aside from producing a territory of debate about what the fund is for, which is carried by subsequent clauses that we shall come to discuss.
If noble Lords wish to write to me, I shall be perfectly happy to circulate these examples of investment principles. Some have an overriding objective while others do not follow that form. But the phrase "prudent management" covers virtually everything that has been said today and so I do not understand why further words in the Bill are necessary. However, I have to say that this is not ringing any bells with me.
Lord Higgins: I intervene only briefly to ensure that the noble Baroness's contemplation on this issue is correctly directed. The crucial point is this: in whose interests are these investments being made? The expression "prudent management" is too wishy-washy. Most pension funds have an overriding objective—I stress that—of the kind quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott.
Some years ago, a Secretary of State or possibly even the Chancellor wrote to various pension funds saying, "We would like you to invest in a particular way, taking environmental issues into account", to cite the expression used by the noble Baroness. The responses were of two kinds: either the trustees
GC 20
responded by saying that it was nothing to do with them—in other words, take a running jump—or they produced something along the lines quoted by the noble Baroness from Shell, which stated that consistent with their main objective, they would try to be helpful to the environment, and so forth. But the phrase "consistent with prudent management" is not good enough; it has to be more explicit than that. It is that which we shall have to try and achieve on Report.
We really cannot have the board of the pension protection fund investing in this or that environmental project or small business at the expense of either the beneficiaries or those who are to pay the levy. It has to be tied down more securely than that.
The noble Baroness has always been helpful with regulations. If it is possible for her to let us have a draft of these regulations, which are probably the clearest case in the Bill, I would be grateful. However, the wording as it stands is certainly not sufficient and we shall need to straighten it out.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): Does the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, want to refer to the issue on which he was speaking when the Division Bell intervened?
Lord Borrie: As I have completely forgotten what I said, I could not helpfully amend it.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Borrowing]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 76, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: Following that extended debate we move now to a rather mundane probing amendment drafted to find out from what kinds of institutions the Government envisage the pension protection fund borrowing. The permission to borrow is drafted in terms of a "deposit-taker"—loosely, banks. The definition of such a deposit-taker set out in subsection (3)(a) is fairly straightforward, but can the Minister give some examples or a list of the deposit-takers which would be covered by subsection (3)(b)? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The purpose of Clause 109 is to set out the power to borrow commercially in order to manage short-term liquidity so that the fund does not have to sell off assets and so forth. Noble Lords know that this is not meant to be a long-term method of funding.
The board may borrow money from a deposit-taker or, in layman's terms, a bank or building society which is authorised to lend money in the UK by one of two routes. The first route is set out in subsection (3)(a) of the clause and is where the deposit-taker has been directly authorised by the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
As the noble Baroness said, the second route is set out in the paragraph that the amendment would remove. That states that the board may borrow from,
"an EEA firm of the kind mentioned in paragraph 5(b)",

GC 21
and so on. That is where the deposit-taker has exercised its appropriate passport rights to be able to act as a deposit-taker in the UK. Those passport rights mean that, once authorised in its home state by its home state regulator, a bank is automatically authorised to carry on banking business in other member states. As they are authorised in the UK, all companies in the UK may also borrow from those banks and building societies. That is why it would be inappropriate to remove the paragraph. Does that answer the noble Baroness's question?
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 109 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: As the heading suggests, the clause concerns borrowing. I have only just noticed that Amendment No. 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, comes later and I do not want to preempt what he may say about it. I think that it essentially concerns whether the Government will be the lender of last resort in this matter. We can come to that matter in due course and I would not want to anticipate it.
None the less, the cause concerns borrowing by the board. As has already been pointed out, it may borrow from a deposit-taker. The dilemma here is that we really do not know what will be the situation when the board begins operations. It has been commonplace in our discussions that, because the provisions under the pension protection fund are likely to be more favourable than those under what I call the £400 million compensation fund under Part 6, companies or employers may seek to defer becoming insolvent if they can, so that pensioners receive the provisions of the pension protection fund, rather than those under Part 3.
Therefore, if I understand it correctly, there is likely to be something of a rush of companies becoming eligible almost immediately after the Bill becomes operational. The noble Baroness shakes her head; I should be interested to hear what she has to say. In all events, especially in the early period but perhaps in later periods as well, the funds available to the pension protection fund may well be less than the amount that it needs to pay out to eligible companies or funds. The question is then: how will it finance that? The answer in Clause 109 appears to be that it will have to borrow.
At the same time, it will have come into a lot of assets from companies that have become eligible. To some extent, at any rate, they will be funded and have assets. So, under the provisions of the two previous clauses, we may find that the pension protection fund is investing in gilt-edged securities and lending to the Government at the same time as it is borrowing from licensed deposit-takers. I think that I am right to say that the return on gilt-edged securities is likely to be lower than the amount paid to licensed deposit-takers.
GC 22
So overall, the pension protection fund will incur a net cost. The clause then specifies limits on the amount that it can borrow.
Again, we are told that that arms-length operation will suddenly find the murky hand of the Treasury intervening. The Treasury will say how much the PPF can borrow, although, presumably, it will always have to borrow enough to pay out the liabilities that it has taken over.
5 p.m.
What is the situation? Are we to be assured that the Treasury will never impose a limit on borrowing that prevents the PPF from carrying out its obligations to the pensioners which it has taken over from an eligible company? Similarly, as a further qualification, there will be limits set, apparently, by the Secretary of State—although I should have thought that it would be the Treasury—on the borrowing limit.
Another point arises concerning this clause. It states:
"The Board may … give security".
I am not clear what security the board has to give. Will it be able to use the assets that it has acquired from eligible companies to finance borrowing and to secure borrowing from a licensed deposit-taker? Again, it seems that that will raise costs above that which the board could borrow if it were able to borrow from the Treasury.
As I say, I do not want to anticipate the other point, but it would be helpful to know under what rules limits are to be imposed on the PPF either for the fact that it borrows at all or increases its borrowing limits and the basis on which it will be able to offer security. Are we sure we are doing that in a way that minimises the costs of the operation?
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: The noble Lord is right. In a sense, my Amendment No. 190 to Clause 110 could stand with either clause. In anticipation of that, in Clause 110, the heading, "Grants", should be changed to "Grants and Loans". As regards Clause 109, clearly, if there is a formal procedure by which the Government could act as lender of last resort in an emergency, that would undoubtedly reduce the borrowing costs and enable the PPF to borrow on finer terms commercially. I would invite the Minister to consider that point as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In setting out the purposes of the clause, I hope that I shall be able to answer the points that were raised. Clause 109 sets out the board's power to borrow commercially in order to manage its short-term liquidity. The power is designed to save the board money, ensuring that it does not have to sell off assets that it is holding at times when it would not receive a good price.
However, the borrowing is not designed to be a long-term method of funding the pension protection fund or the fraud compensation fund. Instead, we have given the board the power to smooth the peaks and

GC 23
troughs of the economic cycle. Perhaps I may summarise our approach on that. In good times, the levy system is designed to smooth costs over time, while during bad times, the immediate costs of compensation should rise only slowly over time.
After a bad time has hit—this is the most relevant part for our discussion of the clause—the board has a number of strategies open to it to deal with cash-flow problems, as the noble Lord said. The strategies include being able to increase the levy, to borrow, and, in a worse-case scenario if it is still necessary, to reduce indexation and revaluation rates. Finally, the board could ask the Secretary of State to reduce the 100 per cent or 90 per cent levels—depending on whether a person is a deferred pensioner or an active pensioner—of compensation.
As one part of that approach, the power to borrow is a sensible and appropriate measure. But, as with any other power, the PPF must account for any borrowing in the annual reports and accounts. One further restriction is that the board may not exceed the maximum borrowing limit set out in secondary legislation.
Within that broad framework, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether we considered that there might be a rush of schemes. I accept that some schemes may delay insolvency in order to maximise its chances of entering or becoming eligible for the PPF. That is always possible. But it does not mean that the PPF should have a cash-flow problem. During the assessment period, trustees will be responsible for maintaining and making payments.
It is worth emphasising that the assessment period will be one year. In some circumstances I can conceive, it may well be longer than that. We are not talking about something that will happen the day after tomorrow. When a scheme comes into the PPF, it will take over all the assets. It is therefore unlikely that the PPF would have a cash-flow problem, although it will need to consider its funding position in terms of the amount raised by the levy.
This debate takes us back to our brief discussion on deferred pensions. Assets will immediately come into the PPF, but the only immediate payments that it will have to make will be to existing pensioners at 100 per cent. Perhaps a very high proportion of its liabilities will not fall in for five or 10 years or, in some cases, 30 or 40 years. That is why we are not expecting a cash-flow problem except, as we discussed earlier, in a situation where either a sector or a major company suddenly fall into PPF territory. Even then, given the assessment period, one is talking about a period of a year or so on average—maybe longer than that—in which the board can determine the extent to which it may need to meet liabilities that are substantial because a scheme is coming in with a very high proportion of pensioners and payments. We should bear that in mind.
In a way, we are coming back to some of the FRS 17 issues where there is an assumption that all liabilities have to be instantly met. They do not. That
GC 24
is why I would not normally expect there to be a cash-flow problem, but it is wise to have the borrowing power to meet it if it should occur.
What would be the maximum borrowing limit? That will be determined by secondary legislation. I do not really want to speculate or put a figure on it. Given that the PPF is estimated to have an annual income from levies of approximately £300 million, I would expect the borrowing limit to be a fairly substantial figure—rather more than, say, the £15 million that the Pension Compensation Board currently has. Whether that figure is nearer £15 million, £50 million or £100 million is something that we would want to consider when we draw up the regulations. Obviously, the maximum ceiling would have to be sufficient to meet the very occasional contingency that might befall if a seriously major company came into the PPF.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about security. As he suspected, security is assets held, which could, for example, be property because that would be assets going into the scheme. Security, indeed, is an asset. I hope that I have met most of the queries raised by Members of the Committee. In that case, I hope that Clause 109 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins: We shall come later to the difficult issues of indexation and revaluation to which the noble Baroness referred. In those circumstances, it would seem that the board is probably not covering the people who have been in the eligible schemes as well as it might otherwise do.
I should like to clarify two points. I am not clear why the Secretary of State should set a limit. More particularly, I am not clear that we are minimising the costs of borrowing. The PPF may well be lending money to the Government in the form of gilts at one interest rate while also borrowing on the commercial market. Generally speaking, that is not cost-effective. In other words, should the PPF not be borrowing from the Government rather than the commercial market?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the first point, it is reasonable and standard practice for the Secretary of State to set a borrowing limit where it is appropriate. That is normal for NDPBs. For example, the Pension Compensation Board has a borrowing limit—I think that I am right in saying—of £15 million, which is set by the Secretary of State. I think that that is fairly standard for NDPBs. As I say, it is important that we recall that this is for only short-term liquidity problems where there can suddenly be very lumpy expenditure.
Behind that, I suspect, is a debate into which I was not going to enter because it may be more appropriately dealt with or responded to in respect of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott: namely, should bodies be able to borrow from the Government or should the Government stand as a lender of last resort? The Government's view on that is very clear. The answer is "no".
The Government are not lending because they do not want to be seen to be the guarantor of last resort. That goes back to all of the moral hazard issues that

GC 25
we discussed earlier. If the Government are seen as a lender of last resort, possibly unable ever, unlike a commercial organisation, to recover that money because of the situation in which they find themselves, there is the moral hazard of schemes possibly failing to exercise due diligence. Instead of being "policed" by other private sector companies about what the levy should raise, they might instead rely on government hand-outs as lenders of last resort in order to bankroll them.
The Government are very clear on that. It is a major part of the Government's decision that we will not underwrite this either through making a direct contribution or, as has sometimes been suggested, putting on a levy through the public sector, which should not come into it at all, or acting as a lender of monies. I should make that clear. I know that that is not necessarily what noble Lords want to hear, but the Government's view on that is unambiguous.
Clause 109 agreed to.
Clause 110 [Grants]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 76, line 16, leave out ", other than" and insert "and"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 189 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hoyle. I am sorry that I follow on just after my noble friend the Minister has categorically said that the Government will not stand behind this proposal because I am about to argue, in a very modest way, that the Government should do precisely that.
We seek to amend Clause 110, which is about grants. Quite specifically, it states:
"The Secretary of State may pay the Board out of money provided by Parliament … other than expenditure which by virtue of section … is payable out of—

(a) the Pension Protection Fund, or

(b) the Fraud Compensation Fund".

Our amendment seeks to reverse that. We seek to make explicit provision for the possibility of a small amount of government financial support, but not any specific amount.
The amendment, by reversing the intention of the clause, provides a safety valve that would allow, in the event of unexpectedly high claims on the fund, the possibility of a third way other than by reducing benefits or increasing the levy. It would also signal possible government underwriting of the scheme—I repeat, possible government underwriting of the scheme—which would add to confidence.
As my noble friend the Minister knows, there has been widespread pressure for a measure of this kind from those who believe that claims may be such that a reasonable level of compensation cannot be afforded while maintaining a reasonable levy payment. We do not want the cost of covering past failures to become a deterrent to providing final salary schemes in the future. From the Marshalled List, I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, obviously have similar concerns and
GC 26
approach this matter in a quite different way. I note what my noble friend the Minister has said. Nevertheless, I beg to move.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. She is right: we are broadly seeking to achieve the same thing in our amendment. In due course, I am sure that we can talk about how we can combine forces. This is a fundamental issue of principle in the Bill, so I propose to say a few words about how we feel and why. Perhaps I may just say that I never thought that I would live to see the day when the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, would be supporting the third way. We agree with her on this one.
The Government are launching an untried boat—the jolly PPF—on to a very stormy sea on a voyage with no time limit through uncharted waters. We know that smaller boats have been sinking. No one knows how long the storm will last or whether it will turn into a hurricane. But everyone in the country knows that there will be a government rescue tug if the PPF starts to sink, just as there was when suddenly the pressure got too much and the financial assistance scheme was launched at the drop of a hat.
5.15 p.m.
It seems to us a matter of simple prudence—that ought to commend itself to the Chancellor—to plan before setting out what happens if the ship is forced to send an SOS call. Obviously, one is conscious of moral hazard, but that is a very important part of the reason why on these Benches—and, I believe, on the official Opposition Benches—we are insisting that a proper risk-based assessment of the scheme and the contributions to it comes in as soon as possible. That will be a considerable incentive to avoid moral hazard.
I ask the Minister to take this point up because I have twice asked her to do so across the Floor of the House and she has ignored it both times. I accept that this is a matter for the Treasury but I ask her to get a proper response for us from the Treasury as to why the PPF is so different from the PoolRe reinsurance scheme, whereby the Government stand behind possible enormous claims on terrorism insurance. I believe that that is a sensible precedent and has worked well in the past.
If we look at the PBGC in America, which the Government have clearly studied carefully, it is true that there is no official government guarantee but the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor are on the board. That makes clear how unthinkable it is that the American Government would walk away from it. We would be happy to accept Gordon Brown and Andrew Smith on the board, rather than a formal government guarantee, if the Government prefer to do it that way.
I believe that it is far better to deal with this in advance in case of the remote likelihood that it comes up. None of us can possibly know what the likelihood is. The Government have done their modelling but how it will work in the future is, by its nature, almost unknowable.
I have warned the Minister of my next point. We have a veritable media blitz of interviews from the newly appointed chairman of the pension protection fund, Mr Lawrence Churchill. He has been intruding very strongly in political matters, which he should not do, particularly before this House and the other place have taken a decision on this important matter. I see, for instance, that last week's Professional Pensions reported that:
"Calls for the government to underwrite the Pension Protection Fund have been described as 'outrageous' by its inaugural chairman.
"But the National Association of Pension Funds chairman Terry Faulkner questioned whether it was appropriate for Churchill to 'wade into the political debate' while still getting to grips with workplace pension issues".
In today's FT fund management section the chairman of the BT pension fund very properly queried that point of view.
It is not just politicians. Many people in the pensions industry are arguing that the Government should stand as the lender of last resort. I believe, and I hope that the Minister will accept, that it is quite inappropriate for the newly appointed chairman of the PPF to weigh in on one side or other of that debate. He was all over the Times on Saturday, saying the same thing. In Financial Adviser he said:
"My intention is to make sure the PPF does what it says on the tin".
We on these Benches believe that it must do what it says on the tin. What it says on the tin is that it will pay certain benefits. As the NAPF have said, this is not right. We do not believe that the PPF should cut the benefits that are laid down. The Minister is quite right that in principle it cannot go bust as it is set up at the moment because it could cut the benefits, in principle, to nothing. I do not believe that that is what the country expects. The PPF has been set up by the Government, the board is appointed by the Government and it is inconceivable that the Government could walk away from it. We believe that it is better to put that clearly upfront now.
Lord Higgins: I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, about recent statements about the pension protection fund. In view of his opening remarks about going off on a voyage and so on, I cannot but recall the statements made about Christopher Columbus: he did not know where he was going when he started, he was not where he thought he was when he arrived and he did it all on borrowed money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I like that very much. I sought to make clear the Government's position on this. As the Committee will expect, I cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend and that of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. The argument seems to be twofold. The first part is that, as we have done it for the Financial Assistance Scheme, we must accept that we may be called upon to take a similar role with the PPF. I do not accept that. The Financial Assistance Scheme exists because the PPF is not in play. It would be unfair and unreasonable to make a retrospective levy on
GC 28
companies when they were not getting protection at the time. That is why there was no alternative but to go for a government-funded scheme of assistance—it is not even compensation because it is not up to the levels of the PPF—to reduce some of the deficit. That is why there is taxpayers' money there.
I do not think that it is right to expect the Government to be even a last resort, let alone a direct contributor to the pension protection fund. If it is believed that the Government could be called upon, I believe that the Government will be called upon. That is the nature of moral hazard. The PPF is an arms' length body. We have established various ways of funding it: it will have substantial assets coming in from companies but will have liabilities that fall in over time; secondly, it has the capacity to raise a levy; thirdly, it has the capacity to borrow up to a certain, sensible level; and, finally, it has the capacity to review and reconsider and to ask for authority to reduce the sums of money that it needs to meet.
It is not just that if the Government can be called upon, they will be called upon, but that when we say "the Government" we are saying taxpayers. Taxpayers—at least half of whom have no occupational pension scheme or who are in public sector schemes where this does not arise—should not be asked to pay for the safeguarding of the minority of people who have occupational pensions schemes. That is not right. It is like saying that people who do not draw down on buildings insurance, for example, because they are not owner-occupiers and therefore do not have a buildings policy, should nevertheless contribute to the buildings insurance system of the country, even though only a proportion of the population are owner-occupiers. That is not reasonable. It is not the basis of this scheme and this is not where the Government are proposing to go.
I accept that Parliament determines the shape of the Bill but I want to make it very clear that this is not the Government's intention. Whether as a lender of last resort or a giver of grants, as my noble friend suggested, or however else it is put in other ingenious amendments to which I can look forward relating to the levies on public sector schemes which have been mentioned at various points, these proposals are that people other than the beneficiaries of this scheme should help to finance it. That is not the Government's view.
It is in the interest of the industry and of employees in occupational pension schemes to increase good faith, security and confidence in the pension system. But to expect others who do not benefit from the fund, and will possibly never benefit from it, to pay for it, is not reasonable, decent or fair. Of course, as more people come into pension schemes and see the value of them, then the situation may change and they will be contributing to the levy. The distinction between that and the Financial Assistance Schemes is that no such levy existed and therefore no retrospective payments could be made. There was nobody else to help out and the alternative was to allow people to come on to state-related benefits. However, that was not the primary

GC 29
objective, which was decency and trying to maintain confidence in the pension system. That seems to be very different.
We can continue the debate, but that is the philosophical argument. I do not think that it is right to ask those who do not benefit to pay. We have constructed a system that we believe matches those who gain and those who pay in a decent way in the pooled framework of a compensation scheme. For some people, it is rough and ready justice. I do not doubt that they will not have the exact provision that they would have enjoyed. But it seems to be a more honourable way forward than encouraging people to believe that the Government will be the lender of last resort and that the taxpayer will bale the fund out. If they believe that, it will surely happen because that is the nature of moral hazard. At that point, because they are taxpayers, those on modest incomes, often women in part-time occupations, will be asked to cross-subsidise a scheme of which they are not beneficiaries. I do not think that that is right. That is not where the Government propose to go.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response, which does not entirely surprise me. I nevertheless feel that there was some merit in the amendment that I put forward on behalf of my union, which thought that it was a good idea. It is concerned lest there is a lack of confidence in the fund, which may result in further diminution of final salary schemes. That is one of its concerns and one of the reasons why it suggested that the amendment should tabled.
I understand what my noble friend says about the possibility that if the Government are standing behind it, people will take advantage, which they would not be able to do if that was not the case. However, we all pay towards the pension benefits of our fellow citizens. In a situation where a person's pension entitlement is severely damaged, the eventual resource for him or her is the pension credit system, for which the taxpayer pays anyway. So, one way or another, we have to pay.
It would be better for that to be done via the fund that is being established than to rely on the means-tested benefits that are available for people whose pensions simply do not meet their requirements or the standards regarded as suitable by the Government. I shall think about the matter again before Report.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: If the Minister has not seen the blizzard of reports about Mr Churchill to which I referred and is unable to respond to them, will she undertake to read them and write to me regarding whether she believes that this is appropriate behaviour for him? Would she ask also him, in future, if he would not indulge in political controversy? That is clearly what it is and is clearly what many major pension funds feel.
I support the noble Baroness on her point. There is an element of national interest in rebuilding confidence in savings. I do not believe that the FAS analysis is irrelevant. One accepts that these people were in occupational pension schemes under which
GC 30
£400 million of taxpayers' money was given to them. All we are talking about here, which I make clear in our amendment, is the Government acting as a lender of last resort in certain specific circumstances. So I believe that there is a read across.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may quickly respond to the remarks made about Mr Churchill. It was my privilege to meet him. I was very impressed by the commitment, energy and experience that he brings. He is at arm's length from the Government. In his discussions with stakeholders, the press, and so forth, he is entitled to make clear what he regards to be the purpose of the PPF and his function in it.
It is always difficult when people say that someone is making political remarks—your political remarks are my common sense. In that sense, I have not seen anything that he has said—I am perfectly willing to say that I may have missed something—that seems to trespass beyond what we would expect from someone seeking to establish a brand new fund and as chairman of it. But if there are any particular remarks to which the noble Lord would like to draw my attention privately, I shall be happy to follow them up.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): There is a Division in the House. We will resume at 5.40 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: As before, I wish to make the point that this proposal has not yet been approved by Parliament. Mr Churchill is promoting the Government's view of how the fund should work. The issue has not yet been through this Committee, this House or the other House. I ask the Minister to consider that and write to me.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.30 to 5.40 p.m.]
Lord Higgins: Before we rose for the vote, we were discussing whether the Government should act as lender of last resort in relation to the PPF. I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, about the remarks made by the person described as the "inaugural chairman" of the PPF. I assume that that person has been correctly reported; it is possible that that might not be so, but I have no reason to doubt it. Professional Pensions of 8 July states:
"Calls for government to underwrite the Pension Protection Fund have been described as 'outrageous' by its inaugural chairman, Lawrence Churchill".
The matter has not been decided by this House or by Parliament generally. I have to say that that seems wholly inappropriate.
It is possible for the Government to make appointments provided that a Bill has had a Second Reading in the other place, which this Bill has. But it seems quite wrong for someone appointed in such circumstances—the legislation is not completed and it is possible that it will never be completed—to intervene as apparently he has. I hope very much that the Government will look into the matter. Perhaps the

GC 31
Minister will tell us what has happened at our next meeting. Does she agree that, if the report is correct, it is inappropriate to make that kind of remark?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not have the report in my hand, so I am not prepared to speculate on something that I have not seen. I can only repeat my previous remarks.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Administration levy]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 76, line 23, leave out first "the"
The noble Baroness said: I am in the hands of Members of the Committee on this matter. We have explained in the past that it would be necessary to introduce a number of government amendments, some of which would be minor amendments to achieve consistency across the legislation. I know that it is tiresome, but we have to do it. This is one such group of amendments, covering a number of miscellaneous minor amendments relating to Part 2 and the pension protection fund.
The effect of the amendments is to aid understanding and clarity and to ensure the proper working of existing provisions in the Bill. They clarify some references and change a number of further references which are inconsistent with other provisions and where the meaning is intended to be exactly the same. I shall give just one example. Amendment No. 191 removes the superfluous word "the" from the administration levy clause, which clarifies that the administration levy may recover the cost of any expenditure by the Secretary of State in setting up the board, rather than a specific expenditure.
I have before me a list or description of what all the amendments would do, if Members of the Committee wish for any further detail. I hope that the Committee is happy to accept my assurance that the amendments are minor and technical for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I recall that as a Minister I was once given a brief that said that the amendments were drafting matters, but which in fact had horrendous consequences. However, the Minister has given us a very clear assurance that these are purely drafting amendments to remove inconsistencies in the Bill. I am not clear which way the inconsistencies go. Presumably, if an inconsistency is removed then one view prevails rather than the alternative. However, it is certainly not my intention to delay the Committee unnecessarily. On later government amendments it
GC 32
will probably be necessary to spell matters out because outside bodies have considerable interest in these matters. Given the Minister's assurance—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am very happy to circulate to Members of the Committee a description of each of these amendments. Members of the Committee can have a quick look through and see whether they wish to probe any further. But I assure the noble Lord that the amendments are technical.
Lord Higgins: In my view, Grand Committee is a very unsatisfactory arrangement. The problem is that if we do not object, an amendment will go into the Bill. One way around this would be to object. The Government could put the amendments in on Report. But that may be a clumsy way of proceeding so I shall take the Minister's word for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 112 [Fees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 112 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: That happened rather rapidly and we made quicker progress than I had anticipated, since I had some points to make on Clause 111. No doubt we can come back to those on Report.
Clause 112, relating to fees, states that the Board is authorised to prescribe and charge fees to meet prescribed costs—we have no idea what they are—and that regulations may prescribe what they are, what fee is due, and that any fee owed to the board will be recovered as a debt. What is this all about?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to try and help on this. Clause 112 concerns fees. As the noble Lord said, it allows the board of the PPF to charge fees and recover costs in prescribed circumstances where it would be appropriate for the board to do so. The secondary legislation will set out the specific circumstances in which the board will be allowed to charge fees.
An example of what the Government have in mind is where the board has carried out or commissioned an actuarial valuation of the assets and liabilities of a scheme in order to assess whether it should enter the PPF. A third party may wish to use that valuation for another purpose. Alternatively, the third party may wish to ask the PPF to gather an additional category of information at the same time. In this example, the third party might be an individual or a firm interested in buying part or all of the insolvent company, which could involve taking on the pension scheme.
It would be appropriate in such circumstances for the board to charge a fee because the PPF would have incurred costs in preparing the valuation, while the provision of that service could represent a significant saving for the third party involved. Of course, the valuation or any other information could be used or disclosed only in compliance with all the necessary disclosure of information requirements, including data protection.
The ability to charge fees will be extremely limited because the circumstances where fees are allowed must be set out in secondary legislation. In any case, the regulations will not allow the PPF to take on tasks not related to its functions or, indeed, to set itself up in competition with the private sector in any way.
The opportunity to recover specified costs in this way may in certain circumstances provide practical solutions for the board and those organisations and individuals involved with the board while also keeping the administration costs of the organisation to a minimum. We think that it is appropriate for the board to charge fees and for the circumstances in which it may do so to be set out in secondary legislation as we may wish to include new categories of costs, or remove them, to reflect the changing environment in which the PPF will operate. I expect this to be a power that is exercised very seldom, in limited circumstances, but it is useful to have it should the PPF appropriately acquire information that might be of considerable value. As a result, it could recover some of the costs to the levy payer.
Lord Higgins: One certainly could not have guessed that from reading the clause or the Explanatory Notes. I must say that the Explanatory Notes fall below the standard we have normally come to expect and I believe that my noble friend Lady Noakes agrees with me in that regard. By and large, they tend simply to repeat what is in the clause. They do not explain at all what the Minister has just explained, although one might perhaps deduce it if one spent a long time puzzling. We are grateful for the explanation and have no further comments.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Annual reports to Secretary of State]:
On Question, Whether Clause 113 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: The clause deals with annual reports to the Secretary of State, and what should be included in them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Has a stand part debate on Clause 113 been notified? I am not trying to be awkward but, on looking at my file, it is the one clause stand part that is missing.
Lord Higgins: This raises an interesting technical point. I am afraid that I am influenced by my Commons experience whereby every clause has a stand part debate in Committee. The Minister is right to say that this clause is not one I included in that regard, so I may do better to return to it on Report.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Lord wishes to raise a question, I shall see whether I can answer it.
Lord Higgins: Is the report going to be debateable in the House, under what circumstances and how? Should not the position of the auditor and actuary be spelt out in the annual report? Should they not also have some input into it and should their views not be
GC 34
recorded? That seems extremely important. As for the non-executive committee, we are all doubtful whether we need it—but we can return to that matter again. But I think that an annual report should have a commentary by the actuary and auditor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot possibly comment on the second question. Not having had detailed notice of that point, I have not been able to check on it. However, in the normal course of events, the annual reports of all bodies that are laid before Parliament are not debated in the way suggested by the noble Lord. Normally copies are sent with a compliments slip. If any noble Lords are interested, an Unstarred Question can be tabled, which may result in a debate on something like the social fund annual report. That is the normal way in which things are done, in my experience.
In opposition I used to receive a large number of annual reports. They were not debated because they are not regulations. But if I was interested or wished to do so, I could draw attention to the report as I could draw attention to a Rowntree report, for example. That is the expected procedure.
As for actuaries, there will be an actuarial report and annual accounts as set out in Schedule 5.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Are there any circumstances in which there would not be an audit report, saying that the accounts were a true and fair view, when billions of pounds of public money is involved? I should have thought that it was a useful thing to have.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My understanding is that it would be inconceivable that they would not be included.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Duty to notify insolvency events in respect of employers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 114 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: We suddenly change gear at this point. This clause and the succeeding clauses relate to the way in which the pension protection fund gets involved in a particular company and whether the company is eligible. The clause starts the ball rolling with a duty to notify insolvency events.
The whole area of insolvency is, I am happy to say, one with which I am unfamiliar. My noble friend Lord Hunt is very familiar with the subject, but not for the obvious reasons, and we may rely on him rather heavily in the course of these events. As I understand it, an insolvency practitioner is required to notify the board, the regulator and so on; I am not clear about the timing. After an "insolvency event"—a splendid euphemism—occurs in relation to the employer, the insolvency practitioner is required to notify the board, the regulator, the trustees and so on. One would have thought that the trustees or managers of the scheme

GC 35
would have known already, so that seems strange. To save time on later amendments, will the Minister give us a general view of how the system will operate?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have a very long speech on the government amendments and a very short one in this regard, but perhaps what I say will help to contextualise the matter. When we debate Amendment No. 192A there is a whole series perhaps 30—of government amendments dealing with insolvency issues. I would be willing to give a much fuller description under those amendments if the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Higgins: Let us do that.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Insolvency event, insolvency date and insolvency practitioner]:
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 115 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: The clause relates to the point I have just mentioned, so if the Minister would like to describe the process in the light of the government amendments, that would be entirely appropriate.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Insolvency practitioner's duty to issue notices confirming status of scheme]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 80, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) An insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer must—

(a) if he is able to confirm that a scheme rescue is not possible, issue a notice to that effect (a "scheme failure notice")."

(b) if he is able to confirm that a scheme rescue has occurred, issue a notice to that effect (a "withdrawal notice")."

The noble Baroness said: Clause 114 and subsequent clauses set out that when an insolvency event occurs in relation to the sponsoring employer of an occupational pension scheme which is eligible for PPF compensation, it is the duty of the insolvency practitioner to notify the PPF board, the regulator and the pension scheme trustees or managers of the insolvency events. It is the insolvency event which triggers the beginning of the assessment period. After all, a scheme will fall under the PPF only if both the employer is insolvent and it is deemed that there are insufficient assets to wind up the scheme and keep it out of the PPF. A two-part assessment must take place.
The insolvency event triggers the beginning of the assessment period. During that period the scheme is assessed for eligibility for PPF compensation—in other words, to see whether it can stay outside the scheme but, effectively, wound up and its liabilities bought up by annuities. Therefore, the insolvency practitioner's role in informing the board, the regulator, the trustees and managers of the insolvency
GC 36
event in determining the status of the scheme is clearly essential to the entry rules of the PPF. It is vital that the role of the insolvency practitioner is set out in legislation.
The amendments are the result of an adjustment in policy, the original intention of which was to make the notices issued by insolvency practitioners reviewable.
Lord Higgins: How?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall go on if I may. That is part of our problem—we wanted to get the notices reviewed, but we then found that we must produce another way in which to do it, so the noble Lord is right to ask that question.
As the Bill stands, insolvency practitioner notices take effect as soon as they are issued. For example, a notice issued under Clause 116 stating that a scheme rescue has occurred sets in train an automatic series of events that will lead to the board's withdrawal from a scheme and the termination of an assessment period. In other words, the liabilities can be met outside of going into the PPF.
It is highly unlikely that the notices issued by an insolvency practitioner will be incorrect. The matters on which insolvency practitioners make decisions—for instance, whether a scheme rescue has occurred and therefore the scheme does not come into the PPF—are straightforward and clear criteria which will have to be met before a notice can be issued. However, we can not discount the possibility of human error—for instance, an insolvency practitioner's office attaching the wrong name and address to a notice. Furthermore, because these notices set in motion such an important series of events, we felt as a matter of principle that it was important that individuals had a right of appeal.
However, because we did not want an appeal to be the only means of correcting a mistake, these amendments require the board to verify a notice issued by an insolvency practitioner. The board will do this by issuing a determination notice, and it is the notice that we have made appealable—in other words, if the insolvency practitioners did not wish, and it did not seem appropriate, that their decision be appealable, it is even more appropriate within this structure that the determination notice that the board will issue instead should be the appealable route. That there needs to be an appealable route is clear, given the ECHR considerations.
In the unlikely event that the board determines that an insolvency practitioner's notice is not correct, it is required to issue a new notice under amended Clause 117. That is exactly what it would have to do if the insolvency practitioner failed to issue a notice. The amendments also ensure that the notices do not take effect—that is to say, they do not trigger any action—until they become binding. Binding is when all appeal rights have expired and all outstanding appeals disposed are of.
However, there is one key drawback of delaying action—that is to say, bringing the scheme into the PPF—until the notice becomes binding. In the period

GC 37
between a notice being issued and the notice becoming binding—you have to allow that period for an appeals procedure to go through—the assessment period continues and any insolvency event that occurs in this interim period would be ignored. In view of this, we have amended Clause 140 so that if a further insolvency event occurs before a scheme rescue notice becomes binding, for example, the original assessment period is to be treated as terminating immediately before the occurrence of the insolvency event, thus allowing the further event to trigger a new assessment period. In other words, it may have been that the insolvency event has triggered a procedure where it looks as though there could be a rescue, that rescue falters and we therefore need a new insolvency event to trigger a new assessment period.
The intent behind all these amendments is sound: requiring the board to verify that notices issued by an insolvency practitioner are correct and allowing the board's verification notice to be appealed. These are important modifications to Chapter 3. Unfortunately, the implementation of this intent has required some complex changes to the existing structure of the provisions of Part 2 of the Bill—that is the reason for this long list of amendments. I think that the changes have been dealt with succinctly but I would be very happy to spell it out further, if noble Lords would find it helpful.
That is the purport of what we are doing, but I would be perfectly happy to describe the amendments further so that we had it on the record. I am in noble Lords' hands. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I wish to seek clarification of a comment made by the Minister. I am no expert in insolvency; I am just a solicitor. My expertise comes from my consultations with the Association of Recovery Professionals, the Society of Turnaround Professionals and the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
There is concern that the procedure that we are now setting up is immensely complicated. Will the Minister share with us the advice that she and her colleagues have had about the application of the Human Rights Act, because it seems the motivation behind setting up this highly complicated procedure? Also, perhaps she might share with us who she is most concerned to protect, so far as concerns the right of appeal. Will she give us some examples of the sort of individuals or organisations that might wish to lodge an appeal and the circumstances in which that might happen so that we can then see these amendments more in context and understand the justification for them? They seem to create a highly complicated procedure that is difficult to follow. No doubt, the noble Baroness will now explain why it is so necessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Our legal advice is that, as a notice affects scheme members, if we did not allow them to be appealed, they would not be ECHR compatible. There must be a means of reviewing anything that affects scheme members. Given that the insolvency practitioners did not want that route to be used, we have moved sideways: the board issues a
GC 38
determination that embodies the insolvency practitioner notice, and that becomes the appealable route. I agree with the noble Lord that the procedure looks cumbersome, but I hope that it will apply to a tiny number of cases. Rather than try to outline examples of such cases now, I shall write to the noble Lord. One simple example is where a nought has been left off a number in notification.
Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness is always helpful in writing on points. The dilemma is that people outside who understand such matters will need to know also. I hope that the department can ensure that any interested individual can understand them.
On the Human Rights Act, if I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she said that the members of a scheme that is about to become eligible can appeal. Was she referring to an appeal against the company's decision to become insolvent? I am not clear how the members would do that, but this is an opaque area. The noble Baroness also said that she hoped that there would not be many cases. Does she hope that there will not be many eligible schemes at the end of the day or that there will not be many schemes going through this procedure? As I understood it, all potentially eligible cases will go through the process. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say whether that is the case.
I wish to raise a point that I ought to have made earlier on Amendment No. 192. As we understand it, the purpose of Part 2 of the Bill is to require insolvency practitioners to report to the regulator if insolvency events occur to the employer. The definition of "insolvency events" is contained in Clause 115 and is used elsewhere. As currently drafted, Clause 115 does not include the appointment of a provisional liquidator. It would be possible, therefore, for most of the requirements of the Bill relating to an employer in liquidation not to apply for the period of a provisional liquidation. That seems contrary to what the Government intend. Provisional liquidations tend to occur only as a short emergency measure pending full liquidation; none the less there are cases where such periods can become protracted.
Additionally, if the Government accept that the regulator should not have the power to issue notices for any act or deliberate failure to act during the period where the legal effect of an insolvency event remains in force—generally, while the insolvency practitioner is responsible—this should apply during the period of provisional liquidation also.
I may be totally wrong because the point has been covered in the government amendments. But, having only recently received the explanatory notes on those amendments, I am not sure whether that is the case. More particularly, will this procedure be applied in all potentially eligible cases or did the noble Baroness merely mean that she hoped that the provisions would not often apply?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If a company has become insolvent and a scheme member cannot enjoy a wind-up, the pension scheme, its assets and liabilities will come into the PPF. The member will then enjoy a

GC 39
lower rate of pension benefit than he or she would have done if the company had remained insolvent or if the scheme had been wound up—apart from cases of scheme rescue. By definition the PPF will be inferior to the wind-up. The legal advice given to me is that, given that it affects members, there must be an appeal procedure for members against that decision on the basis that they will enjoy lower pension rights as a result. Rather than adopting a different procedure, we are providing for an appeal against the board's determination notice rather than against the decision of the insolvent company. That is not what is being appealed in such cases; it is the appropriateness of the decision to come into the PPF during the process of assessment.
I accept that the procedure is complex. However, I am told that the existing appeal mechanisms—for example, for actuarial valuations—are consistent with this procedure and that it is not out of line. We are trying to address scheme members' need for an appeal mechanism under the ECHR. That creates a need to produce determinations or notices by the board which can be appealed against. In turn, that produces the procedure of interim periods and what can happen during them. We end up with a domino cascade: we solve a problem that produces another one. As a result, we have had to table this complex set of amendments, although they do hang together.
The noble Lord asked about interim liquidity. Amendment No. 192 sought to treat the appointment of a provisional liquidator as the first insolvency event. The court can appoint a provisional liquidator on or after the presentation of a petition for winding up—usually because it is satisfied that the company's assets may be in jeopardy and that a provisional liquidator should be appointed to seek to secure its assets pending the hearing of a petition. Those appointments have not been included as an insolvency event because they are interim measures pending the hearing of a winding-up petition. At that hearing, the court may make a winding-up order, which we have already included as an insolvency event, but it may also decide not to make a winding-up order. In that case, we do not want to proceed down the route of an insolvency event where that is not required. That situation seems rather more straightforward than the previous set of issues that we have discussed.
Lord Higgins: I hate to say it, but I have a nasty feeling that things are more complicated than the noble Baroness supposes. Following an amalgamation of pension schemes into a single scheme, it may be that some members would gain more from a wind-up than others. Some may be in favour of a wind-up while others are not. I leave the noble Baroness with that cheerful thought.
Be that as it may, I am still unclear whether the clauses as now amended will apply to all potentially eligible schemes or whether they would apply only in some schemes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The provisions will apply in all cases, but there is little evidence to suggest that the IP notice would be incorrect. Earlier I asked my officials whether they could give me some examples of cases or whether this was an elaborate structure for a rare event that could be dealt with by regulations as and when it arose. I am told that that procedure, which in many ways would be infinitely more sensible, is not ECHR compliant. I am afraid that I cannot defy that advice.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The Minister has given a very helpful series of explanations, but she said earlier that she had more detailed explanations of each amendment. I may be a rather sad person, but I would love to spend some time going through the detailed explanations. Perhaps she might send them to my noble friend, who could then circulate them to other Members of the Committee who would like to see them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have around 20 pages of detailed explanation of how each amendment works. Given the summer television of repeats that we will be enjoying, I am sure that this will be preferable. I will ensure that a description of how each amendment works and its implications is circulated to all Members of the Committee. Those who wish to spend their time so fruitfully will surely enrich our Committee discussions even further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 192B:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Pensions Bill

  APPROVAL OF NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 116
  (1) This section applies where the Board receives a notice under section 116(6) ("the section 116 notice").
  (2) The Board must determine whether to approve the section 116 notice.
  (3) The Board must approve the section 116 notice if, and only if, it is satisfied—

  (a) that the insolvency practitioner or former insolvency practitioner who issued the notice was required to issue it under that section, and

  (b) that the notice complies with any requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (8) of that section.

  (4) Where the Board makes a determination for the purposes of subsection (2), it must issue a determination notice and give a copy of that notice to—

  (a) the Regulator,

  (b) the trustees or managers of the scheme,

  (c) the insolvency practitioner or the former insolvency practitioner who issued the section 116 notice,

  (d) any insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer (who does not fall within paragraph (c)), and

  (e) if there is no insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer, the employer.

  (5) In subsection (4) "determination notice" means a notice which is in the prescribed form and contains such information about the determination as may be prescribed."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 117 [Board's duty where there is a failure to comply with section 116]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 192C to 192F:
  Page 81, line 3, leave out from "scheme," to "has" in line 8 and insert"—

  (a) the Board determines under section (Approval of notices issued under section 116) not to approve a notice issued under section 116 by an insolvency practitioner or former insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer, or

  (b) an insolvency practitioner or former insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer fails to issue a notice under section 116 and the Board is satisfied that such a notice ought to have been issued under that section.

  (2) The obligations on the insolvency practitioner or former insolvency practitioner imposed by subsections (2) and (4) of section 116 are to be treated as obligations imposed on the Board and the Board must accordingly issue a notice as required under that section.
  (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), where a notice is issued under section 116 by the Board by virtue of this section, it"
  Page 81, line 11, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "section 116 by virtue of this section"
  Page 81, line 14, leave out from "scheme," to end of line 16 and insert—

  "(c) the insolvency practitioner or former insolvency practitioner mentioned in subsection (1),

  (d) any insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer (who does not fall within paragraph (c)), and

  (e) if there is no insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer, the employer."

  Page 81, line 17, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  "(5) Where the Board—

  (a) is required to issue a notice under section 116 by virtue of this section, and

  (b) is satisfied that the notice ought to have been issued at an earlier time,

  it must specify that time in the notice and the notice is to have effect as if it had been issued at that time."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 192G:
  After Clause 117, insert the following new clause—

  BINDING NOTICES CONFIRMING STATUS OF SCHEME
  (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Part, a notice issued under section 116 is not binding until—

  (a) the Board issues a determination notice under section (Approval of notices issued under section 116) approving the notice,

  (b) the period within which the issue of the determination notice under that section may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

  GC 42

  (c) if the issue of the determination notice is so reviewed—

  (i) the review and any reconsideration,

  (ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

  (iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

  has been finally disposed of and the determination notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted.
  (2) Where a notice is issued under section 116 by the Board by virtue of section 117, the notice is not binding until—

  (a) the period within which the issue of the notice may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

  (b) if the issue of the notice is so reviewed—

  (i) the review and any reconsideration.

  (ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

  (iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

  has been finally disposed of and the notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted.
  (3) Where a notice issued under section 116 becomes binding, the Board must as soon as reasonably practicable give a notice to that effect together with a copy of the binding notice to—

  (a) the Regulator,

  (b) the trustees or managers of the scheme,

  (c) the insolvency practitioner or former insolvency practitioner who issued the notice under section 116 or, where that notice was issued by the Board by virtue of section 117, the insolvency practitioner or former insolvency practitioner mentioned in subsection (1) of that section,

  (d) any insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer (who does not fall within paragraph (c)), and

  (e) if there is no insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer, the employer.

  (4) A notice under subsection (3)—

  (a) must be in the prescribed form and contain such information as may be prescribed, and

  (b) where it is given in relation to a withdrawal notice issued under section 116(2)(b) which has become binding, must state the time from which the Board ceases to be involved with the scheme (see section 140)."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 118 [Eligible schemes]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 118 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: This matter is quite separate from all those that we have just discussed. The clause provides that an eligible scheme is an occupational scheme, which is not a money-purchase scheme, not a prescribed scheme, and so on. An eligible scheme will be acknowledged by the PPF as one for which it ought to take over responsibility. I presume that I am right in thinking that that is not the same as a Part 6 scheme—what I call a £400 million handout scheme—and that it is not part of the panic measure that the Government introduced at the last minute in the Commons.
  The purpose of the provision that a scheme is not eligible if it is being wound up immediately is to draw a line between the two types of scheme. Am I correct in saying that a scheme is not eligible if it is wound up immediately before the appointment by the Secretary of State for the implementation of the Bill? Can the Minister confirm that the clause defines what types of scheme are eligible and draws a line between the compensation scheme in Part 6 and these schemes?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. In addition, other schemes are also not eligible: money purchases schemes, the MP element of hybrid schemes and public sector schemes supported by a Crown guarantee. Apart from that, the noble Lord is exactly right in his understanding.
  Clause 118 agreed to.
  Clause 119 [Duty to assume responsibility for schemes following insolvency event]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 192H to 192J:
  Page 82, line 10, leave out from "time" to "and" in line 12 and insert "a scheme failure notice is issued under section 116(2)(a) in relation to the scheme and that notice becomes binding,"
  Page 82, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  "(c) a withdrawal event has not occurred in relation to the scheme in respect of a withdrawal notice which has been issued during the period—

  (i) beginning with the occurrence of the qualifying insolvency event, and

  (ii) ending immediately before the issuing of the scheme failure notice under section 116(2)(a),

  and the occurrence of such a withdrawal event in respect of a withdrawal notice issued during that period is not a possibility (see section 140)."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 192K:
  Page 82, line 30, after "scheme" insert "rules"
  The noble Baroness said: This set of amendments makes a technical change to the definition of "scheme rules" that is used in this and other Bills. The Bill currently provides a definition of scheme rules at Clause 142(7) and repeats this definition in Schedule 7, paragraph 32(2). The definition is intended to ensure that where references are made to scheme rules that means, logically enough, the scheme's rules—this is the discussion we had earlier about the difference between the rules of a scheme and scheme rules. It also includes any overriding statutory provisions which the scheme rules do not contain but ought to contain in order to comply with statutory requirements, for example, the requirement for equal treatment for people on maternity, paternity and adoption leave, and so on.
  We are clarifying the language throughout so that the rules of the scheme refer to the particular scheme and the scheme rules are those rules as modified by other statutory provisions, such as equal rights to paternity
  GC 44
  and maternity pay. I could go on. Again, I am very happy, if Members of the Committee wish, to circulate a detailed description of what each amendment does, but basically that is what they do through the Bill. I am in the Committee's hands again.
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: It would be helpful to have set out for us why these amendments appear at this stage. Is it as a result of consultation or representations? I wonder about the motivation. The last technical group was the need to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act. Why have these amendments come forward at this stage? It would be helpful to understand the background.
  Lord Higgins: As I understand it, what is proposed is to deal with the eligible scheme's members according to the scheme's rules: that is, the rules of the scheme that is being taken over. The Government seek to amend that, describing it as a technical change to the definition that is used in this and other Bills. I am puzzled about why the Government need to define the scheme's rules at all. Perhaps I have misunderstood the difference between the scheme rules, which I take to be the rules of the—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is precisely because one phrase, "scheme rules", could be used to embrace both the existing legacy of individual scheme rules and the rules that will apply when going into the PPF. The individual scheme rules are overridden by statutory requirements. For example, PPF compensation is based on entitlement under scheme rules. If scheme rules do not include the statutory requirements for, say, limited price indexation, then PPF compensation would not reflect the minimum LPI entitlement set out in legislation. That would clearly be contrary to our policy intent.
  What we are saying here is that the rules of the scheme are the legacy of the individual schemes, which may all have different rules. The "scheme rules" are the compound of those, modified by statutory provisions which apply across the board. The noble Lord will recall our discussion much earlier on about the "rules of law". I said that this would not refer to habeas corpus. This concerns matters such as equal pay directives, the right to transfer to schemes, to maternity provisions and so forth. Some of the smaller schemes might not have embraced all these issues, but now they need to do so. We are making the distinction all the time between the rules of the scheme—the individual scheme—and the scheme rules, which are those modified by statutory changes.
  Turning to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think that it was because we were advised that confusion could result if we did not make the distinction. As a result, people will know that there is a difference between the rules of the individual scheme—in some cases almost a legacy structure—and the scheme rules, which are those rules as modified by overriding requirements.
  Lord Higgins: I am still not sure that I understand it. Clearly we need to change the terminology because I do not think that it could be much worse. Perhaps those are famous last words.
  We have the rules of the existing scheme which is being taken over. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness has done, we should call those the "legacy scheme rules".

  GC 45
  But what are the other scheme rules? Are they the rules of the scheme as amended by the fact that, for example, it will be 90 per cent rather than 100 per cent and so forth? I understand the legacy scheme rules—they are the rules of the scheme being taken over, but I am not clear about the other scheme rules.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Let me try again. When a scheme comes into the PPF it will be expected to observe the requirements of the legislation. For various reasons, some legacy schemes do not do so. When such a scheme comes into the PPF, we will seek as far as possible and with a broad brush to protect the structure of benefits which the scheme members and the employer have contracted together and bought. I cite, for example, spousal payments, which would continue under the PPF. If the rules of the original scheme allow for payments to be made to surviving opposite sex partners then, given the European directive, they would also apply to same sex partners and that right will continue to be exercised and protected in the PPF. Within the PPF, some members will have no rights for partners while others will because of the legacy rules.
  The legacy rules may say, for example, that payments can be made to a spouse, but would not say that they can be made to a civil partner. However, when that scheme comes into the PPF, because subsequent legislation has been passed since the date of the rules of the scheme, those payments would apply to civil partners as well. That is my understanding of what is intended here: to try to keep clear the distinction between the legacy rules of the scheme and the fact that when such a scheme comes into the PPF, while some benefits will remain distinct to the scheme, they will nonetheless conform to legislation which now applies to all schemes. That is the purpose and why we are making the distinction between the rules of an individual scheme and the scheme rules, which are those rules of the scheme as modified by subsequent legislation.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Am I being too simple by asking whether it would do the trick just to refer to the "old scheme rules" before the scheme comes into the PPF and the "new scheme rules" after it has done so? We could then simply amend the wording accordingly.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: I do not think that that would achieve it. However, some people may misunderstand the point because we are using the same terms to refer both to the old scheme rules and to what I would call the consolidated scheme rules within the PPF as a result of the add-ons resulting from legislation. Perhaps at some point another word or phrase may be needed.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All that I would say is that I would hate to have to bring back all these sets of amendments with a further change of words to the definition.
  Lord Higgins: We must get it right.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, but I think that we have got it right. I have no reason to think that making a distinction between rules of the scheme and scheme rules is more or less helpful than old scheme rules and new scheme rules. My noble friend is exactly right. I will reflect on the matter, but the distinction needs to be drawn, for the reasons that I have explained. I would not wish to die in a ditch over whether that is the most helpful labelling. But so far, none of the bodies with which we have consulted have suggested that that is an inappropriate description.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 120 [Duty to assume responsibility for schemes following application or notification]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 192L:
  Page 83, line 4, leave out from "a" to "and" in line 6 and insert "scheme failure notice under section 122(2) in relation 10 the scheme and that notice becomes binding,"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 192M to 192P:
  Page 83, line 7, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  "(c) a withdrawal event has not occurred in relation to the scheme in respect of a withdrawal notice which has been issued during the period—

  (i) beginning with the making of the section 121 application or, as the case may be, the receipt of the section 121 notification, and

  (ii) ending immediately before the issuing of the scheme failure notice under section 122(2),

  and the occurrence of such a withdrawal event in respect of a withdrawal notice issued during that period is not a possibility (see section 140)."
  Page 83, line 13, after "scheme" insert "rules"
  Page 83, line 19, leave out "respect of" and insert "relation to".
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 121 [Applications and notifications for the purposes of section 120]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 193:
  Page 83, line 43, leave out subsection (5).
  The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendments are about who should be told about certain things. Amendment No. 193 would delete subsection (5), on a probing basis. The question posed by the amendment is why we have this paper chase. A subsection (5) notice will come into play only if the regulator becomes aware of the employer being unlikely to continue as a going concern. The pension protection fund then has to tell the trustees, managers and employers. That raises the question of how we are expecting the PPF to work. Will it sit in a sort of ivory tower, isolated from employers and trustees, so that its decisions come as something of a surprise; or will there be some real engagement—in which case, what is the

  GC 47
  necessity for the paper chase? Could a notice be issued where an employer had no prior knowledge? That seems to me to be quite unusual.
  Amendment No. 204, which is to Clause 137, relating to binding valuations, adds the regulator to the list of those who should be informed under subsection (3). As I understand it—I may be wrong—the regulator does not cease to be interested in a scheme simply because it falls within the ambit of the pension protection fund. Surely something as significant as the binding valuation ought to be notified to the regulator.
  Amendment No. 207 would require the pension protection fund to tell the employer if the fund has assumed responsibility, following reconsideration under Clause 143. We tabled that amendment as a way to tease out when the employer should be informed and when the employer will be ignored. It is currently ignored in Clause 143, but employers are mentioned in Clause 121 and, for example, in Clause 140, covering when the scheme ceases to fall within the pension protection fund. I am sure that there are further references. So the amendment is trying to tease out whether there is a coherent pattern of information given to the employer. That is probably enough for today, and I shall leave Amendment No. 214 for another day. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the noble Baroness want me to deal with Amendment No. 214, or would she prefer to de-group it? I am in her hands.
  Baroness Noakes: I do not propose to speak to it today, but I shall consider what the noble Baroness says about the other amendments and decide whether to return to it or to leave it to another day.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Then I shall try to respond to her points about Amendments Nos. 193, 204 and 207. Amendment No. 193 relates to Clause 121, which provides for the trustees or managers of the scheme whose sponsoring employer is unlikely to continue as a going concern but is not subject to insolvency events, as defined in Clause 115, so that no event can trigger an assessment period in the usual way, to apply to the board of the PPF for it to assume responsibility for the scheme. Examples include some public sector schemes without a Crown guarantee or schemes with a foreign sponsoring employer.
  The clause also provides that where the regulator is aware that the sponsoring employer of such a scheme is unlikely to continue as a going concern, it is given notice to the board to that effect. Once such a notice has been received by the board, subsection (5) imposes an obligation on the board to notify the trustees or managers of the scheme and the sponsoring employer of the notice. Given that the assessment period begins when the board receives such a notice from the regulator, it is vital that the trustees and managers of the scheme and the sponsoring employer are notified immediately.
  If the trustees and managers are unaware that the assessment period has begun—although I agree with the noble Baroness that it might be an unusual occurrence—we could hardly expect them to comply with all the controls that have been designed to protect the scheme and members' interests during the assessment period. So that is possibly a belt-and-braces approach, but nevertheless, it seems important if we are to have a reliable paper audit. That includes their obligation to reduce members' benefits payable to the PPF level of compensation.
  The amendment would therefore remove the vital requirement on the board to keep trustees and managers of the scheme and the sponsoring employer informed of the important events that can initiate the assessment period.
  Amendment No. 204 relates to Clause 137, which sets out certain provisions relating to the valuation of a scheme's assets and protected liabilities. In particular, Clause 137 states when the valuation obtained under Clause 135 becomes binding. Amendment No. 204 would require the board to issue a copy of the binding valuation obtained in conjunction with Clauses 135 and 136 to the regulator.
  The purpose of the valuation obtained under Clause 135 is to enable the board to determine whether a scheme requires PPF assistance. Once the valuation has been undertaken and the board is satisfied with it, it must approve it. At that point, a copy of the approved valuation is issued to the trustees or manager of the scheme, the insolvency practitioner and the regulator, as set out in Clause 136. Following that, it becomes binding.
  The amendment would require the board to issue a copy of the binding valuation to the regulator. I accept the amendment in principle, but it is not required because government Amendment No. 203E has been tabled, which has exactly the same effect. The noble Baroness is exactly right; but we are running in parallel.
  Amendment No. 207 would impose a duty on the board to send a copy of the determination notice provided for in Clause 143(2) to the employer. I could go on, but, at that stage, there is no sponsoring employer to send it to. If the noble Baroness would like me to expand on that point, I am happy to do so.
  Baroness Noakes: Yes.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Right, then I will do so.
  When a scheme has been ordered to wind up outside the PPF, the trustees or managers may apply to the board to reconsider assuming responsibility for the scheme. The board will then be required to determine whether it intends to assume responsibility for the scheme and issue a notice to that effect. In those circumstances, the scheme in question has already been ordered to wind up outside the PPF because there was no longer a sponsoring employer and no scheme rescue was possible.
  The amendment would require the board to send a copy of the determination notice to the employer. However, as there is no longer a sponsoring employer

  GC 49
  in respect of such schemes, the board should not be bound by such a requirement. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 214. I am sorry that that is such a long answer, but the noble Baroness wanted me to spell it out.
  Baroness Noakes: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I think that everything that she said made absolute sense and was satisfactory, but I shall of course want to read it carefully in Hansard in the cold light of day. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 121 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: We enter a series of clauses in which, as I understand it, the application for an eligible scheme to be taken over can be done in different ways. Under Clause 121, if the trustees or the manager become aware that the employer is unlikely to continue as a going concern and the prescribed requirements, of which we are unaware, are met, they should apply to the board to take over.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. This may be another case where the Explanatory Notes could have been more helpful; I do not know—I have not looked at the note to this clause. We do not expect that duty to be relevant to most schemes, as it is imposed only on the trustees of those schemes that are not subject to insolvency events as defined in Clause 115. I mentioned that in passing just now, but examples would include public sector schemes without a Crown guarantee—such as the Arts Council scheme, as opposed to that for local authorities—and schemes with a foreign sponsoring employer. That is why we need the procedure.
  Lord Higgins: So an application can be made or a scheme can become eligible if there is an insolvency event. As I understand it, under Clause 121, the scheme can become an eligible scheme if the trustees or the managers apply for it to be effectively taken over.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is where employers will not be subject to insolvency events, such as in the case of the Arts Council.
  Lord Higgins: I am unfamiliar with the Arts Council scheme. But when the noble Baroness talks about an overseas employer, I am especially concerned. As we know from earlier exchanges, we are worried about circumstances such as when a Japanese bank reneged on its commitments to its employees in the UK.
  Let me try again. As I understand it, there are various routes under different clauses whereby a scheme may become eligible. One is an insolvency circumstance. Clearly, there are several other ways to become eligible. Perhaps it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would tell us what are the alternative routes, other than insolvency.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord will know, a scheme will come into the PPF if it meets two conditions. One is that the employer is insolvent; the second is that the pension scheme does not have sufficient assets to wind it up in such a way that it can meet its obligations. Both of those conditions must be fulfilled. We dealt with some of the concerns associated with this about moral hazard when we discussed Clauses 39 to 45, and what counts as a scheme rescue and what counts as manipulation in order to dump liabilities.
  This provision concerns the fact that there are some schemes where there is no employer who can fall within the triggering insolvency event to start the assessment period. Therefore, the clause is not to do with the eligibility of a scheme to enter the PPF but with what will trigger the start of the assessment period. The clause states that there is a duty on the trustees of such schemes to apply to the PPF for the board to assume responsibility for the scheme.
  Baroness Noakes: Clause 121 is drawn in broad terms. It does not appear to be confined to those companies for which an insolvency event could not be triggered. It seems to be drafted to cover the whole universe of pension schemes because it contains no limiting words. So it appears that one can enter the process either through an insolvency event or through someone thinking that the company is no longer a going concern. Some of my later amendments are predicated on that being the case.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, I can only apologise to the noble Baroness, because that is not what is intended. The prescribed requirements under the Bill will be where employers are not subject to insolvency events. If they are, as set out in Clause 115, the only way that an assessment period can start is through an insolvency practitioner's notice as described in Clause 114.
  This clause provides for where there is no employer subject to an insolvency event but where the scheme none the less should arrive in the PPF. It is a question of what triggers that assessment period to decide whether it should indeed arrive in the PPF. The trustees or managers may trigger that, but it is not a new route for the vast majority of schemes, which are subject to an insolvency event. It just provides for a shopping list of some slightly odd companies or bodies for which there is no employer in a conventional sense to be subject to an insolvency event and where, therefore, the trustees and managers, where that scheme may need to come within the PPF, can apply to enter the assessment period to see whether it should.
  Baroness Barker: I have been listening carefully to what the Minister said. It is fascinating if obscure stuff. I understand the point about the Arts Council and

  GC 51
  various such bodies. She also mentioned foreign employers. Can she give us an example to satisfy my curiosity?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): The Sitting is suspended for 10 minutes.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is precisely the sort of point where an amendment—
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Sitting has already been suspended.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.47 p.m. until 6.57 p.m.]
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps we could try to clarify the situation that we were discussing before we adjourned. I do not fully understand the procedure and nor does my noble friend Lady Noakes, which is really worrying. In fact, I am almost inclined to ask whether anyone understands Clause 121.
  There would seem to be various routes by which a scheme can become an "eligible" scheme. One is through the insolvency route and we discussed that in considerable detail. It would appear from Clause 121 that it can also come by a different route; namely, the trustees or managers of a scheme which is to become eligible become aware that the employer is not going to continue and that prescribed requirements are met in relation to the employer.
  I understand from the Minister that those prescribed requirements, of which we on this side of the Committee are totally unaware, are that it cannot have followed the other route. It cannot have become an eligible scheme because it became insolvent. If so, one would have thought that that ought to be clear at the beginning of Clause 121. It ought to say that where there is a concern that the employer is not going to continue as a going concern and that the scheme has not become eligible because it has become insolvent.
  The noble Baroness gave various examples—we were unaware of the details—of various government institutions and so forth and, more importantly, overseas employers. Am I right in thinking that this route will be for schemes which do not become insolvent and that schemes will become eligible only by the insolvency route or by the fact that they cannot become insolvent? Is it right that in later clauses there are no ways of getting into the eligibility classification?
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is my understanding. We expect that, in the vast majority of cases, the assessment period which could result in schemes coming into the PPF is triggered by an insolvency event on the employer. The assessment period is then used to determine not only that that is legit—in other words, that it is not a manipulation—but that assets and liabilities can be bound up and so forth.
  The two categories which we have in mind where a scheme could end up in the PPF but has not come via the insolvency route into assessment, but by another route, is where the trustees and managers have a duty to make the application. They include two broad categories of scheme. The first comprises the public sector schemes without a Crown guarantee. I have given the Arts Council, but the category includes the Audit Commission, the British Tourist Authority, British Waterways, the Crown Estate, the Design Council, English Partnerships, Investors in People, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Board for Midwifery, Remploy, Scottish Enterprise, the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Association, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the Wine Standards Board. That is not an exhaustive list, but Members of the Committee can see the type of schemes to which we are referring.
  The second category is those schemes with a foreign employer. When we adjourned, I was being asked for an example of that. The advice I have been given is that an example of an overseas company would be one that is not subject to an insolvency event as defined in Clause 115 but which has employees in the UK and a UK-registered pension scheme. If the trustee or regulator became aware that the company is shutting down leaving the pension scheme under-funded, they can apply or notify the board. Without this clause, such schemes would not be able to initiate the assessment period because there is no insolvency event and members would not receive PPF protection. Indeed, it is almost like a branch of an overseas company.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I am intrigued. Did I really hear the noble Baroness say that the Crown Estate does not have a Crown guarantee? That gives a whole new concept of legal power without responsibility.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Put it this way, the Crown Estate is on my list. I will not go beyond my list.
  Lord Higgins: The Crown Estate is putting up wind farms all over the place. Will the Minister accept that the drafting at the beginning of Clause 121 is either defective or at best obscure and that subsection (b) ought to say:
  "The prescribed requirement is that it cannot have become eligible under the insolvency route",
  or words to that effect and then we will know where we are?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not promise to change the drafting, but I do promise to reflect on the matter. If the provision is causing confusion to Members opposite, it does not have the clarity that it should have. However, whether the drafting can be changed without a vast array of consequential amendments I do not know, but I will take advice on the matter. I cannot give a commitment, but I will certainly look at it.
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: I thank the Minister. She has in my hearing during the Grand Committee made a

  GC 53
  number of commitments which we warmly welcome. However, I have become slightly out of kilter in my understanding of what is to happen now. When the Grand Committee adjourns later today, we will not meet again until Tuesday 7 September. I do not know whether it will be for the convenience of all Members of the Committee, but it would be helpful for me if the Minister could set out a timetable to which she will work as regards the various commitments, the rewriting of clauses and the consultations she has promised she will enter into.
  I recognise that the Minister will have little of a Recess, but the same applies to the rest of us. It would be a helpful guide if the Minister were able to set out something of that in a letter to Members of the Committee. We can then understand the timetable to which she will operate during the Recess.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not want any misunderstanding to arise. I am not making any commitment whatever to the redrafting of this clause, rather I am trying to take seriously on board areas which are either of concern or perhaps confusion to Members opposite because of the drafting. I shall see whether there is anything to be done, or whether anything should be done. That is all. Obviously, those Members opposite who have been in government in the past and have stood at the Dispatch Box will know that Ministers look over the procedures of Committee sittings to see where there were hesitations, problems and difficulties, to examine what triggered those and to consider whether the drafting of a Bill is correct, whether the supporting information provided was inadequate and so forth.
  All I am saying is that I will look to see whether there is anything to be done. I make no commitment either way and it is my expectation that there will be no movement on the drafting. I say that because this has been elaborately negotiated through parliamentary counsel. But it concerns me if experienced Members of the Opposition find the drafting obscure. If there is anything I can do to help in that, I shall seek to do so.
  I turn to the point about our work over the summer. I have already given an undertaking that before we move on to the Report stage—and by September, I hope—we may be in a position to say where we are going on the moral hazard clauses. But that will depend on whether and to what extent there is a meeting of minds with the organisations with which we are consulting to see whether we can overcome the problems. Associated with that, as the noble Lord will recall, we are trying to achieve greater clarity on how the clearance procedure will work. That is pivotal to drawing the distinction between good faith and manipulation, if you like. Again, further work needs to be done on that.
  I will ensure that I write to noble Lords as soon as I feel I can give them something robust and on which they can rely. Whether that can be done before we return—my officials will also want to take a summer break—is not something I can guarantee, but I shall certainly make as speedy progress as I can.
  Clause 121 agreed to.
  Clause 122 [Board's duty where application or notification received under section 121]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 193A to 193C:
  Page 84, line 17, after "effect" insert "(a "scheme failure notice")"
  Page 84, line 19, leave out "withdrawal notice" and insert "notice to that effect (a "withdrawal notice")"
  Page 84, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
  "(6) For the purposes of this Part a notice issued under subsection (2) or (3) is not binding until—

  (a) the period within which the issue of the notice may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

  (b) if the issue of the notice is so reviewed—

  (i) the review and any reconsideration.

  (ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

  (iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

  has been finally disposed of and the notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted.
  (7) Where a notice issued under subsection (2) or (3) becomes binding, the Board must as soon as reasonably practicable give a notice to that effect together with a copy of the binding notice to—

  (a) the Regulator,

  (b) the trustees or managers of the scheme, and

  (c) the employer.

  (8) Notices under this section must be in the prescribed form and contain such information as may be prescribed.
  (9) A notice given under subsection (7) in relation to a withdrawal notice under subsection (2) which has become binding must state the time from which the Board ceases to be involved with the scheme (see section 140)."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 123 [Protected Liabilities]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 193D:
  Page 84, line 42, leave out "are equivalent" and insert "correspond".
  The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: What does this amendment do? Clause 123 seems in any case to be in the wrong place in the Bill. It ought to be inserted either before or after Clause 119. Having looked at the exact wording, I do not understand what it is supposed to do.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment was part of the first group of technical amendments. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will go back to the first briefing material to find out what those amendments do.
  Lord Higgins: This clause seems to have nothing to do with what we discussed on the previous amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 193D changes the words "are equivalent" to "correspond". That was a drafting amendment I produced. I do not understand the question.
  Lord Higgins: I am sorry to delay the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 124 agreed to.
  Clause 125 [Admission of new members, payment of contributions etc]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 193E:
  Page 86, line 7, after "members" insert "of any class"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 194:
  Page 86, line 18, leave out "No"
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. It is intended to discover what happens to scheme members while there is an assessment period. The amendment does this by removing the word "No" as the first word of subsection (5), so that it reads:
  "benefits may accrue under the scheme".
  An assessment period can apply to an employer under Clause 121 when someone thinks that the employer will not continue as a going concern. When we discussed that, we established that three would be relatively few potential employers in that category, but some could be prescribed. If there is an example of a question mark over "going concern", it is likely that all the employees are still working normally, being paid their wages and expecting to accrue benefits for length of service, pay increases or changes in personal circumstances. Can the Minister therefore explain why employees suffer because someone believes that the employer might not be a going concern?
  A going-concern evaluation can be complex and not at all self-evident. If that is the case, should there not be an obligation to tell employees that their pension accruals are on hold because someone is looking at the going-concern nature of their employer?
  Can the Minister also explain the relationship between subsection (6) and subsection (5)? Subsection (6) seems to say that subsection (5) does not prevent an increase in benefits. I am unclear as to the net effect of the two. While she is explaining that, perhaps she can also explain why the draftsman has chosen to enclose the words "in a benefit" in commas. I find it difficult to read subsection (6). We referred earlier to the parliamentary draftsman's commaphobia and there was a recommendation that he be given a copy of Lynne Truss's excellent book. In subsection (6), some stray commas could benefit from being removed if the provision is to be read with sense. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 194 seeks to allow benefits to accrue to or in respect of scheme members during the assessment period. I can understand that this is a probing amendment.
  During the assessment period, the payment of scheme benefits to members will be reduced to ensure that benefits do not exceed the level of PPF compensation that would be payable should the
  GC 56
  PPF assume responsibility for the scheme. We have decided to reduce the amount of compensation payable to scheme members during the assessment period to ensure that the funding position of the scheme remains stable and that schemes in the assessment period are treated consistently and fairly. Otherwise, some schemes that took a long time to go through the assessment period would be building up benefits at a higher rate than others that had gone through the assessment period quicker.
  There are also some important reasons why we consider it necessary to limit the accrual of benefits during this time to inflation levels. The first is to keep the funding position of the scheme as stable as possible during the assessment period. Secondly, given that the assets and liabilities of the scheme are assessed at the assessment date and that it is on this basis that the PPF may eventually assume responsibility for a scheme, there seems little point in allowing benefits to accrue to members during this period as any benefits that did accrue would be disregarded. However, in the event of a scheme rescue employees can subsequently backdate their pension accruals to the start of the assessment period. There will be an override on issues such as indexation. Apart from that, this amendment is to make sure that scheme members do not perversely benefit from a long assessment period compared to a shorter assessment period. That is the push.
  Baroness Noakes: I have been extremely distracted while the Minister was replying because I have been told that I cannot have an adjournment of the House and I am due to move the Second Reading of a Bill as next business in the Chamber. I apologise for the discourtesy of not listening to the Minister and will, of course, read carefully what she has said. I apologise to the Committee that I am unable to remain until the end of the proceedings today but I have to be in the Chamber in a few minutes' time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 194A:
  Page 86, line 18, after "scheme" insert "rules"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 194B:
  Page 86, line 27, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 29.
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 194B I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. This is a group of technical and minor drafting amendments that serve to provide clarity within the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 200C, 234Y and 234AJ deal with entitlement to and payment of certain survivors' benefits where a member dies before commencement of the assessment period, as do Amendments Nos. 234AJ and 234Y. Amendment No. 234P clarifies the definition of pensionable service and the changes necessary to ensure that compensation can be paid in respect of all actual service that qualifies a person for benefits under the

  GC 57
  scheme. Amendment No. 230A introduces a new subparagraph (b) to paragraph 27 of Schedule 7, "annual increase in periodic compensation". It refers to pensionable service which is notional service allowed in respect of the member under the admissible rules, which qualifies the member for benefits.
  Lord Higgins: It is very difficult to hear the Minister.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am so sorry. I was trying to make sure that I got the elaborate cross-references correct. Amendment No. 230B introduces new sub-paragraphs (6A) and (6B) of paragraph 27 of Schedule 7, which provides that pre and post 1997 indexation of compensation derived from pension credit rights will have such a meaning as may be prescribed. In view of that, we have to make consequential Amendments Nos. 234R, 234S, 234T and 234AE. Amendments Nos. 234W and 234X provide that it is payments of benefits by the trustees which were payable during the assessment period that are offset against the board's liability to pay PPF compensation. I could go on. The rest are even more minor and technical than the amendments I have listed so far. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: As with the previous set of amendments, we obviously cannot comprehend these amendments or the explanations at short notice. As on the previous occasion, subject to our looking through them with the notes that I gather the Minister is proposing to offer to us, we do not wish to object at this stage.
  As I pointed out earlier, it is unsatisfactory that in Grand Committee we basically incorporate amendments that we have not had a chance to go into and which we should perhaps defer until Report. But, in the circumstances, I think that we should probably agree to them as the Minister has suggested.
  As we have said on previous occasions, it is not satisfactory being in Grand Committee on a Bill of this kind not least because, as we have seen, my noble friend Lady Noakes has had to go downstairs in order to attend to matters on the Floor of the House.
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: We are being invited to take a lot on trust and we do so on this occasion. However, having so many technical and drafting amendments at a late stage is an odd way to do business, but we accept the noble Baroness's assurance.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 194C:
  Page 86, line 29, at end insert—
  "(7A) Where a person is entitled to a pension credit derived from another person's shareable rights under the scheme, nothing in this section prevents the trustees or managers of the scheme discharging their liability in respect of the credit under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30) (sharing of rights under pension arrangements) by conferring appropriate rights under the scheme on that person.
  (7B) In subsection (7A)—
  "appropriate rights" has the same meaning as in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to that Act (pension credits: mode of discharge);
  "shareable rights" has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of that Act (sharing of rights under pension arrangements)."
  The noble Baroness said: In introducing this amendment, I shall speak to the related amendments. They enable the PPF to comply with court orders for ancillary relief made following divorce or annulment of marriage. Members of the Committee will remember that I was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to say what the major groups of amendments were. This was one of them simply because the original pension sharing/pension earmarking had not contemplated the situation of a PPF and, if we did not make these amendments, spouses who might otherwise have received a pension would have been able to receive only that element available pre-PPF compensation. These amendments ensure that that is properly taken into account as a matrimonial asset.
  In determining the financial settlement on divorce or annulment, the court may make an attachment order, a commutation order or a pension sharing order. The attachment and commutation orders are for separation—
  Lord Higgins: Will the noble Baroness slow down a little? It is difficult to understand.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All right. Where there is an attachment order, it will be the responsibility of the trustees of the pension scheme to make payments of a specified amount out of the pension when it becomes payable direct to the former spouse on behalf of the member. The member may also be required to commute, or convert to a lump sum, part of the pension payable from the pension arrangements. The trustees are also responsible for discharging liability for pension sharing orders.
  These amendments ensure that any attachment orders made during the assessment period can be implemented by the board. They also ensure that if a pension sharing order is implemented during the assessment period, the pension debit can be created and the pension credit—we mean the element which belongs to the spouse, who is divorced in pension terms—and the pension credit deposited in a suitable pension arrangement on behalf of the former spouse or held in the pension scheme.
  The trustees will be able to discharge their liability for these orders under the provisions of existing legislation as the orders will be made against the pension scheme. However, there may be occasions when circumstances will prevent the trustees discharging their liability for a pension credit before the end of the assessment period.
  We have ensured that even though the scheme has entered the PPF, the board will be able to implement a pension sharing order made before the end of the assessment period. It will become the responsibility of

  GC 59
  the PPF board to ensure that the pension sharing order is discharged against PPF compensation. The PPF will honour the pension sharing order by reducing the member's compensation by the percentage ordered by the court. An amount of compensation, equivalent to the member's reduction, will be retained within the PPF and will be payable to the former spouse. The big difference is that both blocks are held within the PPF, whereas if the scheme is not going to the PPF the spouse receiving a share of the pension will take it out into another scheme. Only rarely would the trustees allow it to stay in.
  The former spouse will not be able to choose to have the credit deposited in another pension scheme as the PPF does not provide for external transfers after a scheme has entered the PPF. However, the former spouse will be entitled to the same protection as a scheme member and will become entitled to payment of compensation from the scheme's normal benefit age. Compensation will be payable for life.
  Regulations within the new clause will ensure that the trustees' liability for discharging pension sharing orders will be transferred to the PPF board. The regulations will modify some of the provisions of the existing legislation to allow the PPF board to implement any orders which have been made before the end of the assessment period but not implemented by the trustees.
  We then modify other legislation. Many of the subsequent clauses relate to other legislation such as the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to ensure that the provision applies. I hope that I have described the purpose of these amendments: to make the moneys in the PPF available for pension-sharing. I beg to move.
  Baroness Barker: I have found it enormously helpful to have time to think about the written explanation that the noble Baroness gave us earlier. I wish to ask her about the situation of those who have started but not concluded divorce proceedings before the event that triggers the scheme's entry into the PPF. What triggers the process? Presumably a judge could not assess what a spouse would get if the divorce had not taken place. This probably concerns only a very small number of people, but I wish to know whether a tranche of people will get caught over a short period while this is brought in.
  Lord Higgins: It is not very satisfactory to introduce such a complex amendment at this stage in the Bill. It was difficult to follow what the noble Baroness was saying. We had not previously turned our minds to such issues as divorce and were therefore unable to catch up at this stage.
  The only query that occurred to me was whether the provision had implications for the Child Support Agency. Anyway, we will be able to read what the noble Baroness has said in Hansard and, if necessary, return to the matter during the Recess. I could not comprehend what was being said a moment or two
  GC 60
  ago. Therefore the best thing would be to let the matter go and to table an amendment to clarify the situation, if necessary, at a later stage.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: These are government amendments but I had thought that Members of the Committee received a copy of the description that I was reading out so that their comprehension would not depend on the acoustics of the room, which I agree are unfortunate. I accept that the amendments are technical. I had hoped that with the arrangement that I suggested before the Committee started—that where we were dealing with a large batch of government amendments I would try to be helpful by giving a copy of my speaking note to Members opposite—the noble Lord would have been able to follow what I was saying, even if he could not hear every word by virtue of the acoustics or my speed.
  The noble Lord says that the situation is unsatisfactory. In an ideal world, your Lordships would be redundant because Bills coming from the Commons would be so polished and ready that we would not need to make amendments. The point is that pension-sharing on divorce is extremely technical. Having been intimately involved with others in your Lordships' House in getting the Bill through in the first place, I genuinely thought that the drafting would be so complex that we would not be able to get it into this Bill at any stage, with perhaps only a gesture at Third Reading. The officials and the draftsmen have gone to enormous lengths to include these clauses because I felt, as did others—I am sure that noble Lords will agree—that when a pension, even with a lower value coming through the compensation of the PPF, could be the most significant piece of matrimonial property along with the house, it would be unreasonable and indecent to exclude it from a consideration of the separation of matrimonial assets on divorce simply because it was caught by the PPF.
  If we had not done it in that way, anyone who got divorced where the pension fund was secure would have it included; but anyone getting divorced where the pension fund was not secure, was entering an assessment period and, eventually, into the PPF fund would be denied access to a substantial swathe of matrimonial property, even though the value of that pension had been discounted because payments made under the PPF would be 10 per cent less than if the scheme had persisted. What would Members of the Committee have done in that dilemma? They would have done what I have done, which is table the amendments today, although they are extremely complex and, as I said, officials have worked around the clock to prepare them, to ensure that, under pension sharing both spouses will continue to receive an appropriate share of the pensioner's matrimonial property as ordained by the court. They may not do so. They may instead offset the house against the pension, but if they do, it would be quite wrong and, in my view, indecent to exclude what will be a substantial asset, even after the top-slicing when entering the PPF, because the scheme had entered the PPF.
  I hope that I can answer the particular point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. If an order has been made by the court before the end of the assessment period, the order will be honoured by the PPF when the board assumes responsibility for the scheme. An order cannot take effect until divorce proceedings are complete and a decree absolute has been granted. I hope that I have been able to give the noble Baroness the assurance that she wants.
  Lord Higgins: We realise that the noble Baroness feels strongly about this on a personal basis. The fact is that when she stands up and tells us herself what it is all about, it is so much easier to understand than when she reads out an incomprehensible government brief. So we are grateful to her for that further explanation. Perhaps we should dispense with the government briefs and just let the noble Baroness tell us what the Bill is about.
  Having said that, no doubt we shall adjourn imminently and continue our discussion during the Recess. I shall add only one point about that. I am not the least bit clear where we will meet. I am told that these Committee Rooms are not available during the Recess; indeed, structural changes are to be made so that they will not be available in future. Personally, I
  GC 62
  find the Moses Room unbelievably depressing, especially for a discussion of this sort of complexity. The powers that be will need to consider in September whether this House is a legislature or a building site. They cannot have it both ways. When we used to have emergency recalls in September because World War Three was about to break out, one could understand why we came back and why building work was still going on. But if it is to be a regular event in September, we cannot have building reconstruction going on at the same time.
  We are grateful to the noble Baroness for all her help in what has been a considerable tour de force. No doubt we shall return to the matter in September.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Andrews: Perhaps this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 7 September at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 7 September at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Victims' Organisations
  Northern Ireland: Victims' Organisations
  Northern Ireland: Equality and Human Rights Commissions
  Northern Ireland: Equality and Human Rights Commissions
  EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
  EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
  NORTHERN IRELAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  Belfast Agreement: Citizenship
  Belfast Agreement: Citizenship
  Northern Ireland: Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland: Ulster-Scots Agency
  City Acadamies
  City Acadamies
  School Playing Fields
  School Playing Fields
  Alcohol-related Crime
  Alcohol-related Crime
  UK Sport: British Olympic Association Funding
  UK Sport: British Olympic Association Funding
  Public Libraries
  Public Libraries
  VAT: EU Rates
  VAT: EU Rates
  Bank Notes
  Bank Notes
  Statistics Commission: Recommendations
  Statistics Commission: Recommendations
  Sports Programmes: Department of Health
  Sports Programmes: Department of Health
  Dental Treatment: Pensioners
  Dental Treatment: Pensioners
  Jarvis Plc
  Jarvis Plc
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Badger and Deer Carcasses
  Badger and Deer Carcasses
  Integrated Administration and Control System: Map Editing
  Integrated Administration and Control System: Map Editing
  Cormorants: Fishery Action Plans
  Cormorants: Fishery Action Plans
  Wind Farms
  Wind Farms
  Vehicle Emissions: Environmental Impacts
  Vehicle Emissions: Environmental Impacts
  Heathland
  Heathland
  Livestock Identification and Tracing Programme
  Livestock Identification and Tracing Programme
  Dairy Supply Chain
  Dairy Supply Chain
  Livestock Movements
  Livestock Movements
  Endangered Species: Imports to EU
  Endangered Species: Imports to EU

  Criminal Justice: Strategic Plan 2004–08
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  Earlier today, the Government published Command Paper 6288, entitled Cutting Crime—Delivering Justice: Strategic Plan for Criminal Justice 2004–08. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The strategic plan for criminal justice sets out the Government's vision for the criminal justice system (CJS) and how we aim to achieve it, combining forces across the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the law officers' departments.

  The plan focuses on how we will provide a better service to victims and witnesses of crime, increase the number of offences brought to justice, tackle offenders who fail to comply with court dates, fines and sentences and improve the way criminal justice agencies work together. This is closely linked to our overall approach to preventing crime and reducing reoffending, which is set out in a parallel document, the Home Office strategic plan.

  The Government are committed to ongoing reform of the criminal justice system. The CJS strategic plan explains how much has already been achieved: huge steps have been made to establish joint working across the CJS—largely through the success of the 42 local criminal justice boards across England and Wales and the strong leadership of the National Criminal Justice Board. We know these changes are working because we are seeing improvements on the ground. Overall, crime is down by 25 per cent since 1997. Seven per cent more offences are being brought to justice in the past two years. The number of Crown Court trials that fail to go ahead on the day scheduled has fallen by 25 per cent. The number of assets recovered in the past three years has doubled. Public confidence in criminal justice was falling sharply: we have turned this around.

  We have achieved a great deal, but there are still some real issues to tackle. The CJS strategic plan outlines our key objectives for reform, structured around a vision of the delivery of criminal justice in 2008. To achieve this vision, we need to improve the way agencies work together to support and protect victims and witnesses; we need to increase further the number of offenders brought to justice; we need to tackle offenders who fail to comply with court dates, fines and sentences; and we need to continue progress towards fully joined-up working, including providing the CJS with the information technology it needs to work effectively.

  The goal of these reforms is to deliver a service that responds better to the needs of the communities it is there to serve.
  WS 2
  Improved service for victims and witnesses is at the heart of this. By the end of next year, in all cases where someone is charged with an offence, the victims and witnesses will be offered support by a witness care unit, to make it more likely that they attend court and give evidence. Over the period, Crown Court buildings will have separate waiting facilities for prosecution and defence victims and witnesses. The Victims Fund, which will pay for better support services for victims, will also be boosted by a surcharge on all criminals who are convicted.

  The public also need to know that the offenders will be brought to book and respect for the law will be maintained. The CJS strategic plan sets out how the prosecution will take responsibility for charging, co-operating earlier with the police to identify the correct charge for the offence. It also describes innovative measures to crack down on those who fail to turn up at court or comply with fines and community penalties. Those who breach bail can now expect action to be taken straight away, and to be punished for this whatever the decision on the original case. We are working hard to make sure that every offender who defaults on their fine is pursued and made to pay it. With our measures on asset recovery it will be the criminal who pays, not the community. Our approach includes: increased powers for frontline enforcement staff including search and entry, and new measures and sanctions from the Courts Act 2003 to help to recoup fines, including attachment of earnings and deduction of state benefits, and car clamping. By rolling out direct access to the police national computer (PNC) for all magistrates' courts by autumn 2004, we will enable police officers to identify whether an offender is on the run from court or defaulting on a fine or community sentence.

  We will also pilot the community justice centre concept in north Liverpool, bringing new approaches to tackle the low level crime and anti-social behaviour which can make communal life miserable; and to reach offenders and their problems before they progress to serious crime. Court sentences will combine punishment with support to help offenders to kick their crime habit. The community will be involved in helping to steer people away from crime.

  To achieve all these goals we need to work in close partnership across the justice system. The development of the National Criminal Justice Board and local criminal justice boards has made great strides in delivering a more seamless service and better outcomes. To build on this, we are announcing today that, in future, joint working across the CJS will be further strengthened by the establishment of the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on a cross-departmental basis. This implements the recommendations of a recent review of CJS capacity published in a parallel document, Criminal Justice Reform: Working Together. This means that the teams driving progress on shared CJS targets will in future report on an equal basis to the Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs and the law officers' departments. Establishing the Office for Criminal Justice Reform as a shared resource serving all three departments builds on the firm foundations of what we

  WS 3
  have achieved, and is a powerful symbol of our resolve to work together effectively to deliver better services for the public.

  Serious Fraud Office
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  The annual report of the Serious Fraud Office has today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
  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.

  I am pleased to announce that we have decided to extend the future aircraft carrier (CVF) programme assessment phase. This extension will enable us to carry out further risk reduction work and increase the maturity of the design prior to making our main investment decision on demonstration and manufacture (D&M). In line with Smart acquisition principles by spending the right amount of time and money in the assessment phase, we will gain a better understanding of the technical and supply-side risks before we make any major commitments. We had planned to complete this risk reduction work within the original demonstration phase. The underlying programme has not been adjusted, but rather the point at which we make the main investment decision has shifted.

  We anticipate moving into the D&M phase during 2005, following the main gate decision. At this point we intend to finalise performance, time and cost parameters of the carriers. These will continue to be refined during the remainder of the assessment phase. Our target in-service dates (ISD) for the CVF remain 2012 and 2015. When built, the two vessels will be

  Table 1: Deaths to UK Gulf Veterans1 April 1991–30 June 2004

  Causes2

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality Rate Ratio

  95% Confidence Interval

  All deaths

  663

  675

  0.98

  (0.88–1.09)

  All cause coded deaths

  647

  652

  0.99

  (0.88–1.10)

  I-XVIII

  Disease related causes

  285

  341

  0.83

  (0.71–0.98)

  I

  Certain infectious and parasitic diseases

  6

  3

  1.99

  (0.43–12.30)

  II

  Neoplasms

  129

  141

  0.91

  (0.71–1.16)

  V

  Mental and behavioural disorders

  11

  17

  0.64

  (0.27–1.46)

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system

  10

  11

  0.90

  (0.34–2.35)

  IX

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  97

  121

  0.80

  (0.60–1.05)

  X

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  10

  6

  1.66

  (0.55–5.55)

  XI

  Diseases of the digestive system

  16

  23

  0.69

  (0.34–1.37)

  III, IV, XII-XVIII

  All other disease related causes3

  6

  19

  0.31

  (0.10–0.82)

  XX

  External causes of mortality

  362

  311

  1.16

  (0.99–1.35)

  Transport accidents:

  167

  127

  1.31

  (1.03–1.66)

  Land transport accident:4

  136

  106

  1.28

  (0.98–1.66)

  WS 4
  largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the United Kingdom.

  We have also agreed the alliancing principles with industry for the CVF programme which confirms the commitment of all parties to the programme and to an alliance based on commercial best practice. The alliancing principles will provide the most effective way of managing risk and reward and will bring together all parties with a vested financial interest, thus ensuring that we deliver CVF collaboratively. We will now discuss and agree the detailed alliancing arrangements with industry, including the roles and responsibilities of alliance members.

  Gulf War 1990–91: Veterans Mortality Data
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  As part of the Government's continuing commitment to investigate Gulf veterans' illnesses openly and honestly, data on the mortality of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict are regularly published. The most recent figures for the period 1 April 1991 to 30 June 2004, were published on 14 July 2004. The tables from that publication are set out below. Table 1 gives the causes of death to UK Gulf veterans over that period; table 2 shows the deaths due to malignant cancers among Gulf veterans. As with previous information, the data for Gulf veterans are compared with those of a control group known as the era cohort which is made up of Armed Forces personnel of a similar age, gender, service, regular/reservist status and rank who were not deployed to the Gulf.

  Key points to note are:

  there were 663 deaths among Gulf veterans up to 30 June 2004 compared to 675 in the era comparison group; and

  approximately 1,032 deaths would have been expected in a similar sized group taken from the general population of the UK with the same age and gender profile.

  WS 5

  Table 1: Deaths to UK Gulf Veterans1 April 1991–30 June 2004

  Causes2

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality Rate Ratio

  95% Confidence Interval

  Pedestrian

  16

  6

  2.65

  (0.99–8.28)

  Motorcycle rider

  34

  28

  1.21

  (0.71–2.07)

  Car occupant

  42

  30

  1.39

  (0.85–2.31)

  Other4

  44

  42

  1.04

  (0.67–1.63)

  Water transport

  5

  1

  4.98

  (0.56 235.33)

  Air and space transport

  26

  20

  1.29

  (0.69–2.44)

  Other external causes of accidental injury:

  67

  59

  1.13

  (0.78–1.63)

  Falls

  7

  6

  1.16

  (0.33–4.18)

  Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces

  12

  14

  0.85

  (0.36–1.99)

  Accidental drowning and submersion and other accidental threats to breathing

  13

  6

  216

  (0.76–6.92)

  Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances

  15

  15

  1.00

  (0.45–2.18)

  Accidental exposure to other and unspecified factors

  16

  12

  1.33

  (0.59–3.07)

  Other

  4

  6

  0.66

  (0.14–2.80)

  Intentional self-harm and events of undetermined intent5

  121

  110

  1.09

  (0.84–1.43)

  Assault

  5

  9

  0.55

  (0.15–1.84)

  Legal intervention and operations of war

  2

  2

  1.00

  (0.07–13.73)

  Sequelae of external causes of morbidity and mortality

  0

  2

  0.00

  (0.00–5.30)

  Deaths where the inquest has been Adjourned

  0

  2

  Other deaths for which cause data are not yet available

  12

  19

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  4

  4

  Notes 1. Service and ex-Service personnel only.

  2. Causes have been coded to the World Health Organisation's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD—10), 1992.

  3. Includes cases with insufficient information on the death certificate to provide a known cause of death.

  4. Under ICD—10 coding if the death certificate does not specifically mention the type of vehicle that was

  Table 2: Deaths to UK Gulf veterans due to neoplasms: 1 April 1991–30 June 2004

  Major cancer sites and specific sites with at least 5 deaths in one of the cohorts

  ICD

  Cancer site

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality Rate Ratio

  95% Confidence Interval

  C00-D48

  Neoplasms

  129

  141

  0.91

  (0.71–1.16)

  COO-C99

  Malignant Neoplasms (MN)

  126

  138

  0.91

  (0.71–1.17)

  COO-C14

  MN of lip, oral cavity and pharynx

  6

  4

  1.49

  (0.35–7.19)

  C15-C26, C48

  MN of digestive organs and peritoneum

  29

  35

  0.82

  (0.49–1.39)

  C15

  MN of oesophagus

  9

  5

  1.79

  (0.54–6.80)

  C18

  MN of colon

  4

  14

  0.28

  (0.07–0.91)

  C25

  MN of pancreas

  5

  6

  0.83

  (0.20–3.26)

  C30-C39, C45

  MN of respiratory and intrathoracic organs

  19

  30

  0.63

  (0.34–1.57)

  C34

  MN of bronchus and lung

  16

  26

  0.61

  (0.31–1.19)

  C40-C44, C47, C49 C50

  MN of bone, connective tissue, skin and breast

  15

  12

  1.24

  (0.54–2.91)

  C43

  Malignant melanoma of skin

  7

  5

  1.39

  (0.38–5.57)

  C51-C68

  MN of genitourinary organs

  5

  7

  0.71

  (0.18–2.60)

  C69-C80

  MN of other and unspecified sites

  26

  34

  0.76

  (0.44–1.31)

  C71

  MN of brain

  17

  20

  0.85

  (0.42–1.70)

  C80

  MN without specification of site

  8

  11

  0.72

  (0.25–1.98)

  C81-C96

  MN of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue

  26

  16

  1.62

  (0.84–3.23)

  C81-C85, C91.4, C96

  Lymphomas

  13

  9

  1.44

  (0.57–3.81)

  C82-C85, C91.4, C96

  Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

  9

  6

  1.49

  (0.47–5.10)

  C91-C95 excl C91.4

  Leukaemias

  11

  6

  1.82

  (0.62–6.01)

  C92

  Myeloid leukaemia

  8

  4

  1.99

  (0.53–9.03)

  D00-D48

  In situ neoplasms, benign neoplasms and neoplasms of uncertain behaviour or unspecified nature

  3

  3

  1.00

  (0.13–7.43)

  WS 6
  involved in the accident, the death is coded to "motor-or non-motor vehicle accident, type of vehicle unspecified". (35 deaths to Gulf veterans compared to 33 in the era group)

  5. These events have been given a coroner's verdict of suicide or open verdict death. It includes one death which has been coded to F11.1 by ONS. This death has been excluded from the mental and behavioural disorders.

  Planning Inspectorate: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today laid before the House a copy of the Planning Inspectorate's annual report and accounts for 2003–04.

  The report gives an overview of the performance of the inspectorate and highlights the ways in which it is contributing to the Government's planning reform agenda. It demonstrates the importance of a credible, accessible planning tribunal service which is open, transparent and impartial.

  Copies of the Report have been made available in the Library of the House.

  Regional Planning Guidance: Ashford Growth Area
  Lord Rooker
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing the alterations to chapter 12 of the regional planning guidance for the south-east on the Ashford growth area. This follows the public examination into the draft alterations in December 2003, the panel report in February 2004 and the consultation on the Secretary of State's proposed changes that closed on 17 June 2004.

  The alterations represent a revision to the regional planning guidance for the south-east (RPG9), as published in March 2001. On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act the alterations will be part of a statutory regional special strategy (RSS).

  The alterations aim to achieve sustainable growth in Ashford, which was identified as a growth area in RPG9. They set out the scale and form of development at Ashford to 2016, and form a special framework for the preparation of local planning documents and other relevant policy documents.

  The consultation period for the proposed changes to the draft alterations ended on the 17 June with 40 responses from individuals or organisations. These mainly related to issues which had already been raised at the public examination and therefore only minor changes to the proposed alterations have been made.

  Intellectual Property: Creative Industries Forum
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are setting up a creative industries forum on intellectual property. This will be a cross-governmental body, with ministerial representation,WS 8
  and jointly chaired by me and my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris), who is making a similar Statement to the House of Commons. I am pleased to say that there will also be strong representation from the private sector, both from the creative industries themselves and from other key industry stakeholders such as Internet service providers and hardware manufacturers. Consumers will also be represented.

  The forum will be a chance for a dialogue on intellectual property issues, such as business models, education and awareness raising, strategies for maximising the opportunities for the creative industries in a digital environment, while also addressing the challenges such as file-sharing and piracy.

  The launch and first meeting of the forum is taking place on 19 July at the London College of Communication, Elephant and Castle. Industry has warmly welcomed the initiative.

  It is anticipated that the forum will work through meetings that will set tasks and objectives to be taken forward. There is intended to be a focus on outputs and deliverables, and I am confident that this will represent a significant development in an area crucial to the UK's future competitiveness.

  Terms of reference and membership of the forum will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

  Plutonium and Uranium: UK Civil Stocks
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The department will be placing the figures for the United Kingdom's stocks of civil plutonium and uranium as at 31 December 2003 in the Library of the House. In accordance with our commitment under the Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium, we will also be sending the figures to the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who will circulate them to member states in due course. The figures will be available on the department's and the IAEA's websites.

  The figures show that stocks of unirradiated plutonium in the UK totalled 96.3 tonnes at the end of 2003. Changes from the corresponding figures for 2002 are a consequence of continuing reprocessing operations (e.g. as reflected in the increased quantity of unirradiated separated plutonium in product stores at reprocessing plants). Other smaller changes are the result of material being allocated to UK fuel. The decrease in unirradiated separated plutonium held elsewhere is due to both Thorp and Magnox reprocessing plants being close to empty during December 2003 whereas they were operating over that period in the proceeding year. The decrease in the civil depleted, natural and low enriched uranium figures reflects the change in requirements for these materials at the fuel fabrication plants and reactors.