Sitting of 20 July 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIVERSITY OF WALES, CARDIFF BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT

    Speed Cameras
    Tony Wright: When he expects to bring forward proposals to amend the law on speed cameras. [184914]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Road Traffic Act 1991 provides for the use of cameras, and the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 provides for their operation to be met from fixed penalty fines. The recent independent review of the first three years of the safety camera programme confirmed its effectiveness, with a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites. We have no plans to amend the law on cameras. However, when the legislative opportunity arises, we propose to shift from the present three-point fixed penalty for all categories of speeding to establish a band of penalties from two to six points to distinguish between higher and lower offences.
    Tony Wright:I am grateful for that answer, but my support for speed cameras somewhat diminished recently after I was done by a camera for driving at 37 mph. I have discovered since that different speed camera areas impose penalties at different speeds, which does not seem right. I have also discovered that there is no proportionality between excess speed and the penalty and points imposed. Will my hon. Friend make progress with the review and introduce more flexibility, because public support for the system will otherwise be eroded?
    Mr. Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his frankness and honesty. He knows that if he exceeds the speed limit, he runs the risk of getting a penalty. He is right, however, to recognise the concern expressed by many that those who exceed the speed limit by a small amount receive the same penalty as those who exceed it
    136
    more seriously. It is important for the punishment to fit the crime, so we will look for a legislative opportunity in a road safety Bill to introduce a new penalty points system under which the punishment more accurately reflects the severity of the offence.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: What will the Minister do for the increasing number of motorists who appear to be troubled by notifications sent out wrongly by agencies because of inadequate crosschecking of vehicles by speed enforcement agencies or congestion charging agencies?
    Mr. Jamieson: The position is very simple. If people want to challenge a speeding offence, they have the opportunity first, to send for photographic evidence, and secondly, to challenge the penalty in court. For parking and other offences, they may go to the local authority, then the adjudicator. There are plenty of checks and balances for people who may be wrongly accused.
    Mr. David Kidney: As a result of opposition in some quarters, safety camera partnerships are sticking rigidly to the guidance that there must have been lots of casualties at a site during previous years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sometimes means that avoidable deaths happen because of a lack of speed cameras? Does he agree that a good example of that are those motorcyclists who crash and die at sites where there is no history of previous crashes? Should safety camera partnerships not be allowed the discretion—we should be open about this—to site speed cameras in places where they anticipate that accidents and deaths will happen if there is no intervention?
    Mr. Jamieson: As a general rule, we want cameras to be put only in places that meet the strict criteria on numbers of deaths and injuries. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a certain flexibility in the partnership scheme to give the police and local authorities some ability to site mobile cameras, especially in places where they anticipate problems.
    Mr. Greg Knight: I do not want to change the rules.
    Mr. Jamieson: The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) may not want to change the rules, but I have letters from Conservative council leaders who want the rules relaxed. He might want to get in touch with his local authorities to find out what they are saying.
    Mr. Knight: What is his name?
    Mr. Jamieson: Well, I have a letter here from—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should send a copy of the letter to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am glad that the Conservative party policy of proportionality for sentencing is gaining more support among Labour Back Benchers. Will the Minister address the serious problem of the number of people killed on the roads? Will he

    137
    comment on figures from the Kent and Medway safety camera partnership showing that an average of 11 people were killed every year at the worst black spots before the partnership was formed and the cameras put up, but that the average number killed since the partnership started is 12? The project manager for the partnership is honest about that and says:
    "The number of fatalities across the county is staying fairly stubborn … It's not as encouraging as we would like."
    Will the Minister be equally honest and admit that cameras alone are not cutting the numbers killed on our roads? Does he agree that if he wants to reduce the unacceptable death toll on the roads, he will have to change his blinkered approach?
    Mr. Jamieson: We have never said that cameras are the only answer to preventing death and injury on our roads. The hon. Gentleman will know from the figures for Kent of the substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured where the cameras have been placed. The overall figures for the number of people killed on the roads—I have said that this should not be a party political point—show, sadly, that some of them are motorcyclists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said. Incidents sometimes happen on country lanes and in other places where cameras would have no direct effect, so we are considering other measures as well. However, as these are the last Transport questions this term, I hope that before we complete them the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will tell us where the 4,000 wrongly placed camera sites are, because he has not told us yet.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: As patron of RoadPeace, I welcome the experiment conducted to allow the organisation's "Remember Me" poster to be placed on the side of cameras. Does my hon. Friend agree that that helps the motorist to put the issue into context—that the cameras are placed there to reduce deaths on our roads?
    Mr. Jamieson: I have seen that campaign. We wanted the cameras to be conspicuous and signed because we wanted not to catch people but to slow them down. I have looked at the RoadPeace proposal to put a figure or something at the side of the road depicting someone who may have been injured or killed. We will continue to consider it, but we would not want it to distract drivers and be a further road safety disbenefit. I would also be worried in case such a memorial to someone who had died was defaced, removed or damaged. That could make the grief for the families who have lost someone even greater.
    John Thurso: The Minister knows of my support for appropriately sited cameras as a tool for reducing casualties and saving lives. Is he aware, however, of recent media reports that call into question the statistical accuracy of the benefits of cameras through something called regression to the mean, which is not taken into account? Will he look into those claims, as it is clearly vital that the public should have full confidence in the benefits of cameras in order to support them?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his party for their support for the road camera partnerships and for reduction of death and injury on the roads. That just shows that there is good sense on the issue in his party, which has yet to prevail in the Conservative party.
    I have heard the accusations about regression to the mean. I have some slight capacity in that respect, having been a mathematician before I joined the House, and I still remember some of my statistics lessons. The size of the sample—the number of different cameras involved—means that the accuracy of the figures is robust. I have asked people with a much greater facility in statistics than I to ensure that the figures are correct.

    Light Rail Systems
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What recent representations he has received on ultra-light railway systems. [184916]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Since January, my Department has received 13 letters on ultra-light railway systems.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are James Skinner's claims for the fuel efficiency of ultra-light rail convincing?
    Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, of the 13 letters that I have received, 13 came from Mr. James Skinner. What he and, indeed, other operators propose does have some attraction, and the Government have supported that. However, we have reached the stage at which Mr. Skinner and others need to engage in a commercial undertaking to pursue these matters so that they can be developed further. The Government cannot give grants to individuals here and there without the prospect of commercial development. I have explained all that to Mr. Skinner in nine replies. I dare say this exchange will prompt another letter, but I shall stick at it.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: For months, Hampshire county council and Portsmouth city council have pleaded for a funding decision on the light rapid transit system between Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth, which is thought to be one of the most attractive in the country. Is the Secretary of State aware that the compulsory purchase orders are to go ahead today? It is monstrous that that should take place in the absence of a decision. What is the reason for the delay on the funding decision, and when can we expect it?
    Mr. Darling: In approximately one hour.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Does the Secretary of State agree that something that light rail and standard rail systems have in common is the fact that too many disabled people find journeys intimidating or impossible? Does he further agree that at the current rate of progress our rail systems will not be disabled-friendly until 2035? Will he get a grip on the problem and take action to make rail journeys more accessible and accommodating for people with a disability?
    Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman's general point is a good one—we should make sure that transport is accessible. As for railway carriages, my recollection is that they will be compliant by 2025, not 2035.
    Mr. Knight: That is still too long.
    Mr. Darling: Let me explain something to the right hon. Gentleman. The average life of railway carriages is 25 to 30 years. If we made them completely compliant, rolling stock would have to be replaced much earlier, which costs money. It is a bit rich of a party that is committed to cut transport spending by £2 billion to lecture us on doing things quicker. We are replacing most of our rolling stock so that next year, I think I am right in saying, Britain will have the youngest rolling stock fleet anywhere in Europe.

    Salisbury-Exeter Rail Line
    Mr. Hugo Swire: What recent studies he has made of the possibility of reinstating dual tracking on the Waterloo line from Salisbury to Exeter. [184917]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Strategic Rail Authority examined the case for dual tracking in 2000, when tendering for the South West Trains franchise. Given the costs involved and current resources, there is little prospect of that work being taken forward in the short term. Our immediate concern is to make the most efficient use of the existing network infrastructure. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, however, because we certainly need to identify the stretches of infrastructure that could most benefit from track modification.
    Mr. Swire: I am grateful but depressed by the Minister's reply. We certainly do not need to identify a problem on the Salisbury-Exeter line, as it is already well known. Devon and Cornwall business council and the East Devon chambers of commerce are convinced that the future economic prosperity of the south-west peninsula depends on two things—the immediate dualling of the A303 and improvements to rail, freight and passenger services, particularly on the Waterloo-Exeter line. Exactly four years ago, as the Minister mentioned, the Strategic Rail Authority was approached by South West Trains, which wanted to upgrade the track so that it could deal with speeds of up to 100 mph. Given that 42 per cent. of delays on that line are between Salisbury and Exeter, when will he be able to give better news to my constituents and others living in the south-west peninsula?
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman has researched his subject very well, as demonstrated by the length of his question. However, he has a much better chance of getting a positive answer from the Government than from his Front-Bench colleagues, who want to cut spending on the railways and transport.
    Mr. Robert Walter: This particular line is a success story, but it has a problem with capacity. What reassurance can the Minister give
    140
    my constituents, who felt at the time when the franchise was advertised that there was a definite commitment to dualling the track? Until the track is dualled, trains will just become more overcrowded and people will go back on to the roads.
    Dr. Howells: There is no question but that that is a crucial stretch of railway, but there are other ways of increasing capacity, such as lengthening trains. I give the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) an undertaking to look at the issue and to talk to the SRA and Network Rail about it. Capacity, as the hon. Member for North Dorset will know, has already increased dramatically—the number of passengers using that stretch of line has grown over the past few years because there are more trains. We can do an awful lot with modern signalling technology to increase capacity, but longer trains might provide the answer in the short term. As I told the hon. Member for East Devon, I am prepared to look at the issue and engage in discussion with the SRA about increasing capacity still further.

    Passenger Transport Authorities
    Mr Dave Watts: What plans he has to change the role of the passenger transport authorities in England. [184918]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): We have no specific plans to change the role of passenger transport authorities in England. However, "The Future of Rail" White Paper sets out new arrangements for passenger transport executives in England, in relation to their rail functions. These changes will bring about some consequential changes of function for the PTAs.
    Mr. Watts: I very much welcome last week's announcement, which gave more powers to the passenger transport authorities. May I encourage my hon. Friend to go a little further and provide even more powers to excellent PTAs such as Merseyside to find ways to improve bus and rail services?
    Mr. McNulty: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He will know that the overarching group for the PTEs, PTEG—the passenger transport executive group—welcomed the comments in the rail review. My hon. Friend will also know that we published the rail review last week and that the statement that will follow today's questions deals with all other aspects of transport. I hope that my hon. Friend will be keen enough to stay in the Chamber and listen to the statement.
    Mr. David Clelland: I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) in his pleas to the Minister to give passenger transport authorities more power over private local bus companies. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that the Go-Ahead group and its subsidiary, Go North East, propose severely to curtail bus services in west and central Gateshead in my constituency? Will he please look at that as a matter of urgency? Surely private bus companies ought to be subject to the same kind of public

    141
    service agreements as local authorities and other public bodies, so that people who use the services can have some influence over them.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the rail review and what we have done with PTEs. I was recently up in Newcastle, which I think is fairly close to Gateshead, to discuss a range of matters with Nexus. If I need to return or to speak to the firm down in London about specific aspects of bus services, I will be more than happy to do so.

    Bus Regulation
    Mr. Graham Stringer: What plans he has to re-regulate buses; and if he will make a statement. [184920]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I shall set out proposals in relation to buses in my statement that follows Question Time.
    Mr. Stringer: My right hon. Friend leaves me in a difficult position. I assure him that I shall listen carefully to his statement later. Does he agree that we can no longer justify having one system of bus regulation in London, which leads to clear accountability for public money, and another system of bus regulation, or deregulation, in the rest of the country, which leads to a more expensive system, no clear accountability for money, and profits nearly twice as high outside Greater London than in Greater London?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend puts me in a difficult position as well, but let me try to be helpful. The regime for buses in London has always been different, as my hon. Friend knows. It is, though, quite an expensive scheme. Bus subsidy in London has gone up dramatically, and it will go up still further over the next few years. In the rest of the country, it is clear that patronage has gone up in areas where there have been good local authorities and good bus companies—for example, in Brighton, Leeds, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh. It is striking that in some places, the system has worked well. In other parts of the country, there have been difficulties. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for one thing: he has promised to be present for my statement, so that is the one. If he sticks around, he might catch your eye again, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be able to say something more.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can I tempt the Secretary of State to say a little about how privatisation has helped rural bus services and patronage? In particular, is he aware of the problems in north Yorkshire, where some bus services are not as frequent as residents would like, especially to enable them to attend hospital appointments?
    Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is trying to make out that privatisation or deregulation is a good or a bad thing. She is wearing yellow, so perhaps she is in Liberal Democrat mode and is taking both sides of the argument. As she well knows, local authorities and her council in particular have the power to provide
    142
    more bus services if they want to. Opposition Members sometimes overlook the fact that the remedy sometimes lies rather closer to home than here.
    Jim Dobbin: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), because the same bus company serves both our constituencies, and I am still getting letters of complaint about it.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his decision to take greater control over the rail network. I, too, have been convinced to stay for his statement; he will have a packed house. I hope that he intends to consider doing the same with the buses as with the railways so as to give passenger transport authorities greater control over how they are run.
    Mr. Darling: In order not to reduce the excitement, I suggest that if my hon. Friend cares to stick around he will learn more. Buses are not quite the same as railways, but some changes are necessary, and I shall set them out shortly.

    Congestion (Southend)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What assessment he has made of traffic congestion in Southend-on-Sea; and what is his policy on the construction of a ring road around the borough. [184921]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The assessment of traffic congestion in Southend is, in the first instance, a matter for the borough council as the local transport authority. We look to it and to other local interested parties to bring forward proposals for a ring road if they consider that it should be a candidate for Government funding, and we will duly assess it in those terms should it ever arise.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the residents of Shoeburyness, to the east of Southend, go through nightmares every day trying to get through the serious and worsening traffic congestion on the arterial road? Would not local authorities and others take the issue more seriously if the Government were to indicate that they would not allow more development on Government-owned land in Shoeburyness? As this is a desperately serious problem, should not the Government take the initiative?
    Mr. McNulty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning about Shoeburyness, growth areas, east of England regional assembly transport plans, and the London to Southend study. Should those form the basis of subsequent plans and applications from Southend borough council for a ring road, we will consider that with heightened interest.

    Rail Investment
    Mr. Peter Luff: Which body will have future responsibility for setting priorities for rail investment. [184922]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): In future, the Government will have control of the level of public expenditure and set the national strategy for the railways, but operational responsibility will pass to Network Rail. Full details of the responsibilities and future structure of the rail industry are set out in the White Paper that I published last week.
    Mr. Luff: I wonder whether I can tease out that answer a little more. I have three very different rail investment needs in my constituency. One—the small change in Network Rail's budget to increase capacity between Worcester and Droitwich by new signal and new track—is quite modest. The second—a private sector bid to build a new Worcester Parkway railway station—is a significant investment that will also involve public money. The third is a major re-dualling exercise between Worcester and Oxford to improve reliability for passengers on that line. Each is very different from the others. Who will decide between them and set the priorities in the new railway environment?
    Mr. Darling: In future, those matters will be decided by Network Rail unless they involve major investment, in which case they will come to the Department because we have to provide such funding anyway.
    In relation to the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman raised last week concerning the trains from Worcester to Birmingham, the SRA, which will deal with such matters on a day-to-day basis until it is wound up next year, is to carry out a consultation exercise later this year as part of the route utilisation strategy.
    On investment, the hon. Gentleman will have to square his remarks with the fact that he supports a proposal to cut transport spending by £2 billion. That is not the way to get more railways.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend may not yet have seen a report published this morning by Catalyst, the left-wing think-tank. It shows that in the eight years before privatisation, Government support for railways was on average a quarter of European average spending, yet in the same eight years productivity in British Rail was substantially higher than the average for European railways. Despite my right hon. Friend's welcome statement, does he accept that we will not get real value for money from the public purse until the railways are back in public ownership?
    Mr. Darling: No, I do not. I have said that many times before. My hon. Friend needs to reflect on the simple fact that every week we spend about £73 million of public money and get about £73 million of private money. If we nationalise the railways, we say goodbye to £73 million a week. Equally, we find that buying back the railways would cost perhaps in excess of £25 billion, which we do not happen to have in the till at the moment. If my hon. Friend does not believe me, I can do no better than to refer him to ASLEF, whose input into the rail review was quite interesting. It said:
    "The proper debate should not be about public or private ownership but about the appropriate relationship and dividing line between the two."
    I commend that statement to him.
    Mr. John Horam: Whoever decides priorities on rail investment—I am not clear who it will be; it seems to depend on size—will the Secretary of State give me an undertaking that he will give higher priority to the many relatively inexpensive, small-scale schemes in the London area that could make such a big difference to the plight of the London commuter? I am thinking of an extra platform at London Bridge, for example. Will he undertake to give that kind of scheme a higher priority?
    Mr. Darling: Those are matters that Network Rail will need to consider, but a number of measures have already been put in place. Two major measures are helping London commuters and the hon. Gentleman's constituents in particular. One is the upgrading of the power supply to trains going south of the River Thames, which is costing just under £1 billion. That was money that Railtrack did not even think about spending, so it is an example of how additional money is making a difference. The hon. Gentleman will also have noticed that we have new rolling stock in all London stations, particularly those from which trains go south of the river. It is now very obvious that that rolling stock is being put in place. At some point, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his Front-Bench colleagues, because none of that could be done if £2 billion were cut from transport spending.
    Mr. Bill Olner: The Minister will be aware that Nuneaton has had two brand new platforms as part of the west coast main line modernisation, but in the new set-up of changes in responsibilities, who will look at getting value for money from the contractors who work for Network Rail?
    Mr. Darling: Network Rail will, and the contracts will be supervised by the rail regulator, who has imposed a requirement to find 31 per cent. efficiencies, making about £1.5 billion a year, which is quite a significant sum. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the west coast main line. When the first phase is completed at the end of September, it will make for a much better journey. I know that it has been a long haul and that there has been a lot of disruption, but it will make journeys better. This is an example of what can be done if Governments are prepared to make steady, sustained high levels of investment, as opposed to cutting transport spending, which would have completely the opposite effect.
    Pete Wishart: I suppose this question would be a bit easier to answer in Scotland, as the Secretary of State helpfully transferred power to the Scottish Executive in his statement last week. Can he confirm that the necessary resources will accompany the transfer of power, so that the Scottish Executive will be able to pursue their rail objectives and priorities? Will he tell us how Scotland's share is to be calculated, given that he is about to announce massive infrastructure building in London and the south-east on the Crossrail project?
    Mr. Darling: We are also spending rather large sums in other parts of the country. In particular, Network Rail spends more in Scotland than it gets back in track

    145
    access charges. One of the reasons why the Forth bridge, which we all know and love, has been kept going is that Scotland has that bigger spending power. That is all part of the benefit of being part of the United Kingdom, on which the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect. On the resource transfer, I said last week that that was something that we and the Scottish Executive needed to discuss. However, the general principle behind my proposal has been widely welcomed in Scotland. There are advantages to being part of the United Kingdom, as most people in Scotland accept. That is why the poor hon. Gentleman is sitting there all on his own.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is consistency of investment that is warmly welcomed, along with the fact that the Government are committed to long-term plans? Will he give us an undertaking, however, that he will look closely at the rate of return of contractors and rolling stock companies, which really are walking away with gold bars at the expense of the taxpayer?
    Mr. Darling: Again, if my hon. Friend is around shortly, she will hear that I have more to say about longterm spending plans when I set out the spending plans for some years to come. On value for money, she is quite right; she is equally right about the rolling stock companies. Last week in my statement, I specifically said that the contracts that were signed at the time of privatisation did not represent good value for money, and that we need to ensure that we get better value for money. I am sure that she and her Committee will return to that issue sooner rather than later.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: The Secretary of State acknowledged in an earlier answer the vital role that is played in investment by the private sector. Does he recognise that investment by train operators would increase substantially if the Government replaced the present system of two-year rolling franchises with contracts that gave the train operators a long enough period in which to make investments for the benefit of passengers and to see a return on those investments? Why is it the Government's policy to cut private investment in railways?
    Mr. Darling: I think that I was kind enough, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, to send him my rail review proposals more than a week ago. He will have seen, therefore, that our proposal is not for a two-year rolling contract. There was a press report to that effect, which the hon. Gentleman seems to have confined himself to citing. I advise him that that is never a great idea. We envisage a seven-year, renewable franchise. In addition to cost and performance, the company's past performance would be taken into account. Interestingly, after last week's announcement the rail companies responded positively, because they recognise that it is a much better system than we have at present. The hon. Gentleman tries to make out that if he cuts £2 billion from transport spending he will recoup it from the private sector, but there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that. Cuts of £2 billion in transport spending would have a devastating effect on rail and road services.

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. Peter Pike: What recent action his Department has taken to review the operation of pensioner concessionary fare schemes in England. [184923]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): We are considering what improvements can be made to the administration of concessionary travel schemes in England for the benefit of local authorities, transport operators and concessionaires. We have no plans to change the statutory minimum requirement for concessionary travel for older and disabled people, or to prevent local authorities from offering more generous schemes.
    Mr. Pike: The operation of a statutory scheme for minimal provision throughout the whole country is very welcome, but does my hon. Friend recognise that people in many parts of the country have considerable concerns when they look at the London scheme, which offers the freedom pass, and other parts of the country that offer free travel? Why cannot people living in every part of this country have as good a scheme as London has?
    Mr. McNulty: As part of the spending review White Paper, we have undertaken to review the administration of concessionary fare schemes to see whether there is scope to simplify their operation, particularly in relation to the examples quoted by my hon. Friend. I accept that disparity between neighbouring authorities' schemes does not work in many people's favour.
    Angela Watkinson: When the Minister conducts his review, will he consider devising some means whereby local authorities can calculate the value for money that they get for their contributions to schemes such as the London-wide freedom pass? Authorities such as the London borough of Havering have no means of knowing how many journeys they receive in return for their contributions. As we know, some pensioners make extremely good, frequent use of the pass, whereas others who are entitled to it put it behind the clock where it gathers dust, but both cost the council the same.
    Mr. McNulty: If that is the emergence of a nascent Tory policy on concessionary fares—that they should be means-tested, and that pensioners in Havering should have their number of journeys restricted—I will pass that on to the local Labour party in Havering. I am sure that it will review it with some interest.
    Mr. John Grogan: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Yorkshire regional assembly of local councils, which, following a campaign by the Wetherby, Boston Spa and Tadcaster News, has set up a feasibility study to examine the possibility of mutual recognition of bus passes across the county of Yorkshire? If that comes off, it will allow pensioners from Selby district, for example, to travel in West Yorkshire and enjoy cheaper bus fares?
    Mr. McNulty: I will be more than happy to congratulate the assembly, not least because that is precisely what we are trying to do by reviewing the entire administration and bureaucracy of concessionary schemes. It must be right that pensioners throughout a region such as Yorkshire know what is available, and not just in their district.

    School Buses
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What plans he has to encourage the introduction of yellow school buses. [184924]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Both the Department for Transport and the Department for Education and Skills recognise that well-designed, dedicated bus schemes can reduce car dependency for the journey to school. The Department for Transport is providing £18.7 million to support a large-scale pilot in West Yorkshire and, subject to affordability, will consider further proposals submitted through the local transport plan process.
    Mr. Chapman: Given that yellow school buses have the potential to remove congestion, eliminate the school run, improve air quality and the environment, allow local authorities to rationalise their transport arrangements and provide a safer and more disciplined way to get kids to school, ought we not to do more? Can I expect to hear more on the subject of school buses later today?
    Mr. Jamieson: On the latter point, my hon. Friend will have to wait a few more minutes, and perhaps he will hear something on that. He is absolutely correct: getting children on to buses and out of the car is very important in reducing congestion and improving air quality outside schools. We must be careful, however, to ensure that encouraging the use of buses does not divert children from walking and cycling to school, which are better for their health. He will probably be aware that in September last year we published the "Travelling to School" action plan and good practice guide. We have also provided £7.5 million to local authorities for school travel advisers, all of which will help improve the journey to school, and particularly the take-up of school buses.

    Foreign-registered Vehicles
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2004, Official Report, column 368W on Irish-registered vehicles, if he will make it his policy to collate separate statistics for foreign-registered vehicles not displaying current road tax. [184925]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We recognise the problem of illegal use of foreign vehicles on British roads and are determined to take the necessary steps to control it. I have asked the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to work with the police and other enforcement agencies on the question of how best to take action
    148
    against unlicensed foreign vehicles. As part of the process, they will collect statistics on the numbers involved.
    Mr. Robathan: I am glad to hear that, but in the interests of joined-up government will the Minister speak to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has recently been making some rather unconvincing statements about antisocial behaviour and being tough on crime? Is he aware that up and down the country, in Leicestershire and, I suspect, in Devon, so-called Travellers are bringing a great deal of misery to people through antisocial behaviour and often criminal activity? They use Irish-registered vehicles with no road tax, and the police say that they can do nothing.
    I note from the Minister's reply that this could be covered by the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Will he and the Home Secretary please direct chief constables to prosecute Irish-registered vehicles without road tax and force the so-called Travellers to pay their taxes just as law-abiding citizens must?
    Mr. Jamieson: The Home Office has not kept records of prosecutions in such instances, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the DVLA will now keep such records.
    For the first six months in this country, vehicles from the Republic of Ireland and other European Union countries must meet the requirements of their home state. Subsequently, they must meet this country's requirements: they must have British licence plates and they must have paid vehicle excise duty. I have asked the DVLA to ensure that vehicles reported to it, or seen in checks, that do not have the appropriate tax discs are clamped—and I believe that in some cases there are powers for them to be confiscated.
    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These vehicles are a potential nuisance on the road and, more important, they are a potential danger on the road.

    Road Programme
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on his future road programme. [184926]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Highways Agency is currently proceeding with a programme of 81 major trunk road schemes. Further schemes are being prepared for entry to the programme and will be considered in the light of our priorities and available resources. Our transport strategy document, published today, provides further details of our plans for the road network.
    Mr. Hepburn: Can the Minister name two other neighbouring cities the size of Newcastle and Edinburgh that are not linked by a dual carriageway in this country, let alone Europe? The Government are a laughing stock in the north-east because of this. Can we expect some good news in the document that is being published today?
    Mr. Jamieson: As my hon. Friend probably knows, I visited the A1 a couple of weeks ago to have a look at the road myself. We have invested, or will invest in the coming years, nearly £100 million. The multi-modal study, which was intended to establish local views, showed no support for full dualling from Newcastle to the Scottish border. However, the improvements from Morpeth to Felton mean that there will be dual carriageway or motorway all the way from Alnwick to London. Although I cannot promise dualling throughout, I can tell my hon. Friend that past and future improvements constitute a major investment in the road.
    Gregory Barker: What on earth is going on with the A21 at Hurst Green? The Minister has now broken his third self-imposed deadline for coming up with his preferred scheme. In a letter to me on 15 July, he said that he was aiming to present his proposals by the autumn, but on 19 July he wrote that he was aiming to make an announcement later in the summer. Is it any wonder that people are losing all confidence in the Government's handling of this proposal, given that hundreds of homes have been blighted by Labour's indecision and stalling?
    Mr. Jamieson: Oh dear, that really was not very good at all. The hon. Gentleman came to see me about the road, and I thought that we had had a perfectly sensible discussion about the improvements that we are making to it, the importance of which we do recognise. He should tell his constituents about the policy of his Front-Bench colleagues, which is to cut the roads programme. Under it, there would be no improvements at all, either this year or next.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering future roads programmes, will my hon. Friend impress on the Highways Agency the need to reduce noise from motorways through resurfacing and noise barriers, so that the people who live near them can have some quality of life? Will he further ensure that the Highways Agency implements such measures, particularly noise barriers?
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: intrusive noise from motorways is very disturbing for people who live close to them. All new or resurfaced roads now have quieter surfaces, and it is this Government who have set aside dedicated ring-fenced funds for resurfacing some of the concrete roads that, although of very good quality, tend to be much noisier than black-top roads. The Highways Agency has the issue very much in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend that the roads will be resurfaced over time and that, once they are, they will be quieter than they were, say, 10 years ago.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: All this is mere words. Every day, the Government are fleecing motorists through £120 million in motoring taxes, yet they reinvest just £2 million in new roads every day. That is what this Government must be held accountable for, and we need a better deal for the motoring public.
    Mr. Jamieson: I am very interested to hear that this Chamber is about words—that will come as a total surprise to everybody here. We are improving junctions, widening roads and making various improvements throughout the country. Such improvements are significant and they represent the very substantial investment that this Government are making in our roads system. Will the hon. Gentleman go back to his constituents in Christchurch and peddle the line taken by the shadow Chancellor—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Ivan Henderson.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: My hon. Friend will be aware that although the London to Ipswich multi-modal study recommended dualling of the A120 from Harwich to Hare Green, it has not been made a priority. If there is a major change in circumstances and the planned port development of Bathside bay goes ahead—a public inquiry into that development is under way, but I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on it—will he review the situation and introduce road dualling, if necessary?
    Mr. Jamieson: Yes, and I know that my hon. Friend has made regular representations about this road. Of course, if circumstances changed and major developments occurred in any part of the country in respect of a road serving a port or any other facility, we would re-examine the priority of the scheme in question.

    M6 Toll Road
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will assess the effects on Cheshire of the proposed M6 toll road; and if he will make a statement. [184927]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The consultation document "M6: giving motorists a choice" seeks views at this stage on the broad concept of a tolled expressway alongside the existing M6. The document makes it clear that before decisions are taken, a careful assessment will be made of the wider social, economic and environmental impacts of any potential scheme, including the section of the route running through Cheshire.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, which will reassure the people of Cheshire. He will know that the north Birmingham relief motorway has been a great success because of the care that went into its design and the chosen line of route. Will he assure me and the people of Cheshire that, if this new road proceeds, the same care will be shown with the line of route, and that environmentally sensitive areas and the environment as a whole will be taken into account? I hope that it does proceed, because we need this express motorway. I support the toll road concept.
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman mentions the success of the M6 toll scheme. For all the other projects undertaken by the Highways Agency, too, a very careful assessment of the environmental impact is undertaken. The M6 toll has been a success: the original M6 is much

    151
    quieter than it was before. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that standards are improving all the time. When we undertake consultation on the road that he mentioned, the impact on the environment and on people will be foremost in our minds.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Strategy Unit
    Bob Spink: If he will list the current work programme of the strategy unit. [184907]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The strategy unit is currently working on six full projects, as well as working across government to improve strategic capability and providing leadership for Government social research. The six current strategy unit projects are: countries at risk of instability; deprived areas; improving the life chances of disabled people; legal aid; London; and police reform.
    Bob Spink: May I make a constructive suggestion on police reform? The police need IT solutions to help them to become more efficient—for instance, to cut the time it takes them to arrest a prisoner. Will the Minister bring forward the development of such IT solutions, which could release up to 25 per cent. of a police officer's time, as 25 per cent. more police officers on the street is what people really want to see?
    Mr. Alexander: I am sure that people will therefore welcome the Home Secretary's announcement this week of additional resources for community support officers. As I said in my initial answer, the strategy unit is undertaking a project on police reform under the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, the sponsor Minister. I am certainly happy to pass the hon. Gentleman's comments directly to her.
    Tony Wright: Will the Minister take the opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Geoff Mulgan, who has been head of the strategy unit for some time and is now retiring? He has one of the most fertile minds in the country and we were fortunate to bring him into government as a special adviser and then as a civil servant. When such people leave, we should say "thank you" to them.
    Mr. Alexander: That is indeed a happy task and I shall certainly pass on to Mr. Mulgan not only my best wishes, but those of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The strategy unit costs more than £5 million a year, but it has released just four final project reports since last July: each report has cost more than £1 million. How does that square with the Chancellor's new talk of efficiency, and where is the value for taxpayers' money in that?
    Mr. Alexander: I will certainly take no lectures from the Opposition on efficiency, not least from the party that introduced the poll tax and gave us black Wednesday. On the substantive point of the strategy unit, many constituents in many parts of the country would welcome, for example, the creation of the Assets Recovery Agency, which already is doing tremendous work in ensuring that the assets of drug dealers are brought into the criminal justice system. The strategy unit's work on child care provision in this country has been pioneering. In that sense, I believe that we get extremely good value from an innovative centre of government.

    E-government
    Mr. Terry Rooney: If he will make a statement on the recent appointment of the head of e-government. [184908]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): On 25 May 2004, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Ian Watmore as the new head of e-government. He was recruited through open competition in accordance with the civil service commissioner's recruitment code. Mr. Watmore takes up his post in September 2004.
    Mr. Rooney: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does Mr. Watmore's experience at Accenture impinge on the duties that he can perform, and what will he bring for the constituents of Bradford?
    Mr. Alexander: I am glad to say that Mr. Watmore's appointment has been very well received—not just within the supplier community, but in the trade press. People recognise that having a big hitter coming into government is further evidence of the seriousness with which the Government take this area of work. A protocol has been established and agreed, which means that he will not be involved in business decisions concerning Accenture, his previous employer. I believe that constituents in every part of the country will welcome the rigorous focus on project management that he will bring to a huge programme of work centred on securing value for money in our e-services.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister will know that one of the biggest e-government projects over the next few years is likely to be the IT programme for the NHS. What role, if any, will the head of e-government have in that respect?
    Mr. Alexander: That is a huge project for NHS procurement. A specialist team in the Department of Health works under Richard Grainger. He previously worked closely with Ian Watmore, and I am sure that he is looking forward to working again with the new head of e-government. We are determined to make sure that we have a centre of excellence for e-government at the heart of Government, and that we draw on the expertise in Departments. The evidence is that the NHS project is on track, and that tremendous work is being done.

    Better Regulation Agenda
    David Taylor: What civil service resources he estimates will be needed to advance the Government's better regulation agenda in the next two years. [184909]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): All Government Departments have a role to play in taking forward the Government's better regulation agenda. Allocation of specific resources to this agenda is the responsibility of individual Departments.
    David Taylor: Last week's comprehensive spending review proposed to cut 150 jobs in the Cabinet Office, including in the regulatory impact unit. Does the Minister believe that such cuts might curtail his Department's consultancy capacity in crucial areas such as employee relations and communications? That is especially important, given that the recent performance of Departments and agencies for which his ministerial colleagues have responsibility—such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office for National Statistics—has been so woeful in that respect.
    Mr. Alexander: In the year to April 2004, the number of people on the Cabinet Office payroll fell rather than rose. As I indicated in my earlier answer, strong evidence is emerging that the scale of our investment in new technology and IT in particular means that there is scope for exactly the sort of efficiencies set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Archie Norman: If the Minister is sincere about the better regulation agenda, why does he not look at the problem of regulatory impact assessments? Even he would acknowledge that they are often published far too late, and that hindsight often proves them to be wildly inaccurate. Is not there a compelling case for looking again at a system that allows officials to assess their own legislation without having to publish any details of their calculations? As a result of that, the regulatory impact assessments carry scant credibility, in the House or outside it.
    Mr. Alexander: I simply disagree with that assessment of the importance of regulatory impact assessments across government. The fact that they are valuable tools, informing policy makers in the process of formulating policy, is evidenced by the fact that the EU is looking at the RIA process as one that might meet some of its own specific challenges. However, I draw attention to the work being done by the National Audit Office, whose report noted that sanctions are available to the Better Regulation Task Force. It is clear also, from the recent comments made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that RIAs remain an important part of our ongoing work to ensure better regulation across government.

    Government Websites
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What steps are being taken to ensure that Government websites are designed around the needs of the general public. [184910]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Designing services around customer needs has always been at the heart of the Government drive to put services online. The e—government unit has recently launched Directgov, and is assisting Departments with service design and delivery standards to meet these aims. Directgov was designed around the needs of the user by bringing together information, from across many Departments, in a way that makes it easy for people to find what they want online.
    Mr. Wright: In my constituency of Great Yarmouth, two online learning centres, one of which is mobile, have given 5,000 of my constituents access to online services. However, many people needing information from Government sites still cannot get access to computers. Will my hon. Friend say whether there will be more investment in online sites for people in deprived communities such as Great Yarmouth, so that they can gain access to the information that the Government are making available?
    Mr. Alexander: There are seven UK online centres in Great Yarmouth, and a further 20 such centres in a 15-mile radius. To give the House a sense of the scale of the investment that we have made, I can say that £396 million has been invested in networks of the 6,000 UK online centres across the country. In addition, many households now have direct access to online services. Our key challenge is not simply to ensure that access exists, but that all sections of society have the opportunity to use the new technology and are encouraged to do so. We set up the "Get Started" initiative last year to make sure that people who previously had been denied such opportunities, such as older people, were able to use the new online centres.

    Online Government Services
    Mr. Colin Challen: What progress is being made against the target to put all Government services online. [184913]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Current figures show that 74 per cent. of Government services are already online, and Departments continue to work towards the target of 100 per cent. availability by 2005.
    Mr. Challen: That reply shows the marvellous progress that has been made in getting Government services online. However, some people will always be excluded from using the internet, and pensioners are probably the largest group in that category. They might

    155
    benefit a great deal if the internet were rolled out to post offices. They could access services, print forms and perhaps get advice from a sub—postmaster or mistress on how to complete them.
    Mr. Alexander: I am aware that in the past there have been numerous discussions with Post Office management about the availability of an electronic
    156
    platform. The initiatives that the Post Office has taken in banking in recent years are evidence of the fact that they can embrace new services. However, as I said earlier, with 6,000 UK online centres across the country, there are now plenty of opportunities to gain access to the internet. The real challenge is to ensure that people have the skills and aptitude to use it effectively, and that work continues.

Speaker's Statement
12.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have to advise the House that I have received the following letter from Sir Michael Cummins, our Serjeant at Arms:
"I write to request your agreement to my retirement on 31 December of this year, by which time I shall be sixty—five.
It has been a great privilege to serve you and the House as Serjeant at Arms in recent years. I wish to thank you personally for your support and advice during that time, and to acknowledge the large debt of gratitude I owe to my colleagues and staff, whose support and friendship over the past twenty-three years have been invaluable."
There will be an occasion to pay formal tributes to Sir Michael in due course.
I can also advise the House that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment of Major General Anthony Peter Grant Peterkin, CB, OBE to succeed Sir Michael.

Transport Strategy
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about transport strategy. Today, I am publishing a White Paper that looks at the factors that will shape travel, and therefore transport networks, over the next 30 years. The White Paper sets out what we need to do as a country to enable people and goods to move around in ways that are consistent with our environmental objectives. So I want to set out the context in which we plan, and the three things we need to do in response.
First, we need to invest in increased capacity for road, rail and other public transport. Secondly, we need measures to make better use of the capacity we have already got, and thirdly, we need to face up to difficult decisions in order to plan ahead to meet the pressures we know that we will face in the future. Let me set out the context against which we plan.
Looking ahead, the challenges we face are clear. By 2025, the population is expected to increase by 4.5 million people to 64 million. As the economy continues to grow, and with increased prosperity, we will want to travel more and the demand for goods from all over the world will grow. More than that, people are travelling longer distances—for example, whereas in the past people tended to move home when they changed job, increasingly people choose to stay in the same place rather than move nearer to their work. More people are travelling by air, travel by train has increased by 25 per cent. in the last few years, and the huge increase in car ownership is putting growing pressures on our roads.
Our job is to help people travel, not to stop them. The challenge for us is how we meet people's need and wish to do so while meeting our environmental aims. So that is the context in which we take investment decisions. Let me now set out our investment plans for the future. Last week's spending review confirms our commitment to sustained high levels of investment in transport. It raises planned spending over the next three years from £10.4 billion this year to more than £12.8 billion by 2007. That is 60 per cent. more in real terms than in 1997. Spending will be higher than the investment plans we set out four years ago. By 2010, we will be spending £1.2 billion more per year than the 10-year plan envisaged. As we promised, the White Paper today sets out planned spending showing that the high level of spending will continue to grow by 2.25 per cent. in real terms through to 2015.
These spending plans allow us to set up a new transport fund, which will be used to plan ahead for change and innovation and to support and encourage local and regional transport strategies to tackle congestion in towns and cities. It will also ensure that the contribution that regional and local schemes can make to our national productivity is reflected in their funding. Details will be announced with next year's Budget.
Major investment in road and rail is already under way, and it will continue. Spending will rise to build the transport network we need; but cost control is absolutely essential. Railway costs in particular have increased dramatically, so that even with Network Rail's intended efficiency measures, amounting to

159
£1.5 billion a year, the rail regulator's findings last year were that the railways require an additional £7 billion—putting huge pressures on my Department's budget. But if we are to provide the transport for passengers and freight that we need, rigorous control is essential on road, rail and light rail.
Light rail can be very effective in persuading people to use public transport. Since 2000, new lines have opened in Croydon, Tyne and Wear, Manchester and Nottingham. Manchester's metro has been extremely successful, but plans for the extension have been dogged by successive cost increases. The central Government capital contribution rose from £282 million cash in 2000 to £520 million cash in 2002, on top of which the required annual central Government payments have also risen, from £5 million a year in 2000 to £17 million a year today—worth another £150 million.
There is a similar pattern in the Leeds and south Hampshire tram proposals. In Leeds, the present value of the public sector contribution was capped at £355 million, but is now estimated at £500 million, and in south Hampshire, the original £170 million present value is now £100 million more. In each case there is no certainty that costs will not rise further. The National Audit Office was right to raise concerns; indeed, looking back over the past 20 years, it has cost more to provide light rail in this country than elsewhere in Europe.
No Government could accept those schemes as they are on the basis of such cost escalations. We cannot, therefore, approve them. We need instead to look urgently at how light rail could be made affordable, including the best approach for procurement. We will work with local authorities on the development of schemes, building on the recent NAO recommendations.
The same considerations apply to Crossrail; cost control will be essential. The case for a Crossrail link across London is clear and will only get stronger as London continues to grow, but the plans need to be robust and value for money. That is why last year I asked a team led by Adrian Montague to review the business case for Crossrail. His report, which I am publishing today, makes it clear Crossrail is needed, but that at a cost of £10 billion it represents a huge challenge both to deliver and to fund.
We intend to introduce a hybrid Bill at the earliest opportunity to take the powers necessary for Crossrail to be built. At the same time, as the Montague report recognises, a major funding challenge remains. The Government will need to work with the Mayor and the London business community to find a funding solution where everyone pays their fair share. That will include consulting on appropriate alternative funding mechanisms. Copies of the report and my detailed response are available in the Library.
We believe that local decisions are best taken locally, and we intend to give local and regional authorities a greater role in deciding transport priorities in their areas, looking across the whole transport network. To achieve that, we will set regional guideline budgets for major schemes next year, and set out guideline capital allocations to councils in the autumn.
However, because of the timing of the Olympic bid, I am today announcing the equivalent settlement for London. Transport will be crucial to a successful British
160
bid for the 2012 Olympics. The Mayor guarantees to fund and provide a package of transport improvements that will underpin the bid and provide lasting benefits for London. Details will be available in due course, but I can announce that it will be supported by additional Government funding of £340 million, above existing plans, and Transport for London's prudential borrowing plans of a further £2.9 billion for the period up to 2009—10, which the Government support.
Turning to the second part of our strategy, increased investment needs to go hand in hand with measures to get more from our existing capacity. That is why, for example, we introduced the Traffic Management Bill to keep traffic flowing in towns and cities. Starting in the west midlands, traffic officers are now patrolling the motorway; their aim is to keep traffic moving. We are also considering carpool lanes. The reforms for the railways that I announced last week will result in better management and increased reliability for rail.
The White Paper sets out the measures that we are implementing, including new proposals to help manage bus services, because we need to make more effective use of buses to improve local transport in towns, cities and rural areas across the country. The vast majority of travel by public transport is by bus. Nearly two thirds of all public transport journeys—about 4 billion journeys last year—are by bus, and many people depend on it. As I have said before, where councils and bus operators work together in partnership, bus use increases, and we want to see more of that.
As I told the House last week, we intend to devolve significant powers and funding for rail to passenger transport authorities, but if we are to enable PTAs to make sensible decisions between rail, light rail and bus services, they will need to have the power to guarantee bus routes, timings and fares. That is why I can tell the House that we will make it more attractive for authorities to introduce bus franchising through quality contracts in specified circumstances, approved by the Secretary of State—for example, as part of a congestion charging scheme, or where authorities decide on a new balance between rail and bus. As part of that, we will streamline the statutory procedure for quality contracts, reducing the minimum period to implement a scheme from 21 months to six months. One advantage of our proposals to give local authorities the ability to take decisions about public transport in the round is that it will reduce some of the revenue risk on light rail schemes.
I now turn to the third part of the strategy. We also have to plan ahead for the pressures that we know that we will face in decades to come. I confirm our commitment to implement the conclusions of the air transport White Paper. We also intend to take a longterm approach to port development and will publish a review of the policy framework for ports by the end of next year. The White Paper also sets out a sustainable approach to freight.
We also need to deal with the potential environmental consequences of increased travel. Substantial progress has been made. Cars and lorries are becoming cleaner and quieter, so despite increasing car use over the past decade, air pollution from road transport has halved. But the White Paper looks at how we can ensure that transport makes its proper contribution to reducing

161
CO2 emissions to achieve the Government's climate change commitments, by supporting the development of low—carbon vehicles and fuels, including hydrogen fuel, and continuing to ensure that the right tax incentives are in place to encourage the take—up of new technology and fuels.
That brings me to what is perhaps the biggest challenge for all of us: car use has increased and is likely to increase more, which has huge environmental and social consequences. As a country, we have to face up to some stark choices. Looking ahead over the next 20 or 30 years, we cannot try to build our way out of the problem—the cost, environmentally and financially, is unacceptable—nor can we accept eventual gridlock, which is the inevitable consequence of doing nothing. Therefore, we have to examine whether we can make use of new technology, as it becomes available, to make more efficient use of our roads.
As the House will be aware, in the next four years, we will introduce charging for all lorries using UK roads based on the distance that they travel. Accompanied by a reduction in fuel duty, overall, the UK haulage industry will not pay more. That will allow us in the future—for example, by varying charges—to encourage lorries to use motorways at off-peak times.
Last year, I set up a study, involving a broad range of motoring and environmental interests, to look at the feasibility of introducing road pricing for cars. That would involve moving away from the current motoring taxation system and introducing charges to use roads. Those charges would vary depending on how congested the roads are. Today, I am publishing the findings of that study, and copies are available in the Library. The study concludes that a national scheme has the potential to cut congestion by about a half, as well as providing environmental benefits. It says that road pricing will become technically feasible in the next 10 to 15 years; but, for a scheme to work, it would need general public acceptance and a great deal of preparation work over a number of years. There is still a lot of work to be done before we could be sure whether that could work, but one thing is clear: doing nothing would be the worst possible option.
Of course, we need to invest in public transport, and we are, but that will not be enough on its own. But if we are not bold now, we will be left behind when the benefits become possible. That is why I welcome the report. There needs to be debate about what would make pricing acceptable to motorists. We must build a public consensus around the objectives of road pricing and how to use the revenues. Although a national scheme is not yet feasible, undertaking road pricing at a local level could be feasible now, and the study says that that would greatly improve the understanding of the benefits, so we will need to look at that further with local authorities and take steps towards setting international standards for the equipment.
To duck this challenge now—to refuse to engage in the debate or to look at what new technology may make possible—would be irresponsible and condemn future generations to endless delays and increasing environmental damage. We need to rise to the challenge
162
and to have the courage to look ahead and plan for the future, because our future prosperity and well-being depend on it.
There are no quick fixes for Britain's transport challenges. The long-term solution requires investment and a willingness to face up to difficult decisions. That is why we are making sustained high levels of investment and planning ahead to meet the needs of generations to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for a copy of the White Paper and of the statement, which he made available earlier this morning. I welcome his recognition that a growing economy means that people want to travel more and that measures to enable people and goods to move around must be consistent with our environmental objectives. I particularly welcome the reference in the White Paper to the use of new technology to promote cleaner vehicles and fuels. We will want to examine that matter and in due course to debate it.
However, after seven years of Labour Government, motorists and train users do not have much to be grateful about. On the roads, congestion has got worse, even though motorists are paying an extra £10 billion a year in taxes compared with 1997. As the RAC points out, out of a total of £40 billion raised every year in motoring taxes, only about £6 billion is spent on the roads. On the railways, reliability has got worse and fares have risen faster than inflation. The 10—year transport plan, launched with such a fanfare four years ago by the Deputy Prime Minister, has been a disastrous failure.
Let us judge the Government's performance by their own standards and look at some of the key targets that they set out in the 10—year plan. According to the plan, by 2010 congestion on our roads was to be reduced. In practice, it has got worse. According to the plan, trains were to be made more punctual. In practice, they have become less punctual. According to the plan, rail passengers were to increase by 50 per cent. That target cannot now be met. According to the plan, bus travel throughout England was to grow by 10 per cent. In practice, outside London, it is static. According to the Secretary of State's own update of the plan just two years ago, the Strategic Rail Authority was to provide firm leadership, strategic direction and funding for the rail industry. In practice, it has been abolished.
According to the plan, the maintenance backlog on local roads was to be eliminated. [Interruption.] In practice, that target is being dropped. According to the plan, Thameslink and the East London line were to be built by 2010. In practice, those target dates cannot possibly be met. According to the plan, rail freight was to increase by 80 per cent. In practice, in 2002 rail freight fell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] According to the plan, passengers were to travel by train more quickly and comfortably. In practice, overcrowding is bad, it has reached chronic proportions and it is likely to get worse. Not surprisingly, complaints have more than doubled.
According to the plan, the east coast main line was to be modernised and capacity was to be increased. In practice, that scheme has been put on ice. According to the plan, local roads were to be improved. In practice, the Freight Transport Association reports that their condition is worse than a decade ago. [Interruption.]

163
Not one of those failures received a mention from the Secretary of State but they are the issues that concern daily road users, railway users and freight customers. [Interruption.] The consequence of those failures, to which he is so reluctant to own up, is an economy whose competitiveness is weakened every day. According to the CBI, transport congestion now costs British industry more than £15 billion a year. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Secretary of State but may I say that he should be given the same attention as the Secretary of State and should be heard?
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The truth is that neither the Secretary of State nor Labour Back Benchers want to hear the truth about Labour's failures on transport.
Britain has less than half the European Union average provision of motorways per head of population and a lower motorway density than any of our major European competitors. In Britain, the proportion of road links that are congested for more than one hour a day is three times greater than in Germany and five times greater than in France.
Absolutely nothing in the statement suggests that the Government plan any specific new steps beyond what they have already announced to tackle any of the problems that I have mentioned. Their failure to do so is rapidly turning the challenge to which the Secretary of State referred into a full-scale crisis. The truth is that motorists who face jams today will face them tomorrow and for the foreseeable future, even if, unlike all those previous promises, the promises in the White Paper are kept.
Why do not the Government recognise that charging for road use is acceptable, but only if the money raised is used exclusively to pay for environmentally acceptable road improvements or increases in capacity, or to cut other motoring taxes? [Interruption.] Simply extracting more tax from drivers without any guarantee that those conditions will be met would be wrong.
Mr. George Foulkes: Where is the question?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say once to the right hon. Gentleman that I expect him now to maintain silence from a sedentary position. He cannot go on interrupting the hon. Gentleman; otherwise, we shall be better off without his presence.
Mr. Yeo: Even if the right hon. Gentleman does not intervene, we will be better off without his presence.
The timid nature of the Government's approach—launching a debate instead of taking a decision—will dismay road users and environmentalists alike. On local congestion schemes, do the Government realise that improvements in public transport should precede and not follow the introduction of local road pricing? What assurance can the Secretary of State give about the use to which money that may be raised by local councils through local congestion charging schemes will be put?
On spending, to which the Secretary of State is so addicted, does he realise that much of the investment that is needed to improve our transport system will come
164
from the private sector, regardless of who is in power? Therefore, one key judgment on his White Paper is whether it promotes private investment. Will he say whether giving Ken Livingstone power over train services in London—two out of three rail journeys begin or end in London—will make it more or less likely that private investors will want to invest in the railway industry?
How will the new transport fund that the Secretary of State mentioned reduce congestion in towns and cities? Will it deal with the problem of road maintenance, a huge issue that I did not hear him mention at all? Will he admit that delaying repairs and maintenance on roads increases the need for complete rebuilding of many roads? When does he believe that the backlog of maintenance work will be addressed?
On Crossrail, will the Secretary of State confirm that after today, we are no nearer a firm date for completion of this project and that suggestions that it would be completed in time for the London Olympic games in 2012 are complete nonsense? Will he confirm that his failure to introduce the lorry road user charge means that Britain's hauliers will remain at a competitive disadvantage in relation to their foreign counterparts for several more years?
Given the fact that almost every promise made in the document published four years ago has now been broken and that almost every target has been missed, there can be little confidence that a fresh set of promises in this new document will be kept. Instead of a vision for our transport system, we are offered a muddle. Instead of decisions, we are offered debates. After seven years of Labour government, Britain has a transport system that inconveniences millions of travellers every day and burdens businesses with delays and costs that undermine our competitive position. Sadly, after today's statement, that inconvenience and those delays and costs are set to continue for years to come. Only the election of a Conservative Government will address our transport needs.
Mr. Darling: Well, I admire the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour, at least in relation to the last point. I am glad that he recognises the overall objectives and agrees with them; it is just a shame that where we differ to a great extent is on providing the means to achieve them. If one is committed, as he is, to cutting £2 billion from transport, many of the problems that he complains about will be compounded, not sorted out.
Let me go through the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He complained that we were not spending enough on roads. He will recall that, in the early 1990s, the then Conservative Government, of whom he was a member, announced a very ambitious road programme. The only problem was that it completely collapsed by 1996, because of the economic problems that they ran into. We are spending 43 per cent. more on roads than in 1997, and the road programme that we have put in place will make a difference.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned railways. He well knows that one of the biggest impediments to rail reliability was the lack of investment. Again, investment virtually dried up prior to privatisation. Less than 200 miles of track was being maintained thanks to the then Conservative Government. Privatisation also created a

165
chaotic system of organisation that affected reliability. Both those things, investment and organisation, are being put right.
The hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that fares were going up. Is that another spending commitment? If fares are going to come down, the money has to be found somewhere. It is awfully difficult to see how it can be found if one is cutting £2 billion from transport spending.
As for this nonsense about private investment and the Mayor, the Mayor is getting very limited influence over what is happening in London, which is mainly directed towards rationalising the fare structure. From the conversations that I have had with the rail companies, which I speak to regularly, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they were very happy with what I announced last week and saw that it was far more sensible than what the Conservatives had left.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus travel, which is increasing outside London, where, as I told the House earlier, good councils and bus companies are working together. The proposals that I have announced today—I suspect that Labour Members will want to draw me out on them rather more than Opposition Members do—with regard to limited franchising are a welcome reform and a good step forward.
Crossrail was never going to be ready for the Olympics. I have said that countless times in the House.
Mr. Yeo: That is in The Times.
Mr. Darling: I cannot be responsible for what The Times writes. God almighty.
Crossrail is another major step forward in providing a much-needed bit of infrastructure, but let us be fair: it is again something that successive Governments did not provide.
The hon. Gentleman went on about Thameslink, the East London line and the east coast main line. These are all things for which we are providing money, but from which he would take money away, because of his commitment. The settlement that I have announced for London today will allow the Mayor to make major progress on a number of these things.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned motorways. I have already announced the widening of the M1 and M25, and I recently announced proposals for the M6. Finally, he went on about road user charging. Here, there was just a glimmer of hope. The lorry road user charging scheme is due to be introduced in four years' time, and it will be. On the further proposals for cars, I welcome what he said on Sunday. He was asked about the issue twice by Mr. Boulton on a Sky programme, and he said about congestion charging and road pricing:
"There is nothing wrong in principle with a system of road pricing".
He went on to say:
"in principle a system of road pricing which reflected the usage of particular roads is acceptable."
So we are agreed on that.
Mr. Yeo: It is a debate.
Mr. Darling: Like his leader, the hon. Gentleman is rowing back on what he said only a few months ago. He has a real problem. He has no aviation policy, no roads policy and no rail policy. All he has got is a commitment to cut £2 billion of spending.
John Thurso: May I thank the Secretary of State for sending an advance copy of the statement and also giving me the White Paper and reports?
Obviously, I have not had a chance to read the White Paper in detail, but I was drawn to the map on page 25, which deals with major airports and ports of the United Kingdom. Across the south of England and up into the midlands, there are lots of little aeroplanes denoting important airports. When one comes to the north of Scotland, however, there is no little aeroplane over Kirkwall or Wick, and even more importantly, there is none over Inverness. Is that an omission on the part of the Government, or do they seriously believe that Inverness is not a major airport?
The statement is something of a curate's egg; there are good bits and bad bits. It raises many issues and puts many of the right questions, but it is somewhat lighter on the answers. Perhaps one of the most obvious omissions is the lack of reference to an integrated transport policy. That is all the more surprising as research has revealed that the words "integrated transport policy" were first used in a Labour policy document in 1948. One therefore might have hoped to see the phrase in this important White Paper.
In addition to the White Paper, the Secretary of State has published today a report on Crossrail, which is welcome, and a report on road user charging, which is also welcome. It will be necessary to study those carefully to determine whether the detail in them provides more answers. Overall, they represent a road map to a strategy rather than a strategy document. Among the omissions in the documents is the absence of a serious analysis of the factors that shape travel—the White Paper does not consider that. Growth in the past has not been driven simply by growth in the economy, so we need to consider that matter. The Secretary of State is right to put the planning time frame at 30 years. Transport planning has been bedevilled by short-term outlooks, so until we have a clear long-term vision, it will be impossible to put forward a good short-term plan.
Perhaps the most important announcement that the Secretary of State made was on his decision to consider national road user charging, which I would support. He said in his statement that a national scheme could not be put into effect at this time, but is he aware that passive reading technologies, such as cell ID and triangulation, that use mobile operator black boxes, could provide a solution within a much shorter time frame? The Secretary of State also mentioned reducing fuel duty, with which I agree, but will he consider abolishing vehicle excise duty as part of the exercise, because it is a regressive tax that is costly to collect. Will he confirm that the overall tax take from the introduction of road user charging will remain the same, although the tax burden will fall differently on different users?

167
I was pleased to note that the Secretary of State accepted the need to adopt a long-term approach to port development—although I must say that Scrabster, Britain's most northerly deep-water port, was another omission from the map of major ports. Our ports are underused assets, especially for short sea freight, and the lack of capacity for long-haul container traffic must be addressed. As I have said on several occasions, the Government need to take a lead on that.
The Secretary of State has laid before the House the stark challenge and conflicting demands that exist due to more transport requirements and the equal requirement for less emissions—I suppose that he deserves one cheer for that, at least. We will find out whether the White Paper meets that challenge in the years to come, but one thing is certain: we must meet the challenge of halting and reversing our emissions growth. That alone will be the measure by which the statement will be judged.
Mr. Darling: The map is intended to show major airports. I appreciate that Inverness is not on it, although it is a busy airport; a further glaring omission is Stornoway, which is a pity because I was hoping to fly into it next month—I shall have it reinstated at the earliest possible opportunity. I have been to Scrabster; although I appreciate its importance, it is not quite like Southampton or several of the London docks. However, I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
The words "integrated transport" are used endlessly, but what matters is to enable the people who can make transport work do so more properly—a lot of responsibilities are devolved to local authorities and regions—which is what we are doing. I appreciate that the document on road user travel charging is large and that the hon. Gentleman received it at only 10 o'clock this morning, but when he reads it, he will see that the experts' view is that the scheme is technically 10 to 15 years away. He is right about moving away from the present taxation system towards something completely different. That will be new territory. We will be trailblazing in that respect, but I appreciate his general welcome to the fact that we are examining such measures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is considerable interest in this statement, the next statement and the main debate to follow. I do not believe that I will be able to call everybody, and I would appreciate short questions and answers.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will be aware that his statement is warmly received because of its clarity and commitment, especially regarding the aspects on bus policy, which will mean that local authorities will be able to guarantee that buses are where they are wanted and needed in the future. Will he use some of his new funds to examine ways to reinvigorate the manufacturing industry for both rail and light rail in this country? That is what we should be doing, so will he give us some hope that he will look at it?
Mr. Darling: The funds will be applied for specific purposes to get traffic improvement. That might have a
168
consequential effect on orders for buses or light rail, although of course there would not be direct payments to manufacturers. On my hon. Friend's general point, the bus franchising proposals that I am outlining are to be used in specific circumstances. I suspect that the majority of schemes will continue under the present system for some time, but I welcome her general comments.
Mr. Mark Field: On the Crossrail project, the Secretary of State makes it clear that he wants all partners to pay what he describes as a "fair share" of the expense. Can he give us an indication of what the Government's fair share of the project will be?
Mr. Darling: As I said, we will have to discuss how much central Government, London, the Mayor and businesses contribute. I think that there is an appetite among businesses to contribute to something from which they would hugely benefit, but such discussions must continue.
Linda Perham: As chair of the all-party group on Crossrail, I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's announcement and accept his warnings about costs. Will he think about the costs of congestion and overcrowding if the system does not go ahead, and the delivery of regeneration to east London? The completed Crossrail scheme might bring £20 billion to the UK economy as a whole and we cannot afford to pass that by.
Mr. Darling: I agree that Crossrail could bring huge benefits to London in the future and relieve a lot of pressure now. However, the situation for Crossrail and other rail schemes throughout the country is exactly the same: we must ensure that we are far better at controlling costs in the future than we have been in the past so that we get £1-worth of benefit from every £1 that we spend. The case for Crossrail and many light rail schemes is strong, provided that we get the sums right.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Crossrail starts in my constituency, so the announcement is welcome. I understand what the Secretary of State says about consulting on the formula for funding, but surely by now he has a clear idea of the balance among public and private funding, the fare box and the Mayor. Will he give us an indication of that balance and tell us whether risk will be determined on the basis of it? Does he envisage Transport for London being a prime mover behind raising funds for the project?
Mr. Darling: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the business case for Crossrail that I published this morning—I know that he will not have had time to read it—which examines all those issues. My answer to him is the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) a few moments ago. The Montague report recognises that there are complex issues to consider and huge challenges to overcome. It is important to have the right mix of funding and to organise things in the right manner. I have agreed proposals in the document with the Mayor on the future organisation and delivery of the project.
Mr. Graham Stringer: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that his decision on light rail in Manchester will be met by anger and disbelief. I, and virtually everyone in Greater Manchester, I am sure, think that stopping the scheme at this stage is unacceptable. Does he accept that the National Audit Office report gave the Metrolink a clean bill of health and that the cost-benefit analysis of the scheme was positive? Does he also accept that if the Deputy Prime Minister had not dithered four years ago, the scheme would have gone ahead at much less cost? Will he look forward to getting the scheme going as quickly as possible because it is good for the environment and the travelling public, and essential to the economy of Greater Manchester?
Mr. Darling: I fully recognise the disappointment that will exist in Manchester. I accept that the Manchester metro has been successful and that it got a good assessment from the NAO, but there is no getting away from the fact that the cost of the extension has increased dramatically over the past few years. As I said earlier, no Government can accept such escalating costs—there is no guarantee that they have peaked yet. We were being asked to pay more money for the scheme. The situation applies not only to Manchester, but to the schemes in Leeds and south Hampshire. I suggest that we need to sit down with local authorities to determine whether there are ways of making such schemes affordable. As I have said before, and as the strategy document makes clear, light rail is important, but we cannot find ourselves in a situation in which annual payments rise at such a dramatic rate over a short time. No Government could sign up to that. I understand what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that the measures I have announced on further discussions, franchising and so on will help to resolve what is undoubtedly a difficult problem, but we have to ensure that if we spend all this money, we get value for money.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State's realism on new tram schemes. They are heavy loss makers and cost overruns are big. Is he saying, as I would, that they should not be subsidised, or is he saying that there is a level of subsidy that he would negotiate, but it should be much lower than the current level?
Mr. Darling: Nearly all public transport is subsidised to some extent. I am certainly not against the principle of the public contributing; the question is the degree of subsidy. I was happy to agree a contribution two years ago. What concerns me is that costs have risen again since then. There comes a point when we have to say, "Hold on. Are we doing this the right way?" My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) was right: the NAO said that the Manchester metro is a good scheme. It was critical, however, of how Governments of both parties procure such things and ensure that they are done properly. Frankly, if we are to build light railways, we have to ensure that we get the sums right in the first place. I understand the disappointment in different parts of the country, but the bigger folly would be to proceed with something when the costs are not nailed down.
Mr. Andy Reed: For the one third of my constituents who rely on buses, it is great that there will be specified circumstances for the new quality contracts. Will my right hon. Friend give examples of the specific circumstances in which they will be allowed for local authorities? Will they include places such as Loughborough? It has a good quality bus initiative, but it needs to go much further because passengers are seeing bus services slashed almost overnight. For the two thirds of motorists in my constituency, can he guarantee that there will be clean fuels through biomass, biofuels and fuel cell technology in the near future?
Mr. Darling: I like the way in which my hon. Friend divides up his constituents so neatly.
On the latter point, the White Paper has a lot to say on the need to promote cleaner fuels. On bus franchising, I deliberately said that we are making proposals in specific circumstances. For example, last week I said that I wanted to devolve power to passenger transport authorities in relation to rail travel. If a PTA makes sensible decisions about heavy rail, light rail or buses, it might be able to implement them only if it has some control of the buses, and we might consider that request. Similarly, if we establish a pilot scheme on the measures relating to road pricing, bus franchising would almost certainly have to be part of the scheme. The London scheme showed that there needs to be overall control. However, I shall not approve schemes when nothing is happening to improve public transport. The evidence up and down the country is that when councils and bus companies work together, they can achieve a great deal. The proposal is specific, but it is welcome as an extra power that we need to make transport work.
Mr. Mike Hancock: The people of south Hampshire will obviously be disappointed, but they will accept that the announcement was fairly predictable because of the cost escalation. However, several million pounds have been spent over 15 years on trying to create an affordable light railway system. Will the Secretary of State expand on his statement that the Government will look urgently at how light rail could be made more affordable, including the best approach to procurement, because we have been trying to do that with his officials for the past 10 years?
Mr. Darling: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's realism on the decision and the problem with costs. It is only in the past two or three years that there has been a real problem with costs, and account must be taken of the amount of risk that investors are willing to take and the cost of that risk. I have said before that I have spoken to the banks that are investing in the scheme. They said that the business is marginal to them and they are upping their costs. One memorably said to me in private, "If you pay, you're daft." We have to ensure that we have a sensible way of procuring such schemes and it must provide value for money. That is not the case with the current system, as the hon. Gentleman recognises. I am afraid that time after time, light rail, heavy rail and road schemes cost a lot more than the original proposal. That has to stop.
Mr. Colin Challen: I am naturally disappointed, as I think my other colleagues from Leeds will be, about the announcement on the Leeds supertram. As my right hon. Friend has left the door open on discussions to find creative ways to finance it, will he meet representatives from Leeds, which is, after all, the north's most successful city after 24 years of a Labour administration, to discuss those creative ways and see how creative the Government can be in financing the Leeds supertram scheme?
Mr. Darling: I met representatives from Leeds, although I appreciate that the regime has changed since then. I made it clear earlier this year that we could not pay the sort of costs that they faced. On top of that, the scheme that they proposed was less substantial than the original one. That cannot go on. That is why I made it clear that we cannot accept the proposals because of the cost escalations. We and the local authorities in Leeds and elsewhere will, of course, discuss how such schemes can be better procured in future. However, I do not think that anything has changed materially since I met the Leeds representatives a few months ago. Of course, my ministerial colleagues and I are always happy to discuss such matters with all hon. Members.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that the original 10-year plan document contained future projects for the rail network that appear to have been dropped in the past couple of years or so. The new document contains no specific references to future rail projects. Which projects does he expect to bring back and complete during the period covered by the document?
Mr. Darling: A number of rail projects are under way and planned. They will go ahead, not least because the railways are getting a large share of the money—for example, the southern power supply is being upgraded. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that nothing has been done on the east coast main line, but work is being done there and the west coast main line is getting £7.5 billion. The bigger problem for him and his Front-Bench colleagues is how on earth he can say what he does when he is committed to cutting transport spending by nearly £2 billion.
Rob Marris: What will the Government do to encourage bicycling?
Mr. Darling: The strategy document sets out a range of measures to encourage people to cycle. I strongly believe that we should make it as attractive as possible through cycle lanes and similar measures, but at the end of the day it is up to individuals to choose whether they get on a bike. We are doing a lot, but I strongly believe that people should make their own decisions on that.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I very much share the objectives mentioned by the Secretary of State and agree that infrastructure improvement, not least road improvements, are essential to economic progress. Does he accept, however, that road pricing could be regressive in rural areas? The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), was courteous and sympathetic
172
when I led a delegation to meet him. Does the Secretary of State agree that road pricing in rural areas, where there is only limited public transport, could be damaging and very regressive?
Mr. Darling: The report recognises that many issues need to be resolved in the new system as against the current system, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to do that. We need to consider all of them. For example, rural drivers complain that they have to travel longer distances. If there is a consensus—there is a glimmer of one in that the Front-Bench spokesmen say that there is nothing wrong with the principle—it is important to consider the detail. The new system is at least 10 to 15 years away. It would be nice if we could all work together because, frankly, whatever we decide has to stand the test of different Administrations over many years.
Joyce Quin: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend said, in particular on local and regional transport strategies, but in view of the interest in the House and the recent presentation of Bills, including one by myself, on free passes for pensioners, will he continue to look at the case for extending free bus travel for pensioners across England and ending the current postcode lottery? Given that that would cost £300 million, which compares favourably in economical terms with some of his spending announcements, will he consider that with his Cabinet colleagues before the next election?
Mr. Darling: I think that it is better if local authorities decide those things. On the question of the £300 million, however, the problem in transport is that there are lots of demands for £300 million, but the rail regulator has asked for a total of £5 billion. It is not as if we have lots of money and are short of ideas on how to spend it. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend, but to be realistic, at the moment I am not persuaded that I should take £300 million to spend on that proposal. It would be better to leave those things to local authorities, because, as I said, a large part of our budget is under pressure. Although there will be improvements, we must make sure that we spend the money on the right things.
Pete Wishart: Can the Secretary of State confirm that any plans for national road tolling will extend to Scotland? He will know that responsibility for setting tolls for Scotland's roads rests with the Scottish Parliament. What discussions has he had with them, and what would happen if the Scottish Parliament rejected the idea?
Mr. Darling: Essentially, we are talking about moving away from the present system of taxation to a new system of charging. Because taxation is a reserved matter and applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, the proposal would apply to all of the UK. I know that the hon. Gentleman has terrible difficulty with that—I tried to persuade him earlier that the UK is a very good thing for Scotland—but he is in a minority of one. I see that he is still sitting on his own—I do not know where his colleagues have got to.
Mr. Clive Betts: Could I bring my right hon. Friend back to bus franchising? Many Labour Members welcome the extension in principle of bus franchising, but are concerned about the specified circumstances in which it would be introduced? In South Yorkshire, despite the efforts of the local authority and the passenger transport authority to work with bus operators, bus ridership has fallen year on year because bus services have failed local people.
Mr. Darling: I am aware that in some parts of the country the relationship, for whatever reason, between bus companies and the local authority is not good. I do not, however, want to introduce franchising simply to get people to work together if they ought to be working together in the first place. I set out clearly in my statement and in the strategy paper the circumstances in which we will consider an extension. If there is a particular problem in Sheffield, I shall look at it—in fact, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to do so at the end of this statement.
Mr. Robert Key: In working up his concepts for the future of transport, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the sophisticated position of rural areas? It is not just a question of people in the countryside or people in the towns—most people in the countryside work in towns, and whether we are talking about road pricing, congestion charging, fiscal regimes or bus subsidies, we face a problem now. Our constituents and local authorities need a steer, and the sooner that the Secretary of State can attract attention to the problem, the better for all of us.
Mr. Darling: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has probably not had a chance to read the paper yet, but it looks at transport in the round. I also appreciate his point about the sometimes artificial division between town and country. The world is not like that and, thanks to his teaching many years ago, I know enough about geography to understand that.
Mr. David Watts: I very much support my right hon. Friend's statement, but can he turn his attention to Crossrail? He said in his statement that it will cost £10 billion, but he will be aware that many people think that it will cost —15 billion or more. Who will pay for any overspend, and can he assure me that it will not come out of the national budget?
Mr. Darling: I asked Adrian Montague to look at that in detail because I wanted to be satisfied that we could nail down the costs. If my hon. Friend looks at the review, he will see that Mr. Montague has taken a robust look at the issue, and believes that the cost will be about —10 billion. He recommending dropping—we are doing so—the line into Richmond, which will save about £1 billion. As with every big project that we have talked about this afternoon, we must be clear at the outset what the costs are and nail them down. We must also make sure that the risk falls in such a way that there is a huge incentive to control costs.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Crossrail project will have a major impact on my constituency of Romford, particularly the Crowlands area of central Romford, where it is proposed to build a large depot, and Gidea Park, where a railway siding is to be constructed. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that a full and meaningful consultation will take place before final decisions are made, that changes to the plan are possible, and that the current proposals are not set in stone? If they do go ahead, can he confirm that people along the route who are affected will be offered sufficient compensation for the blight that those two projects may well cause in my constituency?
Mr. Darling: For the sake of brevity, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my written statement, which is being issued in parallel with this oral statement and covers many of those issues. Of course, consultation is needed, and the route is subject to the provisions of a hybrid Bill. It may not quite be a unique opportunity, but there will he a chance for all hon. Members to participate in the proceedings on that Bill. The hon. Gentleman may wish to serve on the hybrid Bill Committee—if he has a word with the Whip, I am sure that he can sign up to it, although anyone who has served on one may caution against doing so.
Mr. Clive Soley: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement on Crossrail, which is vital to the prosperity of west London. I agree that it is probably right to drop the Richmond link, which was one of the most environmentally damaging sections of the route. Echoing the point that he has just made, consultation and giving information to the public, given the nature and size of the project, are incredibly important, and I should be grateful if he would keep his eye on that.
Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): When the channel tunnel rail link is completed in a few years' time, it will be faster to travel to Paris from St. Pancras than to Sheffield. While we are all happy for travellers to Paris, does the Secretary of State sympathise with many people in Sheffield and the east midlands who feel that they have a Cinderella rail service? Can he assure us that investment in everyday services will not lose out to prestige projects elsewhere?
Mr. Darling: I agree that it is important to improve domestic services. There have been problems on the midland main line, some of which have been exacerbated by the work currently taking place at St. Pancras. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point, but it is possible to have good domestic services as well as fast links to the continent.
Mr. Keith Bradley: The people of south Manchester will be hugely disappointed by the latest delay in the Metrolink extension through my constituency to Manchester airport, which would achieve a truly integrated system of heavy rail, light rail and air travel. However, will my right hon. Friend's officials urgently meet officials from

175
the passenger transport authority in Greater Manchester to discuss procurement, refranchising agreements and devolved capital budgets to ensure that a scheme for south Manchester can be introduced at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has done a great deal to promote the cause of Manchester Metrolink, particularly the extension to south Manchester, and I have had many discussions with him, for which I am grateful. I readily accept his general proposition but, as I said in my statement, we need to consider urgently how we procure those things more sensibly so that we can secure the gains of a tram link between various forms of transport, not least at the airport. I am happy to agree with that proposition, which would benefit light rail, not just in Manchester but throughout the country.
Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on Crossrail, which is crucial to the capital's future prosperity and will create transport links essential to the regeneration of the south-east Thames gateway area and some of the most deprived communities, not just in London but throughout the area. May I stress the need for a station at Woolwich so that that part of south-east London can enjoy the wider benefits of that major infrastructure development?
Mr. Darling: That is one of the many issues that we must consider, as must the Cross London Rail Links company before it promotes the scheme that will come before the House. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend's general proposition about the regeneration effect in south-east London.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly be aware of the great disappointment in Rochdale and Oldham, which have long been first in the queue of people asking for an expansion of the Greater Manchester Metrolink. Will he agree to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) and myself at the earliest possible opportunity to look at the chink of light offered by paragraph 16 of his statement where, if I understand him correctly, he is not saying "never" but "not now"?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is understandably expressing her concern, but I do not wish to repeat what
176
I said to other Greater Manchester Members. I, or one of my Ministers, will be more than happy to meet them as soon as possible.
Joan Ruddock: Londoners will welcome the extra money that my right hon. Friend has allocated, but can he provide reassurance about the extension to the east London line? Is it his intention that that project should be undertaken by Transport for London and, if so, is sufficient public money available to meet the need and to enable us to start the project as soon as possible?
Mr. Darling: Yes. I can confirm that we have allocated that additional money to London, following discussions with the Mayor. He will decide what projects he wishes to prioritise. We have given sufficient money to enable the Mayor to do what is necessary for the Olympics and also to undertake other schemes, if he wishes to do so. In the spirit of devolution and in recognition of the fact that perhaps the Mayor ought to announce these things himself, I shall go no further at this stage.
Jonathan Shaw: My right hon. Friend is aware that we have investment in buses—some £10 million in Medway—but he is also aware that we have some misgivings about the Strategic Rail Authority's proposals for the integrated Kent franchise. Can he confirm that he will take charge of the new franchise for Kent and that he will be prepared to meet a delegation from Medway to discuss the cuts in Cannon Street services, which we oppose?
Mr. Darling: I may be wrong, but I recall meeting my hon. Friend very recently. My hon. Friend the Minister of State thinks he met him recently as well. While it is always nice to bump into each other, perhaps we cannot do so every week. In relation to the integrated Kent franchise, I am well aware of the controversy and the difficulties in Kent. As I said last week, the SRA will continue to be responsible for these matters until it is wound up next year. It is in the process of evaluating the latest round of consultations. I know that there are many issues to resolve and Ministers will be devoting their attention to them. At some stage, I shall be more than happy to see my hon. Friend yet again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Balance of Funding Review Report
1.31 pm
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the balance of funding review report, which is published today, and about the Government's response. Before I begin, I should like to say a word or two about the speculation we have seen at the weekend and in yesterday's press that the Government have plans for huge increases in people's council tax bills. That is simply untrue. I shall say more about it when I come to the report's conclusions on council tax.
The review started in April 2003. I chaired the steering group, which included my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), as well as other senior figures from central and local government, the academic world, business, the union movement and professional bodies.
The remit of the review was to establish the nature and priority of the balance of funding issue and to identify and analyse options for change, setting out the pros and cons of each. We commissioned research, held a public consultation and sought further evidence on the main options for reform raised in the public consultation. We held nine meetings in all. All the papers presented to us are available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I must first record my thanks to the steering group members, to everybody who responded to the review's public consultation last year and to those who presented papers to the group. Secondly, I should like to welcome the report published on 16 July by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee following its inquiry on local government revenue. There is significant common ground between the Committee's conclusions and those of the balance of funding review. The Government will reply formally to the Committee in due course.
As those who read the report will find, some of the press speculation of recent days has been wholly misleading and inaccurate. As the report makes clear:
"The Review has been conducted for the Government, not by the Government. It follows that this report is not a statement of Government policy. It is rather an analysis of issues and options. Although it draws some conclusions, in line with its remit it does not make recommendations."
It has always been the case—indeed, it was included in the terms of reference—that the review would simply set out the pros and cons of a range of short and long-term options. As the report states quite clearly, the aim of the review was
"not to provide a detailed blueprint for reform, but to gain consensus at this stage of the argument on the broad issues, and to agree what the most likely options were, as the basis for more detailed work in the future."
So we are at the start of this process of further work and there is a great deal more detailed thinking to do.
I shall set out the main conclusions of the review. First, like the Select Committee, the review concludes that there are strong arguments for shifting the balance towards more local funding. However, that depends on
178
the feasibility and desirability of any measures to achieve it. It would have to be possible to achieve satisfactory equalisation of needs in the distribution of resources between local authorities alongside any greater local revenue raising.
Secondly, again like the Select Committee, the review concludes that council tax should be retained but reformed. It has important advantages as a local tax. However, in the opinion of the group, it will need reform in order to help people on low incomes and to reduce the impact of revaluation. Further work will be needed on the options for such reform. A fair and effective system of council tax benefit will be a vital component of any reform package. It is clear, for example, that levels of take-up of council tax benefit among pensioners and others on low incomes remains low in comparison to other benefits.
As for council tax bands, the report concludes:
"There is a clear case for reviewing council tax bands and the ratios between them at the time of revaluation."
I should point out that the Government have always made it clear that we would want to consider these issues with other stakeholders ahead of revaluation. But the report adds that
"particular care is needed to ensure that council taxpayers on low incomes living in high value properties are not unfairly affected."
It goes on:
"Further detailed work is now required on how council tax might be reformed, based on a clear vision of the direction of travel."
Far from proposing a trebling of people's council tax bills, the review states that
"the aim should be to avoid significant changes to the overall liabilities of taxpayers."
There has been much comment in the media about the ideas submitted by the New Policy Institute. It is certainly true that the NPI gave evidence to the review on changes to the banding structure and its ideas are well documented in the report. Its original paper for the review has been available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since January. However, these are the NPI's ideas and they are not Government policy. Indeed, they are not recommended by the review.
Thirdly, the review concludes that the only way to achieve a major shift in the balance of funding is to supplement a reformed council tax with relocalised business rates or a local income tax or a combination of both. None of these options would be easy and further work would be required here, too. Fourthly, relocalisation of business rates could give councils greater incentives to promote economic development and improve links with business, as well as altering the balance of funding. However, business has serious concerns, including potential risks to its productivity and competitiveness.
Fifthly, although a local income tax would be more progressive and more buoyant than council tax, it would also be less predictable as a result. Considerable further work would be required to address the substantial technical and administrative issues and costs, as well as the impact on individuals and employers, before firm conclusions could be reached on the feasibility or desirability of a local income tax. In that respect, the report makes difficult reading for those who regard local

179
income tax as a simple solution. As we say in the report, the devil is very much in the detail. I note that the Select Committee takes a similar view. Sixthly, the review concluded that smaller taxes or charges do not provide the potential for major change in the balance of funding. The case for and against each such option should be judged on its own merits.
I turn now to the Government's response. We are developing a new 10-year vision for local government. We want local government to be more effective and more accountable. A fair and sustainable finance system is crucial to that. We welcome the balance of funding review report as a major contribution to the debate. The review could not look at everything. However, while it does not make recommendations, it has reached a number of important conclusions defining the issues, narrowing down the options and assessing the case for change, as well as investigating much of the preliminary detail. It provides a sound platform from which to go forward. The Government can accept right away that council tax should be retained but reformed. It is clear that council tax is far from perfect and that changes are needed. We are, for example, working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to improve take-up of council tax benefit. That work will continue.
The report flags up the need for more work before decisions can be taken on how council tax should be reformed or on the possible means of shifting the balance of funding. These matters need to be considered carefully and in detail. We must keep up the momentum, but we must also ensure that any changes are soundly based. As I said earlier, the press speculation that the Government are planning a council tax shake-up that will lead to huge rises in council tax is untrue. Any suggestion that we have opted for any particular course of council tax reform is just plain wrong. The review concludes that
"the detailed case for and against some kind of sub-national approach should be considered."
It is right that we should do this, but not because we want to hit middle England—precisely the opposite. We need to consider options for regional banding in order to ensure that areas of high property price growth such as London and the south-east are not unduly affected by revaluation. One thing is clear: there are no easy answers. The subject needs extremely careful examination and detailed consideration; it is far too important to be a political football.
We have therefore decided to set up an independent inquiry, to be undertaken by Sir Michael Lyons to look into these matters and to report back by the end of 2005 to my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Michael is very widely respected and brings to the task a wealth of local government and other relevant experience. I can think of no one better able to take forward the work that the balance of funding review has begun. Hon. Members will recall that Sir Michael has a distinguished background in local government. He is currently director of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the university of Birmingham, and between 1994 and 2001 he held the position of chief executive of Birmingham city council. He was recently appointed as deputy chair of the Audit Commission. He is a member of the Treasury's public services productivity panel and was a member of Sir George Bain's review of the fire
180
service. In 2004, he reported to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the relocation of public sector jobs away from London and the south-east.
The inquiry will consider, in the light of the report by the balance of funding review and other developments such as new funding arrangements for schools, the detailed case for changes to the present system of local government funding. It will make recommendations on any changes that are necessary and how to implement them, and it will take evidence from stakeholders.
In particular, the inquiry will make recommendations on how best to reform council tax, taking into account the forthcoming revaluation. It will assess the case for providing local authorities with increased flexibility to raise additional revenue and for making a significant shift in the current balance of funding. It will conduct a thorough analysis of options to complement council tax, including local income tax, reform of non-domestic rates and other possible local taxes and charges, as well as the possible combination of such options. It will consider the implications for the financing of possible elected regional assemblies, as well as any implications that its recommendations have for other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Government now look forward to a period of focused study by the independent inquiry that will build on the balance of funding review's work. We can then take firm decisions on the best way forward in putting in place the fair and sustainable system of local government finance that is our objective.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I thank the Minister for his statement and for letting me have a copy of it in advance, together with a copy of the report of the steering group.
I associate the Opposition with the Minister's thanks to the organisations outside Government that served on the steering group. It has been a valuable exercise in raising awareness of the issues involved in local government finance. I congratulate the ODPM Committee on the publication of its report, which usefully complements the work of the balance of funding steering group, although we do not necessarily support all its recommendations.
The only people who will not welcome analysis of the future options for local government financing and the assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each are those who have already made up their mind in advance of hearing the arguments. Will the Minister confirm that the Liberal Democrat policy of replacing council tax with a local income tax is wholly discredited by the balance of funding review and by the Select Committee report? Does he agree that a local income tax would do nothing to address the balance of funding, would increase dependency on Whitehall handouts, and would hammer hard-working families with soaring tax bills?
The Minister made great play of his claim that the review is a report to Government, not a report by Government. In fact, the review steering group was chaired by the Minister, and two other Ministers and senior civil servants served on it. When he announced it in January last year, he billed it as his major review of local government funding. In his statement, however, he made it clear that the Government are not going to tell

181
the public, this side of a general election, precisely what their plans are. They are not going to allow individual council tax payers to see precisely how much they will pay in increased local taxes as part of the raft of third-term tax rises that this Labour Government are planning. Instead, they are going to bury their plans in yet another inquiry that will report after the general election, leaving a double whammy in store for local taxpayers in 2007, with the already planned revaluation on top of these proposals. Many ordinary families whose only crime is to live in areas where house prices have risen rapidly over the past few years will be alarmed at the proposals for an increase to a 10-band council tax system.
Today, the Minister tried to distance himself from that aspect of the steering group's report, especially the input from the New Policy Institute. However, just a few weeks ago he told the ODPM Committee:
"You will be aware that we took a lot of detailed evidence, particularly from the New Policy Institute … I do not think it would break too many confidences and anticipate the conclusions of the review to say that we obviously looked with some interest at those."
In 2003, in the Standing Committee that considered the Local Government Bill, the Minister said that the Government would look favourably on increasing the number of bands in the council tax system.
It is clear to anyone who makes an objective reading of the review and of what the Minister has said on the record that the Government's preferred option is a retention of the existing council tax system, but with massive increases in the council tax payable for those living in higher-value properties, meaning that those who live in areas where house prices have risen most could find themselves paying three times as much as at present. That would punish ordinary families and pensioners on modest incomes who happen to have lived for a long time in a home that is now worth far more than one that they could afford to buy. The true reason for the Government's interest in an increased number of bands and a higher multiple of band D being payable in the higher bands is simply the Treasury's desire to tax the unrealised, illiquid, notional wealth represented by rising housing values—a sort of crude wealth tax by stealth.
As if that is not bad enough, the review calls for further work on a supplementary income tax that would be levied in addition to, not instead of, the council tax. Is not that supplementary income tax a back-door way around the Prime Minister's pledge not to increase income tax at all?
Will the Minister answer a couple of specific questions? If the balance of funding needs to be adjusted in the interests of local accountability, does the Minister accept that there is also a case for allowing greater local discretion over the balance of spending, with more priorities being set locally and fewer set nationally? If so, can he, in the light of last week's statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, clarify the Government's intentions on funding education and confirm their commitment to reducing the levels of ring-fencing from the record highs that they have reached under this Government?
182
We welcome the Government's recognition of the burden that their council tax increases place on those on lower incomes. Does the Minister recall, however, that before the 1997 general election the Chancellor announced the end of means-testing for elderly people? Will not his proposals for mitigating the impact of his council tax increases on pensioners result in an increase in the means-testing of those pensioners?
Turning to business rates, will the Minister confirm that for as long as equalisation remains in its present form, neither repatriating local business rates to local councils nor retaining a national system with a higher cap on the annual increases will redress the balance of funding issue? All it will do is deliver more revenue to the Treasury. Will he give the House an undertaking that if the Government opt for the route of repatriating business rates, they will recognise the fact that businesses have no democratic input into the local authorities that tax them and must therefore be protected from discriminatory and unfair differential taxation, in the interests of equity and of maintaining the competitiveness of British business?
The original motivation for embarking on this balance of funding review was stated to be a desire to improve local government accountability through achieving a better balance between locally raised and centrally raised taxes. Since then, however, the Government have panicked in the face of growing public outrage at the level of council tax—up 70 per cent. since 1997, with the comprehensive spending review projecting a further 20 per cent. increase over the next three years.
It is not the system of council tax that is the problem; it is Labour's fiddled funding and the bureaucratic burdens imposed on local government, forcing it to unacceptable levels. With the average band D council tax now costing almost £100 a month, and many people on low incomes finding that council tax is the single largest outgoing in their monthly budget, it is no wonder that the pressure is on. The real solution, however, is to reduce the burdens on local government and to adopt fairer funding formulas that will reduce the very high gearing levels experienced by many local authorities.
Because of the huge increases in council tax, running at three times the rate of inflation year after year under Labour's fat Government, no change is not an option. But neither is ignoring the underlying problem. Before operating on the patient, we need to diagnose the real underlying sickness: excessive burdens imposed on local government by Whitehall, with a constant torrent of red tape and regulations spewing out of the over-mighty, interfering ODPM, and a fiddled grant settlement. Only when the underlying disease is tackled will the various options for the reform of local government finance be able to deliver the desired result. In the meantime, hardworking families and pensioners across England face the prospect of yet higher bills from 2007, as a result of revaluation and rebanding. That will be the Minister's Department's contribution to Labour's third-term tax rises.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman made a good start, but the longer he went on, the more he lost the argument and the House. I appreciate his comments about the review being a valuable exercise in raising awareness, however, and I join him in welcoming the Select Committee's report.

183
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Liberal Democrat policy of replacing council tax with a local income tax, and I can confirm that the review reached the clear conclusion that that would not be the right way forward. We foresaw that huge administrative, technical and distributional difficulties would be associated with the introduction of a local income tax; they are spelled out in considerable detail in the report. Only the hopelessly naive or over-optimistic could believe that this is a simple exercise. It is not.
The hon. Gentleman queried the fact that this was a report to Government rather than by Government, making the point that I had chaired the review and that two Ministers had served on it. However, he failed to recognise the fact that three councillors from other parties, including one Conservative councillor, served on the review, plus a large number of people with no political affiliation and entirely independent credentials. It was a large, inclusive body, and most people—including representatives of the hon. Gentleman's party—congratulated us on the inclusive way in which we had conducted the review. It was all-encompassing and, therefore, a review to Government.
The bulk of the hon. Gentleman's speech was based on Conservative scaremongering, about which we have heard a certain amount over the last couple of days. I detected a degree of frustration on his part that both the statement and the balance of funding review have clearly shot the Conservatives' fox. Far from being a report that spells out an arrangement that will lead, in their words, to massive increases in council tax, it makes it quite clear that
"the aim should be to avoid significant changes to the overall liabilities of taxpayers."
Retention, with reform, of council tax is our policy. A massive increase in council tax is pure Opposition scaremongering, and is wholly unfounded.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the case for greater flexibility for local authorities, and I wholly endorse that. That is why we have introduced the prudential borrowing regime this year, which gives local authorities the freedom to borrow on their own discretion, dismantling the highly centralist and restrictive borrowing controls that his party introduced when it was in government. He also asked about business rates. The report sets out the arguments about relocalisation—and the business community's concerns about that fairly and objectively, and presents a series of options that will have at their heart the need to reassure businesses that they can contribute to local services, which they recognise the need to do, without being vulnerable to unreasonable and excessive demands.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at considerable length about the claimed additional tax burden. I would simply refer him to table B.12 of the balance of funding review, which shows that, in real terms, the average local tax per dwelling in 2004–05 remains below the level that applied in 1990–91, when his party was in government and had just visited the disaster of the poll tax on the country. We are not going to make the same mistake.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for his original decision to carry out the balance of funding review. But,
184
having decided on a review, have not the Government now decided just to review that review? Is not the new Lyons review all about ducking the hard decisions on council tax, rather than taking them? Does not the Minister realise that dither and delay simply mean more years of the unfair council tax?
This Government were prepared to risk the lives of British servicemen and women in Iraq on the basis of a dodgy dossier, yet after 15 months of detailed expert study, Labour is incapable of taking a decision on the future of council tax. The Minister talked about ideas for tinkering with council tax. Does he not realise that none of them will end its unfairness? Indeed, is it not a key finding of the review that even a reformed council tax would not help the balance of funding problem? Does not his support for revaluation and new council tax bands place a double threat of higher tax directly over the heads of millions of tax payers?
Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention of coming clean on their council tax hike until after the general election? If the Government will not tell the people their real plans, will he tell the House what the difference now is between Labour and the Conservatives on council tax, given that the Tories also have no policy? Ministers are to be congratulated on one thing: their willingness to eat humble pie on local income tax. The report says that a local income tax
"would be more progressive … than council tax."
So why will the Labour Government not commit themselves to fairer taxes, not higher taxes?
Does the Minister not realise that today's further delay in tackling the balance of funding amounts to a betrayal of local government? Is he not allowing the Prime Minister the room that he wants to continue to attack local democracy? Is it not the Government's real policy to change the balance of funding simply by nationalising the funding of schools? Will the Minister confirm his personal view, given at the Institute for Public Policy Research on 10 May, that Whitehall control of education was not a "magic solution" for the balance of funding, and that centralising education finance was a "bizarre suggestion"?
Today's report could have been written by Lord Butler: it was good on analysis but weak on conclusions. The Deputy Prime Minister might have been acting in good faith when he set up the review of council tax, but today's report shows that he is not competent to take the decisions that council tax payers want.
Mr. Raynsford: One could not help but notice the sound of a needle trapped in the single groove of a cracked gramophone record, repeating "Lord Butler" and "Iraq" over and over again. That seems to be the only noise that the Liberal Democrats can make at the moment. They should at least be aware that this debate is about local government finance. There will be a full opportunity for them to voice their other concerns later.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that the Lyons review would duck the issue. If he really believes that, he does not know Sir Michael Lyons, or the very considerable capability of the man and his commitment to achieving a lasting and effective reform of local government finance. These are not easy issues. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that they are complex issues that require a great deal of careful, painstaking thought. He also

185
knows that an inclusive group of some 20 members from a range of backgrounds and political parties—including a Liberal Democrat councillor, who we welcomed on board the balance of funding review—which helped to achieve a consensual approach, is not the body to take hard decisions on the intricate, detailed issues that will determine the long-term future for local government finance. That is why we have invited Sir Michael Lyons to undertake the review, and I am confident that the outcome will be very positive indeed. This is certainly not tinkering, but, as the hon. Gentleman made that charge, I shall make the point to him that we do not introduce ill-thought-out proposals and assume that they can be implemented simply with the wave of a hand. It is much harder than that.
The hon. Gentleman talked about increases in council tax. The Liberal Democrats have the unenviable record of the largest increases in council tax of any political party. Their increases averaged 6 per cent. this year, compared with 5.4 per cent. from Conservative councils, and 4.7 per cent. from Labour councils. I also remind him that the councils with the highest increases last year, which we debated last night on the capping order, were Liberal Democrat Shepway in terms of district councils, and Liberal Democrat Torbay in terms of unitary authorities. His party has an unenviable record, and he would do better to talk to his members about keeping council tax down rather than to give lectures here.
Finally, on local income tax, the balance of funding review has made a balanced and objective assessment. It has identified both the potential advantages—the hon. Gentleman has highlighted the point of greater progressivity—and the considerable disadvantages and technical obstacles that need to be examined far more carefully than his party has ever been prepared to do.
Andrew Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting Sir Michael Lyons to take the work forward. Will he also accept, however, that some aspects of the work are urgent, particularly getting council tax benefit take-up improved, which ought to be in place by next April? A revision of the amount of money being paid by local citizens compared with businesses is also needed, and should be in place quickly. If we are to have extra bands, they must be in place so that the revaluation, which starts next April, can take them into account.
Mr. Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I congratulate him on the thorough and thoughtful report that the Select Committee, under his chairmanship, conducted and published. I agree that Sir Michael Lyons is a formidable figure to carry forward this work, and that we should make rapid progress on issues such as take-up of council tax benefit, in relation to which there are real problems. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions is already undertaking work to improve council tax benefit take-up, and I assure him that we will continue to work closely with it to tackle this problem with the urgency that it deserves.
Mr. David Curry: I feel sorry for the poor old Minister. He knows very well that we could have got to this point after 15 minutes with officials, 15 months ago, instead of spending 15 months in laborious working parties. At no stage did he or his office give the impression that they were simply working towards some provisional outcome. This is a funk, and it is a gold-plated, comprehensive funk.
Will the Minister make it clear to Sir Michael Lyons that this is supposed to be about the balance of funding? Will he therefore ask him to examine seriously the argument for relocalisation of business rates to anchor businesses in the community and to give the community a stake in the success of business? That would be an extremely positive outcome and very good for local democracy.
Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman said that this could have been done in 15 minutes with officials. The hallmark of his party in government was an ill-thought-out reform that probably did have only 15 minutes' advice from officials, because the officials would undoubtedly, had they been given more time, have told it that the poll tax was an extremely foolish venture. We do not intend to repeat that mistake. We are doing this thoroughly, carefully and rigorously, and Sir Michael Lyons will be continuing the work that the balance of funding review has undertaken.
The right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of this matter. He spent most of his ministerial time trying to live down and repair the damage created by an ill-thought-out and rushed reform of local government finance. He should appreciate the importance of a measured, sensible and thorough approach.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement this afternoon. I hope that he will continue to pursue this direction, and that a property-based tax will continue to apply to local government. I remember clearly the Committee that considered the poll tax: I was a member of that Committee, and the Leader of the Opposition was at that time one of the keen advocates of the poll tax, which failed miserably, and a property tax had to be introduced. I therefore consider keeping a property tax to be in the best interests of local government.
My right hon. Friend referred to council tax banding in his statement, and said that a review of council tax bands is to take place. May I suggest that a regular review of council tax banding is also important, and that additional bands would be welcomed by members of the special interest group of municipal authorities, because a fairer balance is required in relation to tax bands? May I also—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is quite sufficient. We must make speed.
Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the maintenance of a property tax as the basis for local government finance is the sensible way forward, which is the conclusion that the review has reached and that the Government have accepted. On the question of a review

187
of banding, which he raised, we believe that that needs to be considered carefully, because there are considerable implications, both in relation to fairness and equity, and in terms of the impact of revaluation, which is due to come in from 2007. We are confident that the Lyons inquiry will be able to examine carefully those issues, building on the evidence that has been presented to the balance of funding review, and coming forward with firm suggestions to deal with those complex issues in the most equitable and fair way.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: On the subject of relocalisation of business rates, further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), does the Minister agree that it is vital that he and his fellow Ministers consult widely with all the small business organisations, many of whom have bad memories of what happened in the 1980s, when many of their members were put out of business by excessive increases in business rates? Will he undertake today to enter into full consultation?
Mr. Raynsford: I have announced today that the Lyons inquiry will involve consultation with stakeholders, and I have absolutely no doubt that Sir Michael will want to engage with representatives of the business community. I mentioned specifically small business, and I am sure that that is a grouping whose views will also be taken on board. The balance of funding review acknowledges exactly the fears and anxieties that the hon. Gentleman has voiced. It sets out three options, and it sets out the safeguards that it would view as appropriate were there a move towards relocalisation. His real concern, however, is further consultation, and I assure him that that will happen.
Jim Knight: I welcome the review and the further work that the Minister has announced. Can he confirm that the review so far has found no magic way of freezing funding of local government and local government finance, and yet maintaining services? Would not the implications of such a policy—the policy of the Conservative party—be either massive cuts or massive increases in council tax?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good point. There is no magic way of maintaining and improving services, which the public want, while at the same time making massive cuts in local authority spending, which is the policy of the Conservative party. Its policies, if pursued over the spending review period, would result in a reduction of £4.8 billion in local government spending. That would have a drastic consequence for services run by local authorities. It is precisely because we do not have any illusions about magic solutions that we have approached this whole issue in an extremely hardheaded and rigorous way, and we intend to continue that approach.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Having spent 15 months chairing this review, and sifting all the evidence, to what provisional view has the Minister come as to the correct balance of funding?
Mr. Raynsford: When the hon. Gentleman has a chance to read through the review in detail, he will see
188
that there is no single appropriate figure. The review makes the point that areas of considerable deprivation receive substantially more Government grant because of that deprivation. In evidence to the Select Committee, I quoted the London borough of Newham, which currently receives 90 per cent. of its funding from central Government. Even were the balance of funding changed from the current national average of 25:75 to 50:50, in the case of Newham, all other things being equal, its balance of funding would probably still be 20:80. There is not a magic national figure. The report acknowledges, however, the importance of trying to ensure that local government has greater accountability for its spending, and that a shift in the balance of funding would undoubtedly help to achieve that.
Mr. Patrick Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he will know, many of my constituents are keen to engage in any consultation undertaken by the independent inquiry. I know that he does not want to pre-empt the outcome, but must not three elements be addressed if we are to reform council tax properly? First, there is the regressive nature of banding. Secondly, there is the unfairness to council tax payers of the nationalisation and capping of the business rate by the Conservatives. Thirdly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that two are sufficient.
Mr. Raynsford: I well recall the lively and interesting public meeting on this subject that my hon. Friend organised in his constituency. I was delighted to have an opportunity to meet his constituents and talk about a number of the issues involved. I assure him that we are committed to continuing consultation as we proceed with our work on the balance of funding. As for banding and the future of the business rate, they will be central issues for the Lyons inquiry to consider.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the poll tax—and if there was ever fiddled funding, that was it. Why has it taken us so long to make fairer arrangements for the council tax? It is an easy enough process, involving extra bands at each end and larger steps between the bands. My hon. Friend and I will not be here in autumn 2005, and we should like the process to be completed by then.
Mr. Raynsford: First, as my hon. Friend will know, we have made a number of changes to the grant distribution formula to increase fairness. The Government have not been inactive in pursuing changes that have enhanced the fairness of the existing local government finance arrangements. Secondly, as my hon. Friend will also know, the revaluation is due to come into effect in 2007. Any changes of the order that he has described—the process is, in fact, more complex than his question implied—should be introduced according to the same timetable to avoid unnecessary turbulence and repeated alterations, which cause difficulty to both individuals and local authorities.
Mr. Clive Betts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about council tax bands and benefits, but does he accept from the review and the Select Committee that if we are to have a radical change in the balance of funding there are only two ways in which to proceed? Either there must be a shift in the amount of income that local government controls through localisation of the business rate, or there must be a reduction in the amount of spending that it controls through centralisation of control over school budgets. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of his hon. Friends would like him to take the route of increased local democracy rather than that of increased central control?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend made an important contribution to the Select Committee's report. He will know that the issues are complex, and must be approached in a measured way. I think that the report has done just that, and I am confident that the Lyons inquiry will follow in the same tradition.

Members Sworn
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:
Parmjit Singh Gill Esq., for Leicester, South Liam Byrne Esq., for Birmingham, Hodge Hill

Points of Order
2.17 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that yesterday was the last day for questions to be tabled to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State, which was drawn as Question 3. Today the Department informed me that the question had been transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry. That obviously denies me the chance to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State during oral questions.
This is important, Mr. Speaker, because of a serious issue relating to a company in my constituency that recycles the vast majority of car batteries in this country—some 99 per cent. There is a great danger that the company could be under threat as a result of a decision made by DEFRA. When I challenged the Department, it told me that the matter was not its responsibility, but that of the DTI. Not one Minister in the DTI is registered in the book of ministerial responsibilities as having responsibility for recycling, but earlier this year the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs answered two questions on the issue from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). The questions, which related directly to the recycling of batteries, were answered on 10 and 12 March.
What protection can you give Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, when Departments are deliberately trying not to answer legitimate questions tabled in the House?
Mr. Speaker: Decisions on whether to transfer questions are for Ministers, not the Speaker; but when questions relate to matters for which more than one Minister is responsible, or when responsibility is ambiguous, I expect Ministers to be very cautious about transferring oral questions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are about to have an Adjournment debate on Iraq, under Standing Order No. 24 and the succeeding Standing Orders. While that might have been appropriate a week ago, there has been a significant development since then.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to refer to his standing as a candidate.
Mr. Salmond: I might be a leader after the Prime Minister is not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]
The development is the Leader of the Opposition's decision that he can no longer support the Government's substantive position on Iraq. Under these changed circumstances, are there any remedies open to us under Standing Orders—or is it within your discretion, Mr. Speaker—to test whether the Prime Minister retains the confidence of the House on this issue, just as he has lost the confidence of the people?
Mr. Speaker: An application under Standing Order No. 24 has to be made to me before the Speaker's Conference in the morning.

Pensions (Clawbacks)
2.20 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about pension clawbacks.
I am delighted that so many Members share my interest in this issue.
It is appropriate for me to begin by defining what is meant by "clawback". Different bodies use various terms—abatement, integration or clawback—that mean the same thing, and although there are others, those are the most common. Clawback is a term used in respect of pension schemes to describe what happens when a certain amount is deducted to take account of the state pension before the pension is calculated. It can be a deduction from pensionable pay, from the pension itself, or from both. Clawback applies only to final salary schemes, in which the pension is linked to earnings at, or close to, retirement. It is not relevant to money purchase schemes, in which the pension depends on investment results.
The essence of my Bill, which is similar in scope to one enacted in the Republic of Ireland some four years ago, is that any future increase in state pension could not be clawed back. For example, if the state pension increased by £10 per week, that increase could not be clawed back in the manner of previous increases. As a result, over time the disbenefit of clawback, particularly for the low paid, would gradually disappear. This arrangement has been in place in the Republic of Ireland for some time without civilisation as we know it coming to an end.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was the Minister for Pensions, I tried to persuade him of the case for introducing such a Bill. Although he was sympathetic, he said that he was unable to put the Government's weight behind it. I pointed out the existing, potentially discriminatory effects and the impact on part-time workers, but he was stony-hearted. I also pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could well benefit through a small but significant reduction in benefit claimants. Those on low pensions would not need as much council tax relief, housing benefit subsidy or pension credit. Despite even this, my right hon. Friend remained unmoved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) took up the cudgels on behalf of the many pensioners and soon-to-be-pensioners who will be subject to clawback by organising an early-day motion and a very useful Adjournment debate. She and I have worked closely with our trade union colleagues in UNIFI, the GMB and the TUC to persuade companies to stop clawback altogether, or to effect gradual change to the benefit of scheme members. There have been successes; for example, Barclays and BP have amended their schemes. Indeed, Jim McNulty, a constituent of mine, is £1,500 a year better off as a result of our work. He is of course delighted.
I recently received a letter from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group pensioners association, which continues actively to lobby the company to stop clawback. It has had some modest success, in that the company has agreed to limit the impact on part-time

193
staff. At the company's recent annual general meeting, two pensioners lobbied the board. The public response was that the bank
"would not consider the abolition or abatement of clawback".
So there is still some work to do.
Many schemes practise clawback, but thanks to pressure from trade unions, particularly UNIFI, some schemes are now abandoning the practice altogether or, like Barclays, amending it. Individual scheme members often do not know about clawback. Not everyone reads the small print, and by the time they realise that they are subject to clawback, it is too late to make other arrangements.
The practice of clawback is quite common. According to the most recent survey by the National Association of Pension Funds, just under half of all private sector schemes include clawback; in the public sector, the figure is much less. Blue chip companies that practise clawback include British Aerospace, Cornhill, GKN, General Electric, Imperial Tobacco and Unilever.
Why does clawback matter? Scheme beneficiaries usually assume that on retirement they will be better off by the amount of the state pension, less tax. Clawback also discriminates against the lower paid, particularly part-time workers. I shall give three fictitious but worked-out examples to demonstrate the disproportionate effect on the low paid. With clawback, John, a senior manager on a £45,000 final salary with 40 years' pensionable service, would receive a pension of £27,712, which is equivalent to 61.5 per cent. of final salary. With clawback, Bob, a shop floor worker on £15,000 and with the same length of service, would receive a pension of £7,712, which is equivalent to 51 per cent. of final salary. With clawback, Cathy, a part-time cleaner on £8,000 and with the same length of service, would receive a pension of £3,045, which is equivalent to 38.1 per cent. of final salary. These typical examples show that the lower a person's pay, the more they are penalised by clawback.
Some schemes are now being run pro rata to help the lower paid and part-time workers. [Interruption.] If people realise in good time the effect of clawback on their pensions, they may be able to do something about it, such as paying additional voluntary contributions to make up the gap. If they discover the problem only upon retirement, however, it is too late and they must live on a far lower pension than they expected. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is being unfair to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Pollard: Our Government have tried to face up to the challenge of pension provision through initiatives to
194
help the least well-off pensioners. There has been further significant progress, in that company schemes now have in place a safeguard, should they cease to be able to provide payments to pensioners who are entitled to draw on them. In addition, a substantial amount of taxpayers' money has been earmarked for company schemes that have failed to help those who, in good faith, paid into such schemes over the years, believing that that was the safest way to protect themselves in retirement. One such company is Dexion, which is based in Hemel Hempstead. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who did sterling work in persuading our Government to put in place a package of help.
I recently attended a National Pensioners Convention meeting, at which we celebrated the 91st birthday of Jack Jones, who has done more for pensioners than anyone else whom I know. Also there was Rodney Bickerstaffe, who has taken Jack's place as the voice of pensioners. Both Jack and Rodney told me that they fully support our campaign to abolish clawback.
UNIFI has been the leader in the campaign to abolish clawback, and I pay tribute to Ed Sweeney, Rory Murphy and Dai Davis, who have done much to secure the limited success that has been achieved so far. Our Government have done much for pensioners, the least well off and those on company schemes that might fail in the future. They have allocated a substantial sum of taxpayers' money to alleviate the plight of those pensioners who will not benefit from the new legislation.
One further way to help hundreds of thousands of pensioners directly, without cost to the Exchequer, is to enact my Bill. It is a simple measure that is already practised successfully in the Republic of Ireland. It would help the lowest paid and part-time workers, and it could have a beneficial effect on benefit claims. It would stop future increases in the state pension being clawed back, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mr. Tony McWalter, Linda Perham, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. David Chaytor, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Harold Best and Mr. Mike Wood.

PENSIONS (CLAWBACKS)
Mr. Kerry Pollard accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about pension clawbacks: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 145].

Iraq
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 57, Lessons of Iraq, and the Government's response thereto, First Special Report of that Session, HC 635. Minutes of Evidence taken before the International Development Committee on 14th July, HC 918-i, on Iraq: the role of humanitarian agencies in post-conflict situations.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
2.29 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I shall start with the Butler report and then move on to a more general discussion of Iraq.
I said at the outset last week that I fully accepted Lord Butler's conclusions, and there are now four things that I would like to announce as a result. First, there is an urgent need to fill the post of Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and I have therefore asked Mr. William Ehrman, currently acting as a deputy chair, to take over the chairmanship of the JIC on an interim basis. He is currently director general for defence and intelligence in the Foreign Office, but he is expected to take up a further ambassadorial appointment next year. Meanwhile, the Cabinet Office will set about the task of making a permanent appointment, to take effect during 2005. That will be done fully in accordance with Lord Butler's criteria.
Secondly, prior to the war, meetings were held with an informal group, including the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, the chairman of the JIC and my foreign policy adviser. In any future situation, such a group, which brought together the key players required to work on operational military planning and developing the diplomatic strategy, will operate formally as an ad hoc Cabinet Committee.
Thirdly, the SIS has appointed a senior officer to work through the findings and recommendations of the Butler review, who will focus on the resourcing and organisation of the SIS's validation process, the relationship between the SIS and the JIC and its relationship with the Defence Intelligence Staff. We welcome the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will monitor progress in those areas.
Fourthly, any future presentation of intelligence will separate the JIC assessment and the Government case and import any JIC caveats into it. We accept those conclusions and will act upon them.
I want to move on now to the quite different point that by omitting the caveats, we set out to deceive people—[Interruption.]
Harry Cohen: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, will he pick up the points made by Brian Jones, the senior defence analyst, who said that he was not given the opportunity to see what was described as "compelling new evidence", which turned out to be extremely important? Presumably, as a result of that, my right hon. Friend was not given the chance to see Mr. Jones's objections. The responsibility for not showing the new evidence falls to the head of Defence Intelligence Staff and his deputy,
196
who presumably did see it. That information has since been withdrawn from the dossier, so should not the head of those services and his deputy now resign?
The Prime Minister: For the reasons that Lord Butler gives in his report, my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Defence Intelligence Staff should show such documents in future—and this may well be one of the changes that takes place. I would say to my hon. Friend that none of the disagreements that Dr. Jones had with specific items in the dossier actually came to the JIC or the Government. That is not to say that they were not important, but the fact is that they did not come before the Government. As a result of the changes that we intend to make, such a thing will not happen again in future.
Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let me make one other point to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), which I will elaborate in greater detail later.
The intelligence—I will take the House to the JIC assessments in a moment—really left little doubt about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. That was the issue—[Interruption.] I am going to read the JIC assessments to the House. The intelligence left little doubt about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction and made it absolutely clear that we were entirely entitled to go back to the UN and say that there was a continuing threat from Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Beith: Dr. Jones minuted his concern on the matter that has just been referred to. The Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that there should be a clear and formal procedure to ensure that such a minute reached the Joint Intelligence Committee, which it did not do in this case. Will the Prime Minister go a little further than he did when he responded to the ISC by making it clear that there is such a procedure, that staff know what it is and that important notes of dissent must be seen by the JIC?
The Prime Minister: Without presuming exactly what the SIS and DIS will come to as an understanding of what should go to the JIC, I would have thought that what the right hon. Gentleman said follows naturally from the Butler report. In those circumstances, it would be sensible for such notes of questioning—it is important to remember that the whole of the dossier was not questioned by any means; only a particular part of it—to go to the JIC.
Mr. Salmond rose—
The Prime Minister: I am going to make some progress first.
Much has been made of the fact that one JIC assessment said that intelligence was "sporadic and patchy". Let me just take the House to the JIC assessment on page 163 onwards of the Butler report. Let me say first of all that this was the JIC assessment

197
of March 2002—in other words, six months before the dossier was actually produced, and there was, of course, more intelligence produced in the meantime. Let me quote the paragraph more fully. It states:
"Intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction… and ballistic missile programmes is sporadic and patchy."
It goes on to say:
"Iraq is also well practised in the art of deception such as concealment and exaggeration. A complete picture of the various programmes is therefore difficult."
That is true. It goes on, however, to say:
"But it is clear that Iraq continues to pursue a policy of acquiring WMD and their delivery means."
The key judgments on the following pages can be read. I shall not list them all. Some of the judgments were that Iraq retained up to 20 A1 Hussein ballistic missiles, that it had begun development of medium-range ballistic missiles over 1,000 km, that it was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, and so on and so forth in relation to chemical and biological weapons. Those are the key judgments that I received.
If we move on to the 9 September JIC assessment, we see precisely the same. Again, criticism was made of the fact that I said that it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that the intelligence picture in the dossier was "extensive, detailed and authoritative". I simply refer people again to those key judgments. The first judgment was:
"Iraq has a … chemical and biological weapons capability",
and Saddam was prepared to use it. It goes on to detail in highly authoritative terms the various aspects of his weapons of destruction programme.
The point that I want to make is this. That was the assessment that we were getting from the JIC. To hear much of the talk now, we might think that it was a startling assessment which people found odd at the time. One might have thought that people would say that it was curious, that they did not know about Saddam and that type of thing. Actually, that was the view of the entire international community, then expressed in resolution 1441. It followed 12 years of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, defiance of the UN, concealment, discovery and military action—in 1998, for example. No one doubted that he had intent, programmes and actual weapons and was therefore in breach of UN resolutions.
Mr. David Cameron rose—
Lynne Jones rose—
The Prime Minister: I wanted to make some progress, but I will give way to my hon. Friend and come back to the hon. Gentleman later, if he will forgive me.
Lynne Jones: On the eve of war—not six months, nine months or 12 months before—the Attorney-General required the Prime Minister to be satisfied that there were strong factual grounds and hard evidence that Iraq was not in compliance with resolution 1441. Was the
198
Prime Minister in no doubt that such strong factual grounds and hard evidence existed at the time? If so, why?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I was, for the very reason that I have just given in citing the JIC assessments. I also have to say to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that Lord Butler's report has been discussed as if he, Lord Butler, actually found that there was no WMD threat from Saddam Hussein at all, but he did not find that. I refer people to paragraph 41 of Lord Butler's conclusions, where it makes it clear that Saddam had the strategic intent and the illicit procurement of materials and was developing ballistic missiles in defiance of UN resolutions. In other words, it would have been entirely open to us, even on this evidence, to say that he was in breach of UN resolutions.
Mr. Cameron rose—
Clare Short rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, then to my right hon. Friend, and then I am going to make some progress.
Mr. Cameron: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, why does he think that Lord Butler concludes in paragraph 465 that it was
"a serious weakness that the JIC's warnings on the limitations underlying its judgements were not made sufficiently clear in the dossier"?
Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for that?
The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I take responsibility for that, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lord Butler also finds that, in general, the dossier reflects the JIC assessments. I ask hon. Members to read those assessments, and to imagine for a moment that they are the Prime Minister receiving them—[Interruption.] I know that only a limited number of people will think in that way. On the basis of the assessments, it would be concluded, clearly, that Saddam Hussein was a WMD threat, and that he had intent, programmes and actual weapons. That much is clear from what is said in the assessments.
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short).
Clare Short: I am grateful to the Prime Minister, but the aim of the resolution was to secure disarmament, backed by the threat of force authorised by the UN. It was supported by the whole international community because there was a general sense that the regime was trying to acquire WMD and the means of their delivery, and that there was a threat that was so urgent that we could not allow Blix to complete his job. That divided the international community, with all the consequences that flowed from it. Where did my right hon. Friend get that information? Why was Blix not allowed enough time? Butler does not suggest that there was any reason for that judgment.
The Prime Minister: I shall deal with that point, which is important. Some of the discussion has proceeded on

199
the basis that we published the dossier on 24 September and went to war on 25 September. We did not: the dossier was not the basis on which we went to war, but the basis on which we went to the UN. That is what we did. As a result of going to the UN, we got resolution 1441—which, incidentally, accepted on behalf of the whole international community that Saddam Hussein was a WMD threat who had to be dealt with. People may ignore that now, but that is precisely what the resolution said.
In resolution 1441, we said that there had to be full compliance—I think that the word "unconditional" was used—with the UN inspectors. The plain fact is, there was no such compliance. To answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood directly, I agree that it would have been better to let the inspectors have more time, provided that we had a UN resolution for them to operate under which laid down a clear ultimatum to Saddam that action would follow if he did not comply with the benchmarks that I agreed with Hans Blix at the time. However, as I think I explained to my right hon. Friend at the time, the problem was that some other countries made it clear that they would not accept any resolution containing an ultimatum.
There is no way that Saddam would ever have allowed the inspectors back in without the troops down there. The House should recall that he refused to have inspectors in Iraq for four years, and only let them in because the troops were down there. We knew that he was not complying properly with the UN resolutions. How did we know that? Because that is what the UN inspectors told us in their reports to the UN.
I therefore pose this question: without an ultimatum that says, "Here is what you have to do. If you do not do it, action will follow", does anyone seriously think that Saddam would have complied? I strove hard to secure a second resolution, and thought that we could have got it. I tried to set the right benchmarks. I said to the Americans at the time, "We need more time to let Blix do his work, provided that there is an ultimatum." If we had had no ultimatum, the result would have been simply a continuation of what we had been doing for 12 years. That is, we would have allowed Saddam a certain amount of leeway, he would have made a few concessions and then carried on with his original intentions.
Mr. Mike Hancock rose—
Clare Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way again on that point?
The Prime Minister: I will give way again to my right hon. Friend, as it is important to deal with the point that she is making.
Clare Short: In his book, Dr. Blix makes it absolutely clear that the majority of the Security Council, including the non-permanent members and France, Germany and Russia, were willing to have benchmarks and a deadline, and to say that inspections should not continue. However, they were not willing to accept a resolution that meant that Britain and the US would decide whether that resolution had been adhered to. My right
200
hon. Friend threw away the possibility of united international action on the request for automaticity. That is the reality of the situation.
The Prime Minister: I am always a little worried by what people say in books after the event, as opposed to what actually happened at the time. I have no doubt that I will repeat that on many occasions in the future. However, one thing that my right hon. Friend is saying is simply wrong. France would not accept any ultimatum. That was said to me on the telephone, and it was made clear publicly.
I think that I am right in saying that France did not agree the benchmarks at the time, but let us suppose that we had got over that problem. I agree that, with negotiation, we might have succeeded in securing the benchmarks. Yes, they might have contained a timeline for Blix to carry on his work, but without an ultimatum there was no real chance for people to believe that Saddam would have acceded to our demands.
I think that it would be instructive for people to go back and read the debate of 18 March 2003. That debate was not about the dossier, which was barely mentioned, but about the consequences of resolution 1441. At the time of the debate, we knew that Saddam was not complying with that resolution properly, and that we could not secure another resolution with an ultimatum in it. So what were we to do? We could have backed away—or we could have decided to make sure, this time, that Saddam was incapable in the future of developing WMD, as he had every intention of doing. I still think that we made the right decision.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Prime Minister give way?
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
The Prime Minister: I will give way to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), and then to my hon. Friend. Then I must make some progress, or no one else will have a chance to speak.
Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister, who has been extraordinarily generous in giving way. Will he confirm that, between the dossier's publication and this country's entry into conflict, he was receiving ongoing intelligence assessments, on much of which there could be no collaboration? Did any senior member of the British intelligence service advise the Prime Minister that he should be cautious about the interpretation that he placed on the evidence of the intelligence community, in this country and the US?
The Prime Minister: The JIC assessments are set out in Butler. However, the UN resolution accepted as a fact that Saddam was a WMD threat. Once that was secured, the question was whether we would enforce the UN resolutions, or not. Our intelligence community—like the UN and, as far as I am aware, most intelligence services in the world—certainly believed that Saddam had WMD weapons, capability and intent.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister: I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), but then I must make progress. I am sorry about that.
Mr. Savidge: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Am I not correct in thinking that Dr. Blix communicated to the Prime Minister the fact that the inspectors believed that they were getting a far greater degree of co-operation than ever before? Admittedly that was under the pressure of a military threat, but does that not mean that it could have been worth giving the inspectors time to complete their job and to prove what we have now found?
The Prime Minister: At some point I may go into all the detailed conversations that I had with Dr. Blix. However, the basic position was that the inspectors told me that there was some co-operation, but that there was not full co-operation. The problem is that that is precisely what the Iraqi regime had offered before. If one goes back over the 12 years of Saddam Hussein and of the whole saga with the UN, one finds that it was not the case that he never co-operated with the inspectors. From time to time he would co-operate, usually when there was a threat of military action.
I remember that it was in February 1998 that we first gave Saddam a strong and clear indication that military action would follow if he did not co-operate. As a result, he started to co-operate a bit more, and there was an elaborate dance throughout the rest of the year. Finally, in December 1998, the inspectors were not able to get access to some of the places that they wanted to see. They left, and effectively we took military action to try and do what we could to deal with the threat that was posed.
Saddam Hussein, however, was never prepared to co-operate fully—and I think that the reasons for that are to he found in the Butler report. Whatever the truth in respect of readily deployable weapons was, part of the trouble is that people have gone to the opposite extreme. They say that there was nothing there at all and that there was no threat. That that was not the case is absolutely clear, and some of the intelligence remains entirely valid. It was absolutely clear that he had every intention of carrying on developing those weapons, that he was procuring materials to do so and—for example, in respect of ballistic missiles—he was going way beyond what was permitted by the United Nations.
I return to the central point. There was little doubt about the breach of UN resolutions, and in the debate on 18 March 2003 the House rightly took the view that there was no way that he would co-operate fully, and therefore that we had to take military action.
Mr. Michael Howard: The Prime Minister appears to be leaving the question of what he told the country about the intelligence. He has referred, briefly, to the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments. They all make it clear, in terms, that the intelligence on which they were based was sporadic,
202
patchy, little and limited. Why did the Prime Minister say that the intelligence was extensive, detailed and authoritative?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have been asleep earlier in the debate, for which I apologise. The phrase "sporadic and patchy" appeared in the assessment dated 15 March 2002. He keeps trying to suggest that it appeared in the later assessment: it did not. It was in the earlier assessment. In the assessment of 9 September 2002, it does say that the intelligence remains limited, but the JIC then goes on to make its judgments. If necessary, I shall read them all out to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] All right.
The first states:
"Iraq has a chemical and biological weapons capability and Saddam is prepared to use it."
It continues:
"Faced with the likelihood of military defeat and being removed from power, Saddam is unlikely to be deterred from using chemical and biological weapons by any diplomatic or military means."
I am going on and on—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."] Let me give two other judgments that are relevant:
"we judge that … Iraq currently has available, either from pre Gulf War stocks or more recent production, a number of biological warfare … and chemical warfare … agents and weapons",
and that
"even if stocks of chemical and biological weapons are limited, they would allow for focused strikes against key military targets or for strategic purposes (such as a strike against Israel or Kuwait)".
The judgment then details that point over many pages.
I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is absurd to suggest that anyone, given that JIC assessment, would have said, "Saddam Hussein? Weapons of mass destruction? I don't think that's much of a problem."
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that that is not what I was suggesting. He has read out the conclusions of the assessments: I am asking about the nature of the intelligence on which those conclusions were based. The assessments were themselves stated to be on the basis of intelligence that was sporadic and patchy, little and limited. The Prime Minister told the country that the basis of the intelligence
"is extensive, detailed and authoritative."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 3.]
That was wrong. Why did he say that to the country?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept that that was wrong. I do not want to read it all over again, so—even better—I shall read what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Well, I have to say to Opposition Members that the judgments of the committee are the key things. If it judged that Iraq had a WMD capability and actual weapons, what Prime Minister would have said, "That may be what the committee judges and concludes, but I am going to come to a different conclusion"? Imagine what would have happened afterwards had the threat
materialised.

203
I raise what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said because in the past few days he has tried to suggest that somehow the Conservatives—no, that is unfair, because many Opposition Members voted for the war on the basis that they did, and still support the war. I understand that, so I shall deal specifically with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not often read the Kentish Express, but on this occasion I have done so. On the day of the debate on the war, he said:
"Why is Saddam Hussein a threat to us here in the United Kingdom? Four years ago Iraq had tons of anthrax and the nerve agent VX. These deadly materials are easily transported and easily hidden. There has been no convincing explanation as to what has happened to them."
He did not say that on the basis of the intelligence in the dossier: it was the same reason we had supported action the whole time.
I come to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said after the war. I read the other day some of the things that he said to the News Corporation in March this year—after the Hutton report and after all the issues had been raised. I have managed to find out a little bit more about that speech. He said:
"We must remember that it was not the overthrow of Saddam that spawned terrorism and instability. Quite the reverse. It was the failure of the West to act decisively again and again in the late 1990s, in the face of threats and provocation, that emboldened the terrorists and the rogue states. That failure must never be repeated … The war against Iraq was necessary. It was just. It was, indeed, arguably overdue. And, let us not forget, it was overwhelmingly successful—a judgement which subsequent difficulties do not change."
He continued:
"Of course … Iraq has become the frontline in the War against Terror … I have no doubt that if the West maintains its resolution, Iraq will be a much better place than it was under Saddam."
[Interruption.] I shall tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what my point is. It is that we will not maintain our resolution by pretending that we would not have voted for the motion that saw us go to war. It is absurd to suggest that he or the shadow Foreign Secretary were in two minds about Iraq, were not quite sure, sat around scratching their heads wondering whether it was a threat or not, and were then persuaded by me that it was. To be fair, the previous Leader of the Opposition warned, in my view rightly, about the threat of Saddam Hussein long before I did.
It is time the right hon. and learned Gentleman realised that shabby opportunism is not the solution to his problem: it is his problem. The public will respect people who were honestly for the war and they will respect people who were honestly against the war: they will not respect a politician who says that he is for and against the war in the same newspaper article.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed rose—
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
The Prime Minister: I give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
Dr. Lewis: I am one of those who supported the war before, during and after it, and I continue to do so. What
204
I do not support is the discrediting of our intelligence services by the exaggeration of the intelligence that was available. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why GCHQ, our largest intelligence agency, is barely mentioned in the Butler report? Was there any signals intelligence and, if so, what was it and why was it not mentioned in the report?
The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that last question, but I shall find the answer and tell the hon. Gentleman. It is unfair to say that of our intelligence services. They do a fantastic job for this country and the judgments that they made were thoroughly justified on the basis of the intelligence at the time. The hon. Gentleman rightly and fairly said that he would still support the war. So would I, because not all the intelligence has turned out to be wrong. If what Lord Butler says in paragraph 41 is correct, there is ample justification in the breaches of UN resolutions. In the light of what we know, is it really credibly claimed that it would have been better to leave Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq in circumstances in which—as we know perfectly well—he had every intention of carrying on with his WMD ambitions?
Mr. Sayeed rose—
Mr. John Bercow rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Mr. Bercow: Given the real statesmanship that the Prime Minister showed in March last year in recognising the need to combat Saddam and in prosecuting a necessary war—which is to his enormous and lasting credit—is he prepared to concede that he made any errors?
The Prime Minister: Of course, which is why I said, at the very beginning, these are the things the Butler report identified that we should change. I fully accept those things. What I do not accept is that it was a mistake to go to war. It was the right thing to do and I still believe it was the right thing to do.
As for Iraq itself, let us agree on this: our armed forces have been superb. They fought the war brilliantly and they are conducting the peace brilliantly. Today, we should thank not only them but their families, who have supported them through these long months.
Never let us forget what Iraq was: a brutalised state, run by a mixture of terror and execution. Never let us forget either that, for all the difficulties, Iraq now has the prospect of progress. It is true that the terrorism continues. Incidentally, occasionally reports of civilian casualties read as though they were somehow caused by the coalition, but as far as I am aware the civilians who have died in Iraq in the past year have been overwhelmingly the victims of terrorist attacks. The terrorism is to an increasing degree, according to the Iraqi Government, the work of outside terrorists.
I draw the House's attention to paragraph 483 of Lord Butler's report, which I do not think got much publicity on the day, where he describes not active co-operation between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime, but

205
links between al-Qaeda and Iraqi officials, as well as the fact that prior to Saddam falling, al-Zarqawi moved into Baghdad and set up sleeper cells with the possibility, as we now know, of conducting terrorist attacks. That much of the intelligence has been all too accurate.
Mr. Beith: To be activated during US occupation?
The Prime Minister: Before the United States went to Iraq.
We know that Iraq's curse is terrorism and the battle for security, but given some of the coverage about what is happening in Iraq at present, we should also recognise that the blessings from the fall of Saddam are indeed great. The money from Iraq's oil, expected to be about $18 billion a year, now goes to help Iraq and not Saddam and his family and his WMD ambitions. There is a proper currency. According to the International Monetary Fund, the economy will grow this year by 33 per cent. Public sector salaries have trebled in many cases. The schools and hospitals are open, and are now not just for Ba'ath party members. There are free media.
It is also worth pointing out what our troops are managing to achieve in Basra. In Basra province alone, there will be about 35 local elections over the coming weeks. The first, in az-Zubayr last week, resulted in the election of three women to the council; that was a proper, democratic election.
A proper courts system is being introduced. Six Iraqi Ministers are women and one in four of the delegates to the Assembly next year will be female. There is freedom of worship. Shi'as formerly prevented from visiting holy shrines are now able to do so.
None of that means that Iraq will be built easily; of course it will take time, as it has done for any country in similar circumstances over the years. Today, however, Iraq at least has a future within its grasp, and although it is correct that the liberation of Iraq from Saddam was not the legal case for war, it was, as I said frequently at the time—indeed, most notably in the debate on 18 March—why we should go to war with a clear conscience and a strong heart. Removing Saddam was not a war crime; it was an act of liberation for the Iraqi people.
Mr. Sayeed rose—
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way.
The Prime Minister: Of course, in the short term, the problem of security and of cleaning up the utterly degraded country that was Saddam's Iraq is a huge challenge, but one thing that people have missed is that the very scale of the challenge says an immense amount
206
about the scale of Saddam's misrule and the threat he posed. Such a country ruled by such a tyrant should never be allowed anywhere near weapons of mass destruction. Any risk of his developing or using them was a risk never worth taking, and in the conflict today I ask the House how there can be any scintilla of hesitation about which side—
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Prime Minister give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order—
Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
The Prime Minister rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister should be seated. I have already told the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that the Prime Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister: That makes two of us.
I repeat that there should be no scintilla of hesitation about which side we should be on.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No, I am sorry. I am sure that other people want to speak in the debate.
On one side are assorted former Saddam gangsters, religious extremists and terrorists; on the other are the Iraqi people, the outside coalition and the United Nations. To me, the interesting thing is that the terrorists know what is at stake. Why do people think al-Qaeda is in Iraq? Why are al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam there? I believe they are there because they know it is the front line in the war against terrorism today, and they know that for the same reason as we should know it: if they succeed, Iraq cannot prove to the world that democracy is for the middle east, too, and that religious tolerance is what most Muslims, as well as Christians, want. It cannot show that Arab and westerner can live in harmony. But the terrorists know also that, if they fail and Iraq succeeds, Iraq will hold out hope not just to millions of Iraqis but throughout the region and the wider middle east.
So whether we are for the war or against it—or even somewhere in between—today's struggle is one in which no one should be neutral. That is why the new Iraqi Government and our British troops and British civil and public servants, doing their job in Iraq alongside our allies from the United States and elsewhere, deserve our total support.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No, I am sorry.

207
If people read the letter from Dr. Allawi, published only the other day, they will see that he set out the authentic voice of Iraq and its future—what Iraq can now become.
Whatever mistakes have been made, my view is: let us rejoice that Iraq can indeed have such—[Interruption.] Yes, let us be pleased that Iraq is liberated and can have such a future and let us now work together, whatever the disagreements of the past, to help it secure that future.
3.7 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: There is no more awesome responsibility for a Prime Minister than the decision to take the country to war, and that is what we are debating today. As we discuss these issues, I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the thousands of British servicemen and women who still face the daily challenge of bringing peace to Iraq. We are indeed all enormously proud of them and of their families. We remember those from our country, and from others, who were killed or injured, including the very many Iraqis who have suffered. It is part of our responsibility to ensure that those sacrifices were not made in vain.
There are three issues before the House this afternoon: first, the justification for the war: secondly, what happened after the war; and thirdly, what the country was told before the war.
On the justification for the war, there are many areas of agreement between the Prime Minister and me. We both believe it was the right thing to do. Saddam Hussein was a real threat to peace in the region. He had indeed acquired and used weapons of mass destruction in the past and he had the potential to do so in the future. He had flouted a whole series of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Many people in the House and in our country did not support the war. I respect their sincerely held view but ultimately I do not agree with them.
Kevin Brennan: Many of us who voted against the war certainly respect the views and good faith of those who voted in favour of it, but what are we supposed to make of someone who says he was, and still is, in favour of the war, yet wishes he had voted against it?
Mr. Howard: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that he voted against the motion. Let me remind him and the House of what the motion before the House on 18 March said—[Interruption.] I voted for the motion, but as it may be some time since hon. Members read it, let me remind them of what it says. That motion began by recognising that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles posed a threat to international peace. It went on to support the Government's decision to use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now, we know that those weapons were not there. The Prime Minister said so last week. So of course it is the case that, had I known then what I know now, I would not have been able to vote for that motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister got a proper hearing. Allow the Leader of the Opposition to get a hearing.
Mr. Howard: I am replying to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). I do not see how any hon. Member, had they known then what we know now, could have voted for that motion. I do not see how the Prime Minister could have voted for that motion. That does not mean that I do not think that the war was justified—I do, as I have repeatedly made it clear.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for what he said on 19 March this year:
"Whatever my disagreements with Tony Blair, any government that I lead will not flinch in its determination to win the War against Terror, wherever it has to be fought."
I commend him for saying that, but the word "flinch" is interesting for those who study linguistics. Its origins are French, and it can be used in the sense of to slink or to sneak away.
Mr. Howard: I stand by entirely what I said on 19 March. Indeed, I would not flinch, but I happen to think that the reasons why we vote in the House are of some importance. I happen to think that the wording of the motions on which we vote are of importance. That is why I have said what I have said about the motion that was before the House on 18 March.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak. Is he giving way to an hon. Member?
Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward).
Claire Ward: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believed at the time that he voted for the war that Saddam Hussein was a threat, had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and, given any opportunity, would do so again, why has he changed his view? Is it simply because the bandwagon of opportunism came along and he jumped on board?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady ought to look at what the motion that I voted for said. That is the point that I am raising.
Mr. Sayeed: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He knows that many supported the war in the belief that there was an imminent threat from missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction and that articles appeared in the Standard and The Sun supporting that interpretation. Indeed, The Sun headline of 25 September read, "Brits 45 minutes from doom." So, first, does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether anyone associated with the Government

209
briefed the Standard or The Sun on that interpretation of the dossier, and secondly, as senior Ministers knew that such an assertion was wrong before the debate on 18 March that authorised war, should not a Minister have come to the Commons and explained that that assertion was wrong?
Mr. Howard: I am coming to the 45-minute claim later on in my speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Far too many hon. Members are standing. Allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue with his speech.
Mr. Howard: I shall give way once more and then I must make progress.
Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but on the subject of the motion voted on in the House, does he accept that many hon. Members had a wide range of views on why we voted for war? On his view on WMD, does he accept that Butler himself said that it would be foolish to assume now that WMD do not exist?
Mr. Howard: Butler says that, but very few people—[Interruption.] Well, does the hon. Lady seriously think that weapons of mass destruction will still be found in Iraq? That is the question. Does the Prime Minister still think that weapons of mass destruction are still likely to be found in Iraq? Of course not. That is why I say that, if we had known then what we know now, we would not have been able to vote for the motion that was before the House on 18 March. I am now going to make progress. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call for order once again. I may ask the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) to leave the Chamber. In fact, I might demand that he do so.
Mr. Howard: I have acknowledged that there are many people who do not share my view that the war was justified, but despite our differences, I think that most hon. Members agree that the people of Iraq—I agree with the Prime Minister—are far better off now that Saddam Hussein has gone. We know that we must now see this through, and the prize of a stable and sustainable Iraq is well worth striving for. Like the Prime Minister, I believe, too, that while enormous challenges remain, real progress has been made in Iraq, but we must all acknowledge that, since the overthrow of Saddam, mistakes have been made and some of them have been serious.
One of the most serious mistakes was the failure to prepare for the aftermath of the war. Six months before the war even began, we were pressing the Government to draw up a plan for post-war Iraq. Everyone knows that there was no such plan. The Iraqi army and police were disbanded with nothing to take their place; borders were not made secure; and there was a collapse of law
210
and order in Baghdad. No one is suggesting that there were easy answers to those very difficult problems, but it would have been less difficult if there had been a plan.
Clare Short: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I think that it is now a matter of record that there was a detailed plan in the State Department—very detailed, lengthy and considered—but it was swept to one side when responsibility was given to the Pentagon, which had made insufficient preparation. That is what really happened.
Mr. Howard: I quite understand the basis on which the right hon. Lady says what she says. It is certainly true that the responsibility for the failure to draw up a plan does not rest with the British Government alone, but in the run-up to the war, the British Government were in a position of great strength. We were by a long way the second largest contingent in the coalition forces. We had stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States. We were in a position to make our voice heard. We were in a position to insist, in the circumstances described by the right hon. Lady, that a proper post-war plan was prepared and put into action. We should have done so, but we did not. Had we done so, I believe that at least some of the difficulties that have arisen in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad could have been avoided.
Tony Baldry: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the evidence of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who says:
"with hindsight the proper preparations were not made for what evolved on the ground in Iraq … relative deficiency in analysis and prediction of what was going to happen created effects in the immediate post-conflict period which allowed a much worse security situation to evolve than should have been the case"?
Of course, Sir Jeremy was, at the material time, our ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. He is, of course, quite right and so was Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
Few of us would doubt that the most appalling and deeply damaging thing that has happened since the fall of Baghdad was the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. It was deeply humiliating for the victims. It has done long-lasting damage to the reputation of the west and it has gravely undermined our moral authority. The circumstances surrounding the timing and extent of the British Government's knowledge of what had gone on are covered in confusion. Just over two months ago, when the story broke, the Prime Minister assured the House that neither he nor his Ministers were aware of those allegations. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not be interested in what went on in Abu Ghraib prison, but their constituents will be and those Members should be. The assurance that the Prime Minister gave was wrong. We now know that the Minister responsible at the Foreign Office was told about the allegations nearly two months earlier at a meeting with the president of the Red Cross, so the Foreign Office Minister knew but the Prime Minister did not know and was not told. Why not?

211
That was not the only issue that the Prime Minister did not know about. He did not know that vital evidence was kept from Lord Hutton's inquiry. In February, he assured the House:
"Everything that was relevant to the inquiry was made available to Lord Hutton … I do not believe that there is anything that we concealed from that inquiry".—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 768.]
He said twice that Lord Hutton saw all the intelligence there was to see on the 45-minute claim. The Butler report makes it clear that those statements were not correct.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I want to finish this point.
We now know as a result of the Butler report that two crucial intelligence reports on chemical and biological weapons, to which the 45-minute claim related, had been withdrawn in July 2003. MI6 knew that, the Joint Intelligence Committee knew it, but Lord Hutton was not told. The Intelligence and Security Committee was not told and, apparently, the Prime Minister did not know. Why not?
Mr. Barry Sheerman: In retrospect, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks about the intelligence, does he think about what Lord Butler said—that the intelligence services were totally under-resourced, that that affected their performance and that under-resourcing went back to when he was a member of the Cabinet in 1995, when the Conservative Administration cut the intelligence services' budget by 25 per cent?
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports have been in power for seven years. If there were anything that needed to be put right, they have had ample time to put it right. I do not see how that excuses the failure to tell Lord Hutton's inquiry and the Intelligence and Security Committee about the fact that the intelligence had been withdrawn, which we now know from the Butler report.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: No; I want to make some progress.
MI6 knew that the intelligence had been withdrawn. The Joint Intelligence Committee knew that the intelligence had been withdrawn, but Lord Hutton was not told. The Intelligence and Security Committee was not told and again, apparently, the Prime Minister did not know. Why not?
Nor did the Prime Minister know that the 45-minute claim only referred to battlefield weapons and not to long-range missiles, a fact that we only discovered thanks to careful questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). The Prime Minister was forced to admit then that, unlike the Secretary of State for Defence, he did not know and had not been told. Why not? Why was it that the Prime Minister did not know and was not told any of those vital things?
212
Part of the reason for that serial ignorance stems from the way in which the Prime Minister runs things. On that issue, the criticisms made by the Butler committee are damning. As Lord Butler says, important decisions should be taken after "informed, collective political judgment". Lord Butler also points out that
"without papers circulated in advance it remains possible, but it is obviously much more difficult, for members of the Cabinet to bring their political judgment and experience to bear on the major decisions for which the Cabinet as a whole must carry responsibility".
Judging from comments by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) last week, when papers were prepared Cabinet Ministers were not even shown them. As he told the "Today" programme,
"I'm astonished to learn from the Butler Report that there were papers prepared for us but never circulated to us and I would like to know why".
In the last paragraph of his report, Lord Butler concluded that
"the informality and circumscribed character of the Government's procedures … reduce the scope for informed, collective political judgment",
or, in plain English, procedures in Downing street are such a shambles that proper decision making is impossible.
We should be clear about the implications of all this. This way of decision taking is not accidental. It is not a coincidence. It is the result of a deliberate set of decisions by a Prime Minister who thinks that he does not need, and certainly does not want, informed collective political judgment.
Mike Gapes: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to paragraph 611 of the conclusions of Lord Butler's report, which states:
"We do not suggest that there is or should be an ideal or unchangeable system of collective Government, still less that procedures are in aggregate any less effective now than in earlier times."
Does he agree?
Mr. Howard: I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads on and comes to the last paragraph of the recommendations, he will find that the picture presented is somewhat different.
The consequences of all this are there for us all to see. That leads to the third issue at stake today: what the country was told in the run-up to the war. Last week, I set out in the House the contrast between the intelligence available to the Prime Minister and what he told the country. I did so in the context of what he said on 25 January:
"the issue vis-à-vis my integrity is: did we receive the intelligence and was it properly relayed to people?"
The intelligence he received was seriously flawed. Lord Butler made serious criticisms of the validation process of MI6. It is vital that the weaknesses that he identified are fully remedied. We shall study the decisions that the Prime Minister announced in his remarks earlier and see what assessment to make of the extent to which they are likely to remedy those weaknesses.
The other issue visa vis the Prime Minister's integrity, in his own words, is: was the intelligence "properly relayed to people"? In March 2002, as has been pointed

213
out, the Joint Intelligence Committee said that the intelligence was "sporadic and patchy". In August that year, the Joint Intelligence Committee said that it had "little intelligence". In September, it said that the intelligence was "limited", yet on 24 September 2002 the Prime Minister told the House that the picture painted by the intelligence services was "extensive, detailed and authoritative".
The Prime Minister read out from the conclusions of the reports. The question is: what was the intelligence basis for those conclusions? Was the intelligence on which those conclusions were based patchy, sporadic, limited and little, or was it, as he told the country, "extensive, detailed and authoritative"? There is an enormous difference between the two and he has yet to explain, and he certainly did not explain this afternoon, the basis for his statement. Nowhere in the reports of the Joint Intelligence Committee was there any basis for the Prime Minister's assertion that the intelligence was "extensive, detailed and authoritative".
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I have given way very generously and I want—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Howard: That is why the Prime Minister's credibility is at stake today. As I said last week, I hope that Britain will not face another war in the foreseeable future but, if we do, and the Prime Minister identified the threat, the question remains: would anyone believe him?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he is not giving way.
Mr. Howard: We all know now that, when it came to the Iraq war, the qualified judgments of the intelligence services became the unqualified certainties of the Prime Minister. Last week, I asked the Prime Minister to explain exactly why. He studiously failed to answer that question and he has refused to answer it again today. I think that this House and the country deserve an answer. We are entitled to know why the Prime Minister said what he did.
The Prime Minister says that he accepts full personal responsibility for the way in which the issue was presented and for any errors that were made, but what does that actually mean? He still has not told us what errors he thinks he has made. He has not told us why he made them, and he has not told us what steps he has taken to ensure that they will not happen again. Without answers to those vital questions, how can this House be sure that those lessons will be learned and that the things that went wrong will be put right?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Is he saying to the House that he believes that he and I, and those who voted as we did on 18 March 2003, were deliberately deceived?
Mr. Howard: I will answer my hon. Friend. I think that the Prime Minister thought throughout that he was acting in the best interests of the country. I have absolutely no doubt about that, but what he told us about the basis for the intelligence was different from what the intelligence told him. Before I can answer my hon. Friend's question, I want to know how that difference came about and why it came about. When the Prime Minister has answered that question—I have put it to him several times and he has yet to answer it—I will
be able to answer the question put by my hon. Friend.
It is now clear that, in many ways, the intelligence services got it wrong, but their assessments included serious caveats, qualifications and cautions. When presenting his case to the country, the Prime Minister chose to leave out those caveats, qualifications and cautions, and as a result the country was given a misleading impression of what the intelligence services had said. So why will he not just come clean? Why will he not tell us why he did it? Why will he not just give the country the facts?
The Prime Minister once said that he was a pretty straight kind of guy, but he has not been straight with the British people today. Why is it that, for this Prime Minister, sorry seems to be the hardest word?
3.32 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The immediate background to both the Butler report and today's debate remains a war that we did not believe was necessary, that we could not support and that we believe has gone on to do lasting international damage to our country's interests. That is our fundamental starting point, however deep, but none the less principled, the disagreements may be with the Government.
Whatever our respective viewpoints were about this war, none of us can ever erase the fact that the lives of brave and loyal British personnel and civilians have been lost—and as we have seen again in the past day or two they continue to be lost, along with the lives of countless and, perhaps most disgracefully of all, uncounted, Iraqi civilians. That legacy will never be forgotten.
Our principal point of disagreement and departure from the Government's position over the war was clear from the outset, and remains clear. Our issue is: were the political judgments involved the correct ones and were we led into the war on what constituted a false prospectus? We believe that those all-important political judgments were the wrong judgments and that the case for war was fatally flawed. The justifications that were presented at the time, and the way in which they were presented, are the fundamental point of dispute. The central core is that issue of political judgment, and in the aftermath of the war we have all witnessed a profound loss of public trust in both the Prime Minister and his Government, very largely as a result.

215
In so many respects, Lord Butler's report has raised as many questions as it has answered. I do not find that highly surprising, given the very specific, tightly drawn remit that was set for Lord Butler by the Prime Minister. The fact that the Prime Minister specifically excluded a proper public assessment of those political judgments led me and colleagues to conclude that we should not participate in the work of the report. Indeed, the Prime Minister put it to me across the Floor of the House when he announced the setting up of the Butler inquiry that
"to subcontract to some committee the issue of whether it was right or wrong to go to war is not merely wrong: ultimately it is profoundly undemocratic."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 755.]
In the absence of Butler and his colleagues being able to make such an assessment, the only outlet for public judgment thus far has been the ballot box. Both last month and in the two parliamentary by-elections last week, people have given their answers. Their verdicts must to a significant extent—although not exclusively—contain a public reflection on the merits of the war.
In the run-up to the war, I repeatedly asked the Prime Minister at Question Time what, if any, circumstances would lead him into support for, or indeed opposition to, a US-led invasion of Iraq that did not have the explicit sanction and mandate of the United Nations. As hon. Members of all parties will recall, he refused ever to address that question directly. Looking back over the events of the past 18 months and the various reports, including the Butler report, that the events have spawned, given the immense and unprecedented lengths to which the Government went to try to win over an understandably worried public, I find it hard to believe that the die for the war had not been cast a considerable time before.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the leader of the Liberal party agree that failure to take action against dictators should come under equal scrutiny? Does he agree that if we had failed to take action, Saddam Hussein would still be there, murdering and killing?
Mr. Kennedy: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the words of his leader on 25 February 2003 in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister spoke of the very regime to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and said of Saddam:
"I detest his regime—I hope most people do—but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand."—[0fficial Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 124.]
That was the Prime Minister's and the Government's position. Saddam Hussein could have remained in place, so all this post-event moral justification does not square with what they were saying beforehand.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kennedy: I shall leave Labour Members to square their own consciences with that of the Prime Minister.
We know from the revealing account given by the distinguished American journalist, Bob Woodward, that for the Bush Administration, the desirability of regime change in Iraq had been in place and much favoured since President Bush took office, so my first
216
question to the Prime Minister is quite simply this: did he advise President Bush privately—long before the United Nations route was formally abandoned—that if the President decided to prosecute an invasion of Iraq, the British would be in active military support, come what may? If he did advise the President to that effect, when did such an exchange take place? That was fundamentally important at the time, and remains so to this day.
At the time, the Prime Minister said that he reached the final conclusion that war had become inevitable only the weekend before the hostilities commenced.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): That is true.
Mr. Kennedy: The Foreign Secretary says that that is true and I do not doubt him. However, surely the extraordinary and prolonged build-up on all fronts over many months militarily and diplomatically—must suggest that other considerations were also in mind. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence, with its duty to the Government of the day, in addition to its duty to serving personnel, must calculate for all possible contingencies. It would be illogical, apart from anything else, to suppose that it did not have at the back of its mind the fact that the political die might well have been cast.
The second issue that arises in that context, as the Government moved towards preparing and publishing the dossier on weapons of mass destruction, is the blurring of roles, acknowledged by Butler, that took place between principal advisers to the Prime Minister and the then chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the person who had assumed ownership of the report's contents. As Lord Butler observed, assessment and advocacy became conflated as a result. That should never have happened and, given what the Prime Minister said at the beginning of his speech, one assumes that it will never happen again, either under the new interim chair of the JIC or, indeed, under any of his longer-term successors. I welcome that acknowledgment from the Prime Minister.
Butler goes on to say that all of that was shot through and compounded by the informality of style that is an apparent hallmark of the Prime Minister. That style may have served him well on many occasions, but it cannot have served him or the rest of us well on an issue of such profound importance as the decision to take this country into war. So again I welcome the return, which has been acknowledged, to a more formal, minuted and civil-service driven approach on issues of this nature in future.
We know that critical caveats were removed or altered for the dossier as a result of the interplay between No. 10 and the intelligence chiefs. The effect was to maximise the persuasive force of the dossier itself. At the beginning of his speech, the Prime Minister said that he wanted again to respond to the allegation that the Government had deliberately sought to mislead us. I hope that whatever our differences, as far as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), myself and other colleagues are concerned, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others will acknowledge that we have never made that allegation, and we do not make it today. Our differences were distinct but open. We did not allege motives that we did not think were there.

217
On the patchiness and sporadic nature of the intelligence that Butler refers to—frankly, I shall leave the earlier exchanges on that to speak for themselves—it is clear that the ultimate responsibility for the final words in the dossier rest with the Prime Minister, even if, as the Government argue, it was not the case for war, but the case for drawing people's attention to the directness of the threat, although that does not look so direct now.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress.
Lord Butler was asked to conduct an inquiry into systems. As such, he concludes that the critical failings were of a collective nature, so he does not seek to apportion individual blame. Yet surely the court of public opinion is looking for something more definitive. When the Prime Minister made a statement on the Butler report last week, anyone who watched the evening news bulletins cannot have failed to be moved when they listened to the relatives of the forces personnel who have been killed in Iraq describe how people seem to carry the can in Washington, yet all these mistakes are made in all parts of our system—there is a big question mark over whether we needed to go into this war in the first place—and no one carries the can except those who have paid the ultimate price.
Kevin Brennan: The House is listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He has been careful all along to say that he does not underestimate the good faith shown by the Prime Minister throughout the proceedings. Can I take it from what he says that that is still his position?
Mr. Kennedy: I have just said so, so the answer is yes.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman generously accords with the judgment of good faith, and I think that I am persuaded by it. However, does he acknowledge that good faith can involve a certain amount of self-persuasion that what is being done is in the legitimate public interest? Can he suggest what legitimate role Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell played when they discussed the presentation of the intelligence to the public, which was nothing other than presenting the world as policy makers would wish it to be, rather than the world as it actually was?
Mr. Kennedy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his various senior incarnations under various Conservative leaders, will have had more experience of the trials and tribulations of such conversations in and around No. 10 Downing street than myself. Where he and I share a direct experience with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and, going back a number of years, Lord Heseltine, of the omnipresence of Mr. Campbell is in a meeting on the eve of the launch of Britain in Europe. On that occasion, we saw that Mr. Campbell was more than capable of a conflation of assessment and advocacy, which leads me to believe that that could well have fed through to another occasion such as the one we are talking about.
218
Last Friday, Dr. Blix said of the Butler report:
"My main reflection on reading the Butler report was to share its regret (termed surprise in the report) that the UK and other countries did not reassess their intelligence in the light of the inspection reports of UNMOVIC."
Dr. David Kay, the former head of the Iraq survey group, said of Butler:
"I think the Prime Minister, as I would say the US President, should have been able to tell before the war that the evidence did not exist for drawing the conclusion that Iraq presented a clear, present and imminent threat on the basis of existing weapons of mass destruction. That was not something that required a war."
Those are the considered, impartial assessments of the former head of the Iraq survey group and the former chief weapons inspector, acting with the authority of the United Nations. Their words are crystal clear, whatever the explanations and the spin put on them by those around the Prime Minister.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the right hon. Gentleman attempt to answer a question that I was going to put to the Prime Minister, who can at least listen to it, even if he cannot answer? The right hon. Gentleman referred to a passage in Lord Butler's report that deals with the assurance given to the Attorney-General that the Prime Minister was certain that Saddam was in breach. The report records its surprise, which is mandarin for shock, that policy makers—or politicians, including the Prime Minister—and the intelligence community did not,
"as the generally negative results of UNMOVIC inspections became increasingly apparent",
re-evaluate in early 2003 the quality of the intelligence. Will the right hon. Gentleman hazard a guess as to why the Prime Minister did not do so?
Mr. Kennedy: Following the surrogate question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I feel that I should send an invoice to the Prime Minister for having to answer on his behalf. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is correct that the jigsaw remains frustratingly incomplete because we do not know what legal opinions were offered to the Government on the basis of the available intelligence. We know from the Butler report that the Attorney-General provided advice on a number of occasions, and it cites three in particular. However, Butler supports the view that publication of all the legal opinions
"might inhibit the provision of full and frank … advice."
In normal times, that argument would be extremely persuasive, but these are not normal times, as the unprecedented decision to publish the dossier demonstrated. Such an event had never happened before, and the Government made great play of that.
Given the extent to which a considerable amount of legal opinion is already in the public domain, the case for full disclosure is surely overwhelming. As long as critical pieces of legal advice remain shrouded in secrecy, doubts and suspicions will linger and fester. If I were the Prime Minister, I would bite the bullet and publish in full.
Clare Short: I agree that it would be desirable for the legal opinions to be published, but we get new information in Butler that it was not the Attorney-General who decided that there was legal authority for war. He required the Prime Minister to give an unequivocal finding of fact that there was no way other than war to pursue 1441. Given what Blix was achieving in the Security Council, and the destruction of, for example, 70 ballistic missiles, is that not extraordinary? Does it not come back to the Prime Minister, rather than to the Attorney-General?
Mr. Kennedy: That is extraordinary. The right hon. Lady underlines the point that I have just made. It might appear less extraordinary if we had the evidence and those legal opinions in front of us, but we cannot know. It would be in the best interests of the Prime Minister, let alone the rest of us, to put the lot into the public domain, and the sooner the better.
Hugh Bayley rose—
Mr. Clive Soley rose—
Mr. Kennedy: No, I am sorry.
The dossier—the crucial case of a direct threat to the United Kingdom from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which came to underpin the subsequent case for the war—was subject to undue political input. A description was placed before the public to maximise the persuasiveness of the later argument mounted by the Government to pursue that war. At the time of the debate and the vote here in the House of Commons, we were not aware of that entire background. Today, given what we know now, surely it becomes increasingly likely that the Government would have been hard pushed, or would have found it mission impossible, to persuade a majority in the House for war at that time and on the basis of the argument that was advanced.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kennedy: I have made it clear that I am not giving way. I am sorry.
The overwhelming mood would surely have been to allow the authorised weapons inspectors the further period of time that they had sought via the United Nations. There was one other casualty at that point, and my goodness, it would have been a welcome one at the time, given the benefit of hindsight today. I do not believe the House would have acquiesced in endorsing the Bush-led new doctrine, the policy of pre-emptive strike, in quite the way it happened.
Despite what he said last week and this afternoon, and despite the fact that I welcome the practical implications that he acknowledged flow from all this, the Prime Minister should listen and understand—I still honestly believe that he does not quite get it—what people in the country think about the matter. He must demonstrate a genuine contrition for the misjudgments that have undoubtedly taken place. Public confidence must be restored in the process of government generally and in the lessons to be learned from the sequence of events. The people of Iraq need ongoing reassurance, given the volatile and violent situation there.
220
Not least, the Government should announce the carefully planned and phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq as a democratically elected Government become established. Other countries, including those in the region, should contribute resources and troops as necessary. Given what the Prime Minister said in his remarks, the existing coalition should account fully for the expenditures of the development fund for Iraq, particularly the unaudited Iraqi oil revenues. The clinching paragraph of the March motion in the House of Commons and the great prize that the Government held up for backing the Bush Administration have not been mentioned today. We must have some meaningful re-engagement with the road map and the wider middle east peace process, which has been an appalling victim of events.
Hugh Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy:No. I have reached the end of my remarks.
In his statement last week, the Prime Minister spoke of his pride in what had been achieved in Iraq. We can all feel pride in the courage and professionalism of our armed forces, particularly when they are asked by Parliament to carry out such a difficult and dangerous task. But we certainly do not feel pride in what they were instructed to do at the behest of the Government and, increasingly, not in the name of our country. In fact, we feel ashamed. I hope that in the years to come, in his most private moments as he reflects on these events and the well-documented litany of failures and political misjudgments that went with them, the Prime Minister might acknowledge a sense of personal shame.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a limit of eight minutes on all Back-Bench speeches and that that applies from now on.
3.55 pm
Mr. Bruce George: Perhaps I could help the leader of the Liberal party. When the Defence Committee visited the United Nations on the day before Dr. Blix's speech, we asked a very senior person how long Dr. Blix's group would need properly to evaluate whether there were weapons of mass destruction. He replied, "Twelve months if there is full compliance by Saddam Hussein's regime." When he was asked how long it would take if there was obstruction, he said, "For ever." I therefore have some reservations about the idea that Dr. Blix's view was necessarily sacrosanct. Having listened to the two Opposition party leaders, I remain as convinced and supportive as I was when I heard the speeches that the Prime Minister made at the time and subsequently.
However, I am not here to discuss Butler. Others will do that again and again until they eventually get the result that they require—if they ever do, and I suspect that it will take a long time. I want to talk about the report of the Defence Committee that is relevant to the motion.

221
In 1991, the Defence Committee produced an excellent report on the war. We visited Iraq before and after that war, which was termed Operation Granby. Following Operation Desert Fox, we spent a great deal of time examining the no-fly zones, into which we conducted an inquiry in 2000. We were very much involved in observing the events leading up to the war that we are discussing. We visited Kuwait beforehand. We held an inquiry that resulted in three volumes and 130 conclusions and recommendations. We held 19 public sessions. When British troops returned, we visited them all over the country and in Germany. We went twice to the United States. I believe that our report is well worth reading, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence reads it carefully.
We say in our report that we recognise how much we ask of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. For them, Operation Telic followed deployments to Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone. Some of those who fought in the combat phase had already returned as part of the continuing stabilisation operation. We should remember that in Operation Fresco, 19,000 service personnel were committed to firefighting operations. One unit from the Army—16 Air Assault Brigade—was engaged in those responsibilities throughout December 2002, handed them over on 6 January, and began pre-deployment training on 8 January.
That cycle of excess stretch cannot be maintained indefinitely. When the Chief of the Defence Staff appeared before us in March, he said that it would be impossible to mount an operation of a similar scale to Operation Telic until 2008–09. I therefore look forward with great interest to tomorrow's Treasury-inspired Ministry of Defence response on the future size, shape and equipment of our armed forces. We must realise that when British forces go off to fight wars, be they popular or unpopular, they must be provided with the equipment that they need, when they need it. Too often in Operation Telic, equipment arrived late or was lost in theatre.
Those problems are well publicised in our report. However, having considered the deficiencies and strengths of our military effort, we felt on balance that the operation was well conducted by very well motivated personnel.
Iraq demonstrated that winning a war is relatively easy in comparison to what happens afterwards. Clearly, the planning in Iraq was inadequate. That was partly due to differences in the US Administration, but we would be deluding ourselves if we argued that things went wrong solely because the Department of Defence and the State Department fell out. There were many other reasons. First, enough troops to win the war might not be enough to win the peace. Secondly, failures of intelligence meant that we did not identify who our friends or our enemies were. We recall that the person chosen to lead the civilian Administration in Basra turned out to be a former brigadier in the Iraqi army and a Ba'athist, and that his successor was accused of being a confidant of Uday Hussein. Thirdly, language and cultural differences proved harder to overcome than was foreseen. If we contemplate more expeditionary operations further afield, those issues will be essential to the effectiveness of our forces.
222
The full Defence Committee went to Iraq last July, after the war, and six of its members went out last May. They visited the temporary divisional detention facilities, where those who had been interned by British forces under powers provided to occupying powers by the fourth Geneva convention were held. I am informed that those being held there were generally well treated. Many have now been released but some remain. The Committee is aware of the allegations of misconduct against a number of British personnel, and where there is evidence to support them, they are being investigated. I am confident that, if wrongdoing is found, the guilty will be punished. Some recent answers to parliamentary questions were very helpful in that regard.
A number of cases have already been referred to the prosecuting authorities. These incidents are serious and, if proven, would be a blot on the reputation of our forces, but they must not be allowed to overshadow the vast amount of good work that has been done and is being done. The Committee has requested a memorandum from the Ministry of Defence, and we will inquire into the allegations of misconduct of British forces. I can assure hon. Members and those outside the House that this will be a thorough inquiry.
The war has gone and, yes, there have been recriminations. However, I spoke yesterday to a fellow Defence Committee Chairman—of a NATO country that did not participate in the military action in Iraq. I said, "Now the war is over. There is a UN-endorsed programme to establish a democratic constitution and a properly elected and representative Government of Iraq. We may have had our differences before and during the war, but the situation has now changed." I just hope that those countries will follow UN Security Council resolution 1546, which requests member states to send military forces to assist in Iraq.
I encourage all colleagues to urge those countries that are being intimidated to remove their troops, as well as those that might be thinking of going and those that might not, to understand that our fight is now against the remnants of the Saddam regime, against al-Qaeda, and against all sorts of people who want to do harm to the new Government of Iraq. I very much hope that people will be prepared to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his eight minutes.
4.3 pm
Mr. William Hague: I am most grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. This is the first time that I have sought to speak on these matters since the debate of 18 March 2003, when the House made its principal decision on military action. I supported the Government's case for military action then, and I support it now for exactly the same reasons: that Saddam Hussein was a proven danger who had twice invaded other countries; that the alternative to taking action against him would have been to release him from a great deal of pressure, because sanctions and other measures would have been difficult to maintain; that there was a limit to the number of ultimatums that could pass without action being taken against him; and that international affairs had come to a point of decision at which the issue had to be resolved one way or the

223
other and it was in the national interest of this country to act in concert with our principal ally, the United States of America. Those were the reasons that I voted in favour of military action, and I believe that they are the genuine reasons that the Prime Minister was in favour of military action. Placing too much weight on the intelligence, which was not his real reason, has led him into so much of this difficulty.
There is now a chance, but only a chance, of a great improvement in Iraqi affairs. One of the most murderous and dangerous dictators in the world has been removed. There is a possibility of democracy, a possibility of an improved quality of life for the people of Iraq, and even the chance of greater prosperity in the years ahead. Therefore, while many observers are sceptical about whether western concepts of freedom can be brought into an Arab state, if they are wrong—and they might be—the politics of the middle east will be transformed, and transformed for the better.
I therefore still believe that it was the right thing to do. The trouble is that that is now a minority view in the country as a whole, as is clear from every survey, and possibly from recent election results. Experimentation with spin and public relations, even from a Government who are so skilled in spin and public relations, has led to a public relations disaster on the case for war.
We are all familiar with public relations disasters—I am familiar with more than most. But here we have a monumental failing of public relations, which now casts doubt on the credibility of the actions of the Government, on the international standing of this country, on the moral justification for the war, and on the basis for any future similar action by this country and the United States. Millions of our fellow citizens will now never believe that there was a good case for the war in Iraq, and millions of them will never believe that there is a good case for action in a comparable situation. To have created that situation is a serious responsibility for the Government.
Many errors in a run-up to war can be forgiven, and much that was in the dossier was moderate in tone, as the Butler report pointed out. But the Government have discredited much of their case for war, and damaged this country through mistakes in presentation that were unnecessary and for which they bear a serious responsibility.
The great mystery to me has always been the business of the infamous 45-minute piece of intelligence. My worry has always been not that it went into the dossier, because there was intelligence that mentioned 45 minutes, but that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, seem to have been consistently ignorant of what it meant, and of whether it was still true many months after it was reported.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: When John Scarlett discovered in July 2003 that the intelligence relating to the 45 minutes was unreliable, should he have told the Hutton inquiry that the intelligence had changed, and should he have told the Prime Minister? Is it right that John Scarlett should now be appointed as director of MI6 in such circumstances?
Mr. Hague: John Scarlett should have told the Hutton inquiry, and he should have told the Prime Minister. I will come to that point in a moment.
224
Let me take a prior point: it has been reported clearly that the Prime Minister did not know that the 45-minute claim related to battlefield weapons. I find that extraordinary. Ministers ask questions all the time of their civil servants, about all kinds of things. One cannot picture most Ministers being told by their officials that lunch would be ready in 45 minutes without asking searching questions about the menu and by whom it was going to be delivered. The idea that someone can walk into the office or give the Prime Minister a document saying, "Our deadliest enemy has weapons of mass destruction that could be mobilised against us in 45 minutes", and that the Minister or Prime Minister does not say, "What sort of weapons?", is absolutely unimaginable. Can we imagine Baroness Thatcher being told at the time of the Falklands that the Argentines had weapons of mass destruction that could be used in 45 minutes? The official who told her would have been pinned to the wall until he had worked out and told her every last little bit of intelligence and any point of detail about that claim.
So how could this happen? The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who just intervened, raised a parallel point, which is the incredible sequel, that key evidence identified in the Butler inquiry, possibly including the 45-minute claim, was withdrawn in July 2003—a year ago. And yet it turned out a few days ago, so we were told, that the Prime Minister was only aware of that withdrawal of intelligence as a result of the Butler inquiry—more recently. So on this major item of public controversy, on which the Government's whole credibility is at stake—with controversy raging about the 45 minutes and many other claims, in the press and among the public—MI6, and perhaps Government officials, knew that the evidence had been withdrawn, and no one told the Prime Minister. If it were in a novel, we would all say that it was ludicrous—that it could not
happen. Of course they would tell the Prime Minister.
Mr. Salmond: So the first item is unimaginable and the second is ludicrous. What conclusions did the right hon. Gentleman draw?
Mr. Hague: How neat of the hon. Gentleman to lead me to the conclusions—and I am most grateful to him for giving me an extra minute in which to explain them.
One conclusion I would have drawn had I been in the Prime Minister's shoes is that the officials or intelligence officers who had not told me were not doing their job, and should be part of the Chancellor's great redeployment to the regions—probably to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is a very long way from Downing street.
There are four possible explanations of how these things could be true. One, which I discount, is that the Prime Minister does not ask questions—that he is indolent or inattentive. Given my knowledge of the Prime Minister, I do not believe that that is the case. Another is that officials do not do their job properly in informing the Prime Minister. Perhaps there is a hint of that in the point that we have just been discussing, but I doubt that it is the case in general, because the British civil service is a fine machine and puts forward its very best cogs to serve the Prime Minister.

225
A third theory is that this has something to do with the criticisms of the culture of Government that Lord Butler and his colleagues identified: that informality can mean lack of rigour, that the blurring of the line between officials and political advisers can lead to mistakes—to the elevation of material to the public domain without adequate examination of it—and that people who only know politics dabble in intelligence, and people who only know intelligence dabble in politics, at their peril.
Let me respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Pendle about Mr. Scarlett. I think that he crossed that line at his peril. My personal view is that given the importance of restoring the public credibility of an intelligence service whose officials should never really become public figures, it is important for the senior official not to be someone who has been the subject of public controversy over the publication of intelligence that has subsequently been disproved. I have no doubt that he could serve the public in many continuing ways, but none of us is indispensable, and it should be possible for MI6 to he led by a different person. That is my honest answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Part of that culture of Government is that there are never any minutes of key meetings. At the time of the famous Formula I tobacco advertising outrage—as I would call it—of a few years ago, there were never any minutes showing who made the decisions. It is a culture of informality, but also a culture of deniability, in which it is hard to pin down who said what to whom.
There is, however, a final explanation. It is that the intelligence was never really an important factor in the Government's decision to wage war; that they waged war for precisely the reasons on which I agree with them, and precisely the reasons that I stated at the beginning of my speech; that they knew the history of Saddam Hussein, and knew that what little they would glean from intelligence on a shifting basis from month to month would not change their case for war. That, I believe, is the Government's central error, and one for which they must bear a heavy responsibility—because it means that they pursued the correct policy, but have ruined the case for doing so.
The Prime Minister says that he takes responsibility, but just shrugs his shoulders. It is a tragedy for him that this has done serious harm to our nation and its allies; and that, having pursued a policy that was essentially correct, the Government have ruined their case in the eyes of the country.
4.14 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). One of the strengths of a party that experiences a long period in opposition—as his party is discovering—is that it accrues a large number of ex-leaders on its Back Benches. It appears that we shall hear from two of them today.
The only comment I would make on the speech that we heard from the Conservative party's current leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), is that it came a year and a half too late. This place works when the Opposition oppose,
226
but that did not happen in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Indeed, one reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might not have asked enough tough questions of the intelligence agencies is that he knew perfectly well that when he came to the Chamber, he would never be asked any tough questions from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
I am grateful to the Butler committee—two of its distinguished members are with us today—for asking a lot of tough questions about the intelligence. Out of those tough questions emerged an alarming picture of intelligence that was overwhelmingly based on hearsay and second-hand information, and in one case on third-hand information; indeed, the ultimate sources frequently turned out to be unreliable. The Butler committee says in its report that it was struck by the thinness of the intelligence base. What is puzzling is that it was examining exactly the same intelligence that was available to the Prime Minister and to the Government, which the Prime Minister told us left no doubt about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, he repeated that point here today.
Mr. George Osborne: Was the intelligence materially stronger when, as Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman consented to action in 1998 in Operation Desert Fox?
Mr. Cook: I am not surprised by that question because I noticed that such points were in the hymn sheet that was circulated last week. First, we took that action precisely because there was no co-operation with UN weapons inspectors at that time. If they had received the co-operation that Hans Blix has received, no such action would have been taken. Secondly, such action was a limited air strike against military targets only; I was never daft enough to suggest that we should launch a major armed invasion.
When I left office, we were pursuing a strategy of containment. I am bound to say, given all that we have learned since we went into Iraq, that that strategy was strikingly successful in denying Saddam Hussein a single weapon of mass destruction, without the need to go to war.
Mike Gapes rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but it must be the last time.
Mike Gapes: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. He talks about containment, but does he not accept that half a million Iraqi children died as a result of that policy, that Saddam was able to suppress his people and that there were 4 million Iraqi exiles? Does he not accept that further pursuing that policy would have led to the continuation of that situation? Was it not better to do something at last to get rid of Saddam?
Mr. Cook: I invite my hon. Friend to read the Butler report, because if he does he will find that it explicitly and correctly states that there is no basis in international law for regime change. Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a brutal psychopath, and nobody has highlighted the scale of his evils and sins more than I

227
have. But my hon. Friend has to face the fact that he is making a case for which there is no basis in international law—if one acts without international consensus, as we did on this occasion. If we are to have a doctrine of intervention on humanitarian grounds—of which I am all in favour—it has to be acted on with international authority, not according to a unilateral decision taken by Washington and London. That is what went wrong in this case.
I saw many intelligence assessments when I was at the Foreign Office. Doubt and intelligence assessments go hand in hand; doubt is in the nature of intelligence work. One is trying to guess the secrets that somebody is trying to keep, so it inevitably follows that one is trying to carry out a task even worse than that of the Israelites: to make bricks out of straws in the wind. To be fair to the agencies, they were always absolutely frank about the limitations of their knowledge. That is why I was frankly astonished by the September dossier, which bore no relation in tone to any of the intelligence assessments that I saw. It was one-sided, dogmatic and unqualified.
The root problem is that intelligence was used in order to sell policy, so it was required to be much more firm and definite than intelligence can ever be. Intelligence was not used as the basis on which to make policy. Here, I totally agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. I find it breathtaking that for six months—from September to March—the Prime Minister believed that he and John Scarlett were talking about long-range systems, while John Scarlett believed that they were talking about battlefield weapons. Apparently, they talked about that subject several times during those six months. I do not blame John Scarlett. I actually asked him whether we were talking only about battlefield weapons and he was quite frank and open in telling me—as he was subsequently in telling Hutton—that that is exactly what we were talking about. I find it strange that No. 10 did not show more curiosity about what those weapons were. The explanation for that absence of curiosity is precisely, of course, that it was not on intelligence that the policy was being formulated.
On that, I have to say, the Butler report is quite conclusive. For me, the most crucial passage in the Butler report is where it sets out the fact that when we took the decision to take stronger action against Iraq
"there was no intelligence that Iraq was of more immediate concern."
In other words, the intelligence did not change; the assessment of the picture inside Iraq did not change. The change that precipitated the movement away from containment to invasion was not a change in Iraq, but a regime change in Washington and the election of a Bush Administration with a commitment to invasion. The most embarrassing conclusion of all is that if those hanging chads in Florida had pointed in the opposite direction and A1 Gore had been elected, we would not have ended up committing British troops to military action in Iraq, but would have loyally stood by the transatlantic policy of containment.
We now come to the crux of the problem faced by my right hon. Friends in trying to find closure on Iraq as a controversy. If they are not candid on the reason why we got into the war, they will have a problem convincing the electorate why it will not happen again. The noises
228
currently coming out of Washington about Iran, which sound alarmingly similar to the noises about Iraq two years before the invasion, of course raise public anxieties.
I want to be helpful to my right hon. Friends, so let me make a suggestion about what they might do in order to reassure the public. First, they could formally and loudly ditch the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike, which Washington invented. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary could do so in his wind-up speech. I think that he would find it congenial, as I suspect that he never believed in it himself.
If we are to invade a country not because it is an imminent threat, but because—the basis of the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike—we want to pre-empt it from becoming a threat at some unknown and unspecified date in the future, we are placing an enormous weight on the capacity to have reliable and accurate intelligence. Yet what we have learned from the whole saga of Iraq—and what is spelled out in the Butler report—is that intelligence can never be that reliable. It would help if the Front Benchers could now say to the public that one of the key lessons of Iraq is that intelligence alone can never bear the weight of going to a war in which 20,000 people are killed in the carnage.
I will make a second suggestion. This may not be the right moment in history for John Scarlett to take up his post as head of the SIS. In saying that, I do not speak in any spirit of criticism of John Scarlett, whom I always found absolutely professional. He was quite frank and open with me when I asked him questions, and I am sure that he would have been equally frank and open with No. 10 if the Prime Minister had asked him the same questions.
If one looks at what happens in the private sector when a company is faced with corporate and systemic failure—effectively what is described in the Butler report—one finds that someone from outside is sought to come in and take a fresh approach. I do think that the SIS now needs someone from elsewhere in the public sector who can bring that fresh approach and put the difficult questions that the SIS now needs to face up to.
It may be a sign of the approaching general election that this debate has been the most partisan on Iraq that I can yet recall. I am not sure that this grave matter is an appropriate one for party political point scoring. Britain and British troops will have to live with the consequences of our decision for a long time to come. We were told that Iraq would be a victory over terrorism. We are now told that Iraq is the front line in the war against terrorism. The great irony is that it is precisely our intervention that has created the conditions—poor security, open borders and a population with a grievance—in which al-Qaeda is now thriving in Iraq.
My deep worry is that when Osama bin Laden struck the twin towers, he wanted to send the message that the only possible relationship between the west and Islam is one of violent confrontation. I fear that, by invading Iraq, we responded in precisely the way that Osama bin Laden wanted. As a consequence, we and the west will have to live with violent confrontations and the violent consequences of this strategic blunder for a decade to come.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make a House of

229
Commons point of order, perhaps as Father of the House? The former Foreign Secretary has made a speech of great importance, whatever one may think about it. Why was not a single member of the Cabinet present to hear what he had to say? I am sure that 20, 30 or 40 years ago there would have been three, four or five Cabinet Ministers listening to him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Father of the House is well experienced in these matters and will understand that who will occupy the Front Bench is for the Government to decide, not a matter for the Chair.
4.25 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: The general message that I get from reading the Butler report is that the House of Commons, and the people, were misled. We have a duty to the JIC to try to use the material in the report to influence future policy.
I was in the minority of people who did not support the war in Iraq. I explained in the debate at the time that that was because of what I considered to be the near-hypocrisy of the western powers, and in particular of the US. Those powers complained that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and to security, even though the Reigle report set out clearly that the US had openly supplied the most horrendous weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein to allow him to invade Iran.
Those weapons included anthrax, clostridium—a source of toxin—and histoplasma, which causes a disease resembling tuberculosis. There was also brucella, which damages major organs, another substance that causes gas gangrene, and seven other materials. People who talk about the threat to democracy that Saddam posed should remember the debt that we owe for the mistakes that we made. When I raised those matters, I was advised that France, Russia and Germany had also provided help for Saddam, but I do not see how that makes things any better.
My second reason for opposing the war was the military action in Afghanistan. Far from restoring peace and democracy, it has created a chaotic situation outside Kabul. The only obvious result has been to transform that sad nation into a massive producer of drugs—as can be seen all over the country. There also appeared to be an appalling lack of humility: far from improving the situation, we have simply helped the growth of extremists.
However, the majority of people supported the war. For them, the wise and sombre words of the Butler report should arouse concern. We should think carefully about three key passages in the report, which admit that an error was made. Paragraph 47 states:
"Intelligence merely provides techniques for improving the basis of knowledge. As with other techniques, it can be a dangerous tool if its limitations are not recognised by those who seek to use it."
Paragraph 464 states that
"the language in the dossier may have left with readers the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence behind the judgements than was the case: our view … is that judgements in the dossier went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the
230
intelligence available. The Prime Minister's description … of the picture painted by the intelligence services … as 'extensive, detailed and authoritative' may have reinforced this impression."
Finally, paragraph 34 on page 154 states:
"We conclude that it was a serious weakness that the JIC's warnings on the limitations of the intelligence"—
that was provided—
"were not made sufficiently clear in the dossier."
When we add those three factors together, it is obvious that we were misled. Unless we accept that, we will not learn lessons for the future. I hope that this debate will not descend into hon. Members shouting at each other, as we know that the same sort of opinions were held on both sides of the House. We must make up our minds not to make the same mistake again.
I believe that there is a terrible and real danger that we are about to go through exactly same process—of misrepresentation and not telling—the truth—in relation to Iran. For a start, a mass of distorted and misleading information has appeared on the front pages of our newspapers. The headline in the most recent edition of The Sunday Telegraph asserted that America was accusing Iran of complicity in the attack on the World Trade Centre. The newspaper stated that between eight and 10 hijackers had travelled through Iran, with the help of the Iranian Government, to play a part in the attack. The allegation was that they were to act as muscle. The CIA chief made a statement only yesterday that that was not true. There was no evidence of Iran's participation in that activity. On the other hand, the stories keep being published. Iran has been accused of participation with al-Qaeda, which those who know Iran know is complete nonsense. It was further reported that Bush officials were privately contemplating a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, allegedly before the Russian fuel rods were delivered.
If we want to make progress with Iran and not to seek a diversion from the embarrassments over Iraq, we should do three things. First, we should recognise, with some humility, that we have a huge responsibility for what has happened, because of the arms we provided to Iraq—all the appalling weapons of mass destruction—when it invaded Iran and inflicted such terrible damage on its people. Secondly, we should appreciate that we have a duty to take meaningful and positive action in relation to the camp of 4,800 Mujaheddin-e-Khalq Organisation terrorists who have been dropping bombs in Iran for many years and killing thousands of people. That camp is in Iraq and is protected by American forces. What are we doing about it and what role do we think Iran should have? Thirdly, we should recognise that far from being an extremist nation, Iran is one in which those of the Christian and Jewish faiths have freedom to worship in their own churches.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman appears to have exhausted the point about what should happen to Iran and our relations with that country. However, should we not do everything possible to get the Iranian Government to change their minds about their appalling human rights record? We now know that the trial of the person allegedly responsible for the murder of the Canadian photographer has been cut short, and that there has been no publicity about it.
Sir Teddy Taylor: What we should publicise is the truth about Iran. The hon. Gentleman and I were there

231
together. Does he accept that Iran has freedom of religion? Does he accept that more than half of the students in the universities are women? Does he accept that Iran has a democratic base, as a Muslim country with an elected Parliament and an elected leader? I appeal to him to think about the matter. The one thing that we do not want to do is to spread the same kind of nastiness and untruths about that country, when we should be telling people the facts.
So far as Iran's nuclear activities are concerned, the attitude we are taking is the worst we could take—that Britain, France, the US and Israel have the right to have nuclear weapons, but nobody else has. Surely we want to get agreement on getting rid of nuclear weapons. We should be putting forward a plan under which every country will try to get rid of those dreadful weapons, in the right way.
I say in all sincerity that unless we are willing to treat Iran with courtesy and with dignity, to recognise that it is a democracy with an elected Government within a Muslim state, and that it has a positive role to play, we could end up with a great international tragedy. In the report, we saw how the Government—all Governments can do it got carried away and tried to justify their policies by stretching things. Surely we should recognise that truth is the best weapon in politics and that we should apply it in all our activities. If we achieve progress in that area of the world, the report that we are debating and the speeches made on it will achieve more than the usual political battles between parties.
I think that a great mistake was made, as I said at the time. Be that as it may, it is desperately important that we avoid similar difficulties in the future. That means ensuring that the truth is told and that we show more understanding of foreign countries. We should not build up the kind of hatred that lasts for years and years and simply will not go away. Many of us in Britain and the US are very nice people, but we are probably not the best people to be emperors of the world. If we want to be emperors of the world, we will have to show the dignity and truthfulness that is desperately important if we are to secure peace in the world and understanding between nations.
4.34 pm
Ann Clwyd: I am greatly tempted to answer the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on his point about containment. Containment did not work. Containment never worked and, Robin, if you had read the Select Committee on International Development's report on sanctions you would have known the answer. The Committee concluded that sanctions were not working, that Saddam Hussein was getting exactly what he wanted, that the sanctions were too loose and should be tightened, and that the person mainly responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people was Saddam Hussein himself. But that is a debate for another time.
Mr. Andrew Turner: If the hon. Lady believes what she said, does she believe that the Prime Minister was right to say on 26 February—as quoted by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and
232
Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy)—that the removal of weapons of mass destruction would permit Saddam Hussein to remain in place?
Ann Clwyd: My view has been expressed often enough in the House: I believed in regime change and I wanted the regime toppled a long time ago. Whatever argument could be used to topple that regime, I would support it. That is still my view. I am certain that the people of Iraq are very pleased that Saddam Hussein has been removed. I do not know anyone who would care to refute that statement. I go often enough to Iraq and talk to enough people to be convinced that that is their view.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady has been consistent in her view throughout. However, I have a certain memory of President Clinton, in a speech to the Labour conference in 2002, making exactly the same point about the success of containment, and every member of the Cabinet sitting behind him nodded vigorously.
Ann Clwyd: I am afraid that the President was wrong as well. Containment did not work, but that is a debate for another time.
Mr. Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ann Clwyd: May I move on? I have given only a few lines of my speech. I shall give way later.
A few days ago, I received an e-mail from Baghdad confirming that the evidence collected by Indict over the past seven years would be used in the war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein and his regime, and that genocide is one of the many charges that he will face. For those of us who have campaigned on the issue for more than 20 years, Saddam Hussein's performance in the witness box the other week was predictable. He jabbed his finger at the judge, insisted that he was still President of Iraq and justified the invasion of Kuwait.
As the charges were read out, we were reminded that his was a regime that had complete disregard for human life. In 1987, the Committee against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq, which I chaired, published a pamphlet on torture in Iraq. It included the testimony of an Iraqi doctor, who said that he had been forced to take part in one of the more sinister practices that took place in Abu Ghraib—the forced draining of the blood of political prisoners before their execution, so that the reason for their death could be recorded as heart failure. Only a regime such as Saddam Hussein's could possibly think of turning a life-saving humanitarian practice into a cruel method of murder.
It has become commonplace to argue that the new Interim Government lack legitimacy. The words "quisling" and "puppet" are widely used, while anti-coalition violence is said to represent the real war of liberation. That ignores all the recent polls, which show widespread support for the Interim Government. In the last poll, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi had an approval rating of 73 per cent., while the President received 84 per cent.
I have known and worked with the opposition to Saddam for more than two decades, so I find the description of brave individuals as puppets deeply offensive. In 1978, Dr. Allawi was nearly killed in an axe

233
attack in London. The Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Barham Salih, whose family are in the House today, was imprisoned at the age of 16 for his political activities. The Deputy Foreign Minister, Dr. Hamid al-Bayati, was imprisoned in Abu Ghraib and five members of his family were killed by Saddam's regime. Some 8,000 members of Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari's family disappeared in 1983, and have never been seen since.
Every day, those individuals and others face the knowledge that they are targets for assassination, but they continue to work, just as the policemen return to their jobs every day, despite the suicide bombs targeted at them. One of them told a newspaper:
"Our job is to protect the Iraqi people. There are bombings, but we are not scared of these terrorists. These people are cowards, who are damaging our country."
Those who champion resistance as the real voice of Iraq offer not an alternative political programme, but merely opposition to the existing strategy. They are silent about what they want for Iraq, apart from getting the Americans out. They are opposed by the emerging civil society in Iraq.
On 21 June, Abdullah Mushin of the Iraqi Federation of Workers Trade Unions addressed Unison's national conference. The IFTU had opposed the war. Last December, its Baghdad offices were raided by coalition forces. Despite that, he was clear that solidarity was required to defeat those who would deny Iraqis democracy. He said:
"It is only a few days"—
he was talking just before the end of June—
"and the IFTU and the Iraqis need your support and solidarity to make this happen, and stop attempts by terrorists and Saddam's supporters to derail the transfer of power to Iraqis. That is a crucial step forward to end the occupation, regain full sovereignty and enable the Iraqi people to determine their own political future through democratic elections."
The alternative to the violence of the resistance is already in place. At the end of this week, there will be a national conference in Baghdad. That will be the starting point for a process that will conclude with the agreement of a permanent constitution and national elections. Do we really believe that that would be an option if the so-called resistance won?
Mr. Savidge: Surely, containment worked insofar as it stopped aggression against other countries and much more than most of us would have probably dared to believe in relation to weapons of destruction, but the international community should have given much higher priority to enforcing conditions in relation to human rights. I pay all credit to my hon. Friend for the campaign on that issue that she has run for such a long time.
Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Clearly, there are lots of points of discussion, but the charge of genocide is very serious. Even in current humanitarian law, genocide calls for action by other countries. That is why the Secretary-General of the UN has started a big debate on the subject of genocide and how we should act when genocide takes
234
place. No one who remembers the events in Rwanda can argue that we should not have taken action. Genocide was an ongoing fact of life in Iraq as well.
Either we support those who offer the chance of a democratic Iraq, with laws that protect the rights of all Iraqis and a civil society that ensures that the country never returns to the days of dictatorship, or we embrace the gunmen and the bombers, who have already demonstrated their contempt for human life.
Although we can still argue about the reasons for the conflict, the more pressing argument is what we do now. Opinion polls have consistently recorded that the vast majority of the Iraqis want democracy. They also want foreign troops to leave. However, when asked what Iraq needs at this time, more than 70 per cent. of those who took part in the Oxford Research International poll said, "We want an Iraqi democracy."
The debate in Britain will be a reflection on us and on our values. Are we capable of the maturity displayed by the Iraqis, who are working in the most difficult circumstances to build a new democracy, or will we be represented by those who despise George Bush and the Prime Minister so much that they are prepared to offer support and succour to the resistance, which offers no alternative or agenda other than bloodshed and chaos?
4.44 pm
Sir John Stanley: I was one of those on 18 March last year who voted for the war, and I feel deeply—I will not use the word "deceived"—let down by the Government. I feel let down not simply because the intelligence assessment has proved probably more wide of the mark than any other major intelligence assessment in recent times, or possibly since well back into the last century, but because the Government's justification for going to war since the war ended is totally different from the justification that was given to the House on 18 March last year.
Since the war, the justification that has been given again and again—it was given by the Prime Minister today—is the benefit of regime change, which I do not for a moment deny, but did he say on 18 March last year that that was one of the reasons that we were going to war? He said:
"I have never put the justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441—that is our legal base."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 772.]
I would have no complaint if he had come to the Dispatch Box on 18 March last year and said, "This is the intelligence that we have, with all the caveats and all the uncertainties, that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, but we also are going to war to change the regime because, in human rights terms, it is abominable. Although it is illegal to go to war to change the regime, we ask the House to support our going to war on that basis".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have raised the key unanswered question: was there a deal between President Bush and our Prime Minister that, come hell or high water, if the Americans decided to go to war to change the regime,

235
Britain and her armed forces would be there? I am no more clear as to what the answer is today than I have been for months past.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Stanley: Let me finish. If that was the deal that was done, that should most emphatically have been disclosed to the House of Commons on 18 March last year.
Mike Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman has said that going to war to change the regime would be illegal. Is he saying that, when this Government went to war in Kosovo, that was illegal without a United Nations resolution, that the Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia was illegal, and that the Tanzanian intervention in Uganda was illegal? Is it not more complicated than is being suggested?
Sir John Stanley: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question on Kosovo is that the war in Kosovo was legal because it was justified in international law to prevent a looming humanitarian disaster—that is how it was justified by the Government. That was not the justification for the intervention in Iraq. I would have no complaint if the Prime Minister had come to the House and said, "We are seeking the House's approval for going to war to change the regime, even though it is not legal. We are seeing whether the House would support us on that basis."
I turn to the issue of the intelligence. The right hon. Member for Livingston said that we should never go to war on the basis of an intelligence assessment, but this is the one war in modern times in which there was no incontrovertible, factual event such as an invasion or looming humanitarian disaster. There was only the basis of an intelligence assessment.
The Government have exposed themselves to some genuine criticism on two scores in particular. First, this Government, for whom the Prime Minister ultimately has to take responsibility, have interleaved the machinery of intelligence with the machinery of presentation in a way that has happened under no previous Government, Labour or Conservative. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs highlighted that aspect at a relatively early stage, in our report of July last year. We drew attention to the fact that Alastair Campbell was chairing an intelligence committee, and we said that that was quite wrong.
In addition, it is extremely illuminating to see what has emerged from the e-mail traffic between No. 10 and the Joint Intelligence Committee that has now been publicised both in the Hutton report and the Butler report. Although sofa government has all the supposed benefits of no minutes and therefore not too much in the way of personal accountability for decision taking, the e-mail traffic has exposed in a real way how this Government have operated.
One of the most significant e-mails was sent on 11 September 2002 by a member of the JIC assessment staff, who sent the following to the intelligence agencies:
"Dear all
We have now received comments back from No 10 on the first draft of the dossier. Unsurprisingly they have further questions and areas they would like expanded."
236
Those areas were listed. He then came to item No. 4—and I hope that the House will listen carefully, as this is meant to be a process in which the participation of No. 10 related only to presentation:
"Can we say how many chemical and biological weapons Iraq currently has by type! If we can't give weapons numbers can we give any idea on the quantity of agents available!"
I suggest that that is not presentation, but political pressure for intelligence information. In no circumstances should that be allowed to happen. The e-mail ends by stating:
"No 10 through the chairman want the document to be as strong as possible within the bounds of available intelligence. This is therefore a last (!) call for any items of intelligence that agencies think can and should be included."
When I read those words, they conjured up in my mind a slightly manic intelligence version of the parable of the rich man's feast, in which the intelligence agencies were asked to go out into the highways and byways to search for every available scrap of intelligence to be invited into the September dossier. That is no way to run the interface between Government and the intelligence machine.
I thought that Mr. Michael Herman, former secretary of the JIC, hit the nail on the head in that excellent "Panorama" programme that went out recently:
"I suspect that if the Joint Intelligence Committee gets too close to ministers, then there is this temptation of providing intelligence to please."
I fear that that is what may have happened here.
Finally, on the question of ministerial scrutiny, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. The degree of scrutiny of the intelligence leaves much to be desired, not least on the 45-minute claim. How extraordinary and reprehensible it is that the Prime Minister took this country to war without having asked to which Iraqi weapons system the 45-minute WMD claim related. That is unbelievable, and I would have to say that it is gross negligence. Talking about negligence, that information was known by the chairman of the JIC, Mr. Scarlett, back in September 2002, before the war started, and by the Secretary of State for Defence, and neither of them told the Prime Minister. I believe that that is very serious indeed.
4.54 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 26 September 2002, Peter Brookes, the cartoonist of The Times, depicted me in my place in my Chamber—as I am at the moment holding up a copy of "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government" and exploding:
"Why didn't it make the Booker fiction prize shortlist?"
I say that because there has been a great deal of hindsight. Some of us suspected the dossier from the word go. In my case, that was partly because I had been to Iraq in 1993 and 1998 and thought it impossible that that much run-down and disorganized community could offer any kind of threat.
It is also a matter of fact that I asked 133 questions—mostly attempted orals—of the Prime Minister between 1997 and the present day on Iraq. I say that not because I think that my views or those of my friends should have been accepted, but because surely that should have led

237
to proper scrutiny. One must ask oneself what is the effect of all the activity of Members of the House of Commons. There are two relatively junior Ministers, and not one member of the Cabinet, in the Chamber for what is billed as a key debate.
I suspect that part of the problem with the ineffectiveness of Parliament is to be found in paragraph 611 of the Butler report—my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) read out the first part of it, but did not complete the second part. The second part of the paragraph says:
"However, we are concerned that the informality and circumscribed character of the Government's procedures which we saw in the context of policy-making towards Iraq risks reducing the scope for informed collective political judgement. Such risks are particularly significant in a field like the subject of our Review, where hard facts are inherently difficult to come by and the quality of judgement is accordingly all the more important."
The fact of the matter is that it was the policy objectives that drove the intelligence, whereas the intelligence should have driven the policy objectives—the situation was wrong vice versa. The dossier was really part of a post-decision-making process, and the Prime Minister's statement on its publication simply reinforced the impression of more authoritative intelligence than that which in fact existed.
I fear that the situation in Iraq has become a war of liberation and that, for many, we are the enemy. I wish that I shared the Prime Minister's confidence in Dr. Allawi.
The question is what is to happen now. We cannot go on acting as if nothing has happened. The Butler report is almost like that onion that one peels—the more one looks at it, the more serious it becomes. We simply cannot have business as usual, and even if we wanted it, the daily news from Iraq would not allow it.
Ten years' leadership of the Labour party is enough for any person, so the Prime Minister should really consider making way for someone else in such circumstances, and against the background of Butler, and set in motion the due processes of the party.
I end by recalling when I sat in my place in the Chamber on 17 June 1963 and listened as a very young MP to the then right hon. Member for Flint, West—Nigel Birch was his name—offering Harold Macmillan the words of the poet Browning from "The Lost Leader":
"Let him never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation and pain.
Forced praise on our part—the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again!"
That is the consequence of the Butler report.
4.59 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall not go further into the internal Labour party argument that has opened up and been acknowledged by the Father of the House.
238
I did not serve on the Butler committee because my party rightly took the view that it was not allowed to ask, and therefore would not answer, crucial questions about the political context within which the intelligence was considered and the political decisions that may effectively have been taken. Those decisions go back to neo-Conservative pressures on the Bush Administration, President Bush's false linking of 9/11 to Iraq and the Prime Minister's falsely implied linkage between al-Qaeda and Iraq. In so far as contacts were established, they do not bear the weighty substance put on them. Indeed, the Prime Minister has continued to use the argument that the need to attack Iraq was primarily based on the necessity to deal with a rogue state because of what he described as the
"nexus between terrorism and WMD".
When the Intelligence and Security Committee quoted the JIC's assessment that
"any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology finding their way into the hands of terrorists",
the Prime Minister said that he was aware of that:
"But he believed that there was an alternative risk of leaving a possible nexus between terrorism and WMD and made his judgment accordingly."
That judgment was wrong, but it was part of the political context.
Let me put it this way: it is impossible to imagine the Prime Minister deciding not to participate when President Bush decided to launch an invasion of Iraq. Can anyone seriously imagine the Prime Minister saying, "No. I dissent. Britain will not join in"? Equally, it is impossible to imagine the Prime Minister deciding that the current threat to British interests which he perceived were such that we would have gone ahead if President Bush had decided not to.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing:The right hon. Gentleman asked whether a British Prime Minister could say no if an American President decided to go into Iraq. Of course, Harold Wilson did say no over Vietnam. Indeed, Clement Attlee went so far as to see Harry Truman to prevent General MacArthur launching an attack on China way back in 1950.
Mr. Beith: I set great store by Britain's alliance with the United States in many respects. I am in no way anti-American. What I am saying is that our alliance with the United States has survived several fundamental disagreements over, say, Vietnam, Suez and the Falklands. However, I still cannot imagine our Prime Minister taking that course of dissent, which puts into perspective the way in which the intelligence was viewed.
On the intelligence, the Prime Minister wrongly quoted—or at least insufficiently quoted—paragraph 483 of the Butler report.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: No, I want to deal with this point.

239
I interrupted the Prime Minister from a sedentary position and he started to respond to me. He quoted the report as saying:
"senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab al Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad",
but he did not go on to complete the sentence, which concludes:
"to be activated during a US occupation of the city."
The following paragraph states:
"the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of co-operation."
Again, the Prime Minister rested too much on very little evidence to suggest a linkage.
The way in which the Intelligence and Security Committee dealt with some of those matters fed into the Butler report. Indeed, much of what Butler says can be found in two paragraphs of the ISC report of September 2003. It goes into more detail than Butler, including into the intelligence chain. On the weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence that was subsequently withdrawn, intelligence on 11 September was introduced in great haste and provided some confirmation of the dossier already prepared in the minds of Ministers.
It is not necessary to say much about the Leader of the Opposition's contribution because he sowed the seeds of his own destruction, but I want to dissent from a specific point that he made. He said that the Intelligence and Security Committee had not been told that that intelligence had been withdrawn. That is not the case—the ISC was aware that it had been withdrawn, and the careful wording of paragraph 101, which was dictated by security considerations, states:
"We have seen that intelligence and understand the basis on which the CDI and the JIC took the view they did."
That is Mandarin language, but it does not say that we agree with the intelligence, accept it or, indeed, endorse it in any way.
We were therefore told about that withdrawal of intelligence, but we were not told about the withdrawal of intelligence on the 45-minute claim. In the event, that is not terribly significant, because we demolished much of that claim in our report of September 2003, which stated:
"The 45 minutes claim, included four times, was … likely to attract attention because it was an arresting detail".
We said, however, that
"the context of the intelligence and any assessment needed to be explained. The fact that it was assessed to refer to battlefield chemical and biological munitions and their movement on the battlefield, not to any other form of chemical or biological attack, should have been highlighted in the dossier. The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning."
It was clear at the time that far too much confusion surrounded the claim, and it certainly did not mean what newspaper headlines suggested it did. I do not think that very much effort was put into discounting or dismissing those reports. Ministers have appeared on the "Today" programme a number of times to dismiss things that they believed were wrong and to stop their dissemination, but I do not remember any direct policy to do so in this instance.
240
I have some knowledge of, and considerable respect for, the work of the intelligence services, particularly the Secret Intelligence Service. During this saga, however, they were under considerable pressure to produce evidence on a very hard target. In my opinion, they became over-excited by intelligence that seemed to meet that demand from untested sources, some of which were second or third-hand, which is worrying.
Mr. Bercow: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Given, however, that many Conservative Members believe—this is not intended in a spirit of malice—that naivety and a reluctance to act are defining features of Liberal Democrat foreign policy, does he accept that to many of us the idea that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) could ever exercise the statesmanship demonstrated by the Prime Minister is quite unimaginable?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make this a partisan debate, unlike a number of hon. Members who have sought to prevent it from becoming such. If he wants the evidence, however, he should look at our support for the no-fly zone and the military action that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) initiated to ensure that Saddam Hussein could not move into areas where he had previously shown his willingness to poison people with the chemical weapons then in his possession. We were in no doubt about the need for such action. Similarly, we believed that the threat of force was a significant factor, which we needed to retain.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: No, I have given way twice, so I have reached the limit for which time is allowed.
I mentioned my concern about where the SIS went wrong, but I have a greater concern that for the Prime Minister the intelligence was only relevant insofar as it appeared to support a policy that did not depend on it but on a commitment already made to combine with the US in taking out Saddam's regime on grounds that could be applied to several dictators, proliferators, rogue states and failed states, including some of more immediate concern than Iraq, even on the information publicly disseminated at the time. Liberal Democrats have never challenged the Prime Minister's good faith or his conviction that what he was doing was right and in the country's interests. When considering whether to go to war, however, one needs more than good faith and self-belief. One needs good judgment and the determination to be as clear as possible about the evidence and the likely consequence. Both of those were lacking, because the Prime Minister had two overriding considerations. First, he did not want to be the person who might subsequently be criticized for not stopping Saddam Hussein in his tracks. That is a reasonable consideration, but it must be set in the context of what the consequences of military attack would be and what the grounds might be on which we would attack his regime, bearing in mind that there are a number of other evil regimes in the world, some of which present a more immediate threat. That was the first and overriding consideration, conscious or not, in his mind.

241
The second overriding consideration was that the Prime Minister did not want to go down in history as the Prime Minister who permanently and fatally fractured the alliance between Britain and the United States. That, I think, was a mistaken judgment, on the grounds that I gave earlier: that Britain and the United States have differed on matters of policy over the years, but there are features to the alliance that are so powerful and enduring that it will outlast particular decisions and particular Administrations. The Prime Minister should have taken more account of that.
5.10 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Butler indicates that there was some recent new evidence suggesting an increase in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, though it suggests that that later proved to be unreliable. However, paragraphs 427 to 428 of the report indicate that any UK policy change did not come about as a result of a new development in the current intelligence on Iraq, and that other countries would have been of more concern from the intelligence. It suggests two reasons for the change of policy.
The first relates to 11 September and views Iraq in a wider international context. That is an argument to which I shall return. The second reason the report suggests is that we were influenced by the concerns of the US Government. That, surely, is the overriding truth. The decisions of the Bush Administration, as so clearly spelled out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), were the decisive factor.
The leadership of both main parties wanted to be close to the United States, partly for honourable reasons—that we should stand by the US after the atrocity of 9/11, and that we should support the US against terrorism and in the action in Afghanistan. I believe there were other factors as well. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the then Leader of the Opposition, had close personal ties with members of the Bush Administration, and the Government have said repeatedly that they regard it as a major policy endeavour to stay close to the Bush Administration.
In the United States, after the war, Mr. Rumsfeld said that there was no new evidence really, but the Administration saw things differently through the prism of 9/11. I suspect that Condoleezza Rice told the truth rather more clearly when she told The New Yorker that after the atrocity she called together senior members of the national security council and said,
"'How do you capitalise on these opportunities to fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world in the wake of September 11?'"
Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Perle and the rest of the hawks had wanted a war with Iraq for years. Some of them had been arguing for it ever since they thought the first Gulf war had ended too early. That built up during the 1990s, with various reasons being given. It started to become part of the campaign to get rid of Bill Clinton, and it started to become an obsession and almost a shibboleth. It was the way one proved one was a good right-wing Republican. They gave many reasons, though human rights in Iraq was not one of them.
242
Wolfowitz told us that they chose one—weapons of mass destruction—because they could all agree on that. Then they produced a lot of false information to support their case. One thinks of the suggestion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 or that he was associated with al-Qaeda, or the lunatic suggestion that he had a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles carrying biological and chemical weapons with which he intended to attack the US. The Senate committee spelled out how false some of those claims were.
In the UK, as I said, there was a desire to be close to the Bush Administration. Hutton and Butler, in their own different ways, suggested that that desire influenced the desire for intelligence that would support a more aggressive policy. The September dossier the February "dodgy" dossier, debates, briefings and press conferences surely reflect what Butler said: the division was broken down between assessment and advocacy. Caveats and cautions were left out and risks were overstated.
In his speech on 18 March, the Prime Minister spelled out the reasons for war, including the breaching of UN resolutions. However, in response to the military threat, the inspectors had said that they were getting much more compliance, although Iraq was probably not, in the words of resolution 1441,
"co-operating actively, unconditionally and immediately".
Nevertheless, surely that co-operation was greater than that which we accepted in relation to decommissioning by the IRA, for example. The WMD threat was overestimated and insufficient weight was given to the inspectors' questioning of British intelligence evidence.
It was suggested that WMD could be given to terrorists. However, the JIC report of 27 November said that there was no intelligence to suggest that Saddam considered using chemical or biological weapons in terrorist attacks. Its report of 10 February said that that threat would only be heightened by an attack on Iraq. I believe that the threat of terrorism has increased as a result of the attack.
Llew Smith: My hon. Friend outlined some of the reasons that the Prime Minister used for going to war, including weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and the breaking of UN resolutions. Could not the same argument be used against Israel? It, too, has weapons of mass destruction. It, too, attacks its neighbours on a daily basis. It, too, is guilty of many humanitarian injustices. It, too, has broken UN resolutions—probably more than any other country in the world.
Mr. Savidge: I agree with my hon. Friend. The answer that people usually give is, "Ah, but Israel does not have chapter VII resolutions against them", but they never mention the fact that the United States has always vetoed any possibility of that occurring.
The UK is probably now much more likely to be a terrorist target. Iraq was a hideous tyranny, but it was not associated with al-Qaeda. There is a risk that it could degenerate into the sort of anarchy in which terrorism could thrive. There is a danger that we have increased the appearance that "the west" is against Islam. The pictures from Abu Ghraib could be recruiting posters for al-Qaeda. I fear that the US neo-conservatives have been Osama bin Laden's useful idiots.

243
Last week, the Prime Minister said that Iraq is better off without Saddam. However, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) tellingly pointed out, the Prime Minister said in his speech on 18 March:
"I have never put the justification for action as regime change."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 772.]
There are lessons that should be learned. First and foremost, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, containment was working—better, probably, than any of us suspected—in relation to WMD and the prevention of aggression. The neo-conservative agenda is wrong and dangerous. In particular, the concept of pre-emptive war should not set a pattern for the 21st century. We should also learn the lesson that we need more collective and more informed Cabinet government.
I would say to the Prime Minister that although I respect his strong convictions and his good faith, he misled Parliament and the people into war. Last week, he said that he took full personal responsibility. I hope, for the sake of his reputation, for the sake of the Labour party and for the sake of the British Parliament and the British people, that he considers very carefully the full implications of his own words.
5.18 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary has returned to his place. I know that he is extremely busy, but I want to draw his attention to remarks made earlier by the Father of the House, who rightly said that this is a very important debate. It is a pity that no members of the Cabinet have been present for much of it, especially given that there have been outstanding speeches by Members on both sides of the House with deeply held views.
The debate is not only important, but overdue. We would not easily have been forgiven had we broken for the summer recess on Thursday without having a full-scale debate, addressed by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, that gave Parliament the opportunity to reflect not only on why we went to war, but on what is happening in Iraq and on the implications of our actions for what is happening in the middle east and elsewhere. I shall dwell briefly on all those matters.
Exactly like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), I feel let down by the Prime Minister. I voted for the war and I spoke in the debate before that vote, but I now feel that Parliament and the people have been misled. Like many, I had grave doubts.
Tony Baldry: Is it not a fact that, if hon. Members had known then what they know now, the Prime Minister would have had great difficulty in getting the House's approval for war in the way in which he did?
Mr. Mackay: My hon. Friend, with his considerable experience both as a Minister and as the Chairman of the International Development Committee, is absolutely right. If I may, I shall come back to the issue that he raised in more detail in a moment.
244
As I was saying, I had grave reservations about the war. In an earlier debate on the middle east, which took place on 16 April 2002, I said:
"But what has happened in the past two, three, six or nine months that requires military intervention to be considered that has not happened before? We are not told what weapons of mass destruction he has now that he did not have then."—[Official Report, 16 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 506.]
Those questions were never satisfactorily answered. In my opening remarks in the debate of 18 March 2003, I said:
"This is also a very close call for many Members."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 803.]
Many of us entered the Chamber unsure of which way we were going to vote. We could see obvious merit in Saddam Hussein's regime falling; nothing would have pleased us more. Indeed, I do not think that any Member—with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), whom we do not see these days—in any way supports Saddam Hussein or condones the dreadful things that he has done to his people.
Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) is not here. In fairness, I do not think that he has ever condoned the actions of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Mackay: It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) whether he protects the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin. I would not withdraw a word of what I have just said about him.
Mr. Salmond: Why not wait until he is here?
Mr. Mackay: I would have to wait a very long time indeed. With the greatest respect, I do not think that that is a practical option.
Mr. Bercow: Not if my right hon. Friend is to keep within the eight-minute limit, anyway.
Mr. Mackay: Indeed.
Let me return to the serious issue of whether we should have gone to war. I said at the time that it was a very close call. Many of us had serious reservations about doing so to achieve regime change alone. We also noted carefully that Ministers continued to say that in no circumstances would they go to war to achieve regime change. No matter how much I wanted the regime in Iraq to change, if we go to war for that reason alone, where do we stop?
Like many hon. Members, I passionately believe that there should be regime change in Zimbabwe. I equally believe that the world would be a much safer place if there were regime change in North Korea. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I am following events in Sudan very closely, and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that regime change would help to avoid a catastrophe in that country. But does that mean that we should go to war every time we passionately believe that it would be in the interests of other people to have regime change? I would need to think long and hard and often before being persuaded of that. Of course, the Prime Minister did not even try to persuade me of that in the debate on 18 March last year.

245
A second, and much more honourable, reason was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), which was that the American alliance is hugely important to this country. I believe that my generation has lived in peace because of that alliance, I value it hugely, and I would not wish to undermine it. But I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, the Prime Minister and others that when one is a good and close friend, one occasionally says no, and one occasionally says, "You have it wrong." Previous Prime Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, have said that to Presidents to whom they were very close. That was not a sufficient reason alone for going to war.
Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mackay: No, because I have taken two interventions and I will lose my time if I do so. I have spotted that.
Another reason given was the link with terrorism. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) who spoke immediately before me, have mentioned that 11 September inevitably traumatised our American friends and allies, and perhaps even unduly influenced the American Administration. What I found reprehensible at the time was Ministers saying that there was a direct link between terrorism—[Interruption.] Let me say this before the Minister for Trade and Investment, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), leaves the Chamber, as I am referring to him. Again and again, I and other Members asked him at Foreign Office questions what links there were, and what proof there was of any links whatever between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. He responded—uncharacteristically petulantly—by asking how I could second-guess our intelligence services, and effectively told me to go away as my point was of no value. Neither he nor any other Member now believes that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda. In fact, al-Qaeda only arrived in Iraq—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
5.26 pm
Mrs. Helen Liddell: Members have done a lot of rewriting of history this afternoon, and none more so than the Leader of the Opposition. Regrettably, he is not in his place. Leadership is about courage, conscience and consistency. What we saw from him this afternoon was opportunism driven by panic. We saw him denying the judgment of his two predecessors, one of whom spoke most eloquently, and we saw him insult the intelligence of the British people.
Four months ago, virtually to the day, the same right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"What would have been the consequences if we had waited until a direct threat was real and imminent until we acted? Would we have been in a position, militarily as well as politically and diplomatically, to counter it? How could we take the risk that we would find ourselves impotent? The war against Iraq was
246
necessary. It was just. It was, indeed, arguably overdue. And, let us not forget, it was overwhelmingly successful—a judgment which subsequent difficulties do not change."
That is what the leader of the Conservative party said on 19 March to the News Corporation conference in Cancun. That is not the mark of a leader, a statesman or a politician whom we can take seriously.
I make the point about others having taken the opportunity to rewrite history, and I refer the House to the motion that we debated prior to going to war. It was not about intelligence. It was about the breach of United Nations resolutions. It stated that the House
"notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions".
The debate that night was about the breach of UN resolutions, which had been going on for 12 years. It was about the intent that Saddam Hussein was known to have, as has been proved in the Butler report, to acquire further weapons of mass destruction, and it was about his history.
Tony Baldry: Is there not a flaw in the right hon. Lady's argument? The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, quite honourably and quite rightly, tried to secure a second resolution from the United Nations. When that failed, they simply sought to return to a previous resolution and say that there had been breaches of it, and to use that as a justification for war. One of the lessons that we must learn from this whole exercise is that we ignore the authority of the United Nations at our peril.
Mrs. Liddell: I reject the first part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Resolution 1441 was, in itself, clear and unambiguous in the responsibilities that it placed on Saddam Hussein. I wholeheartedly agree with the second part, however. I believe that those who oppose the action taken in relation to Iraq must answer for what the consequences would have been for the United Nations had we yet again allowed Saddam Hussein to prevaricate. The Prime Minister, with the Foreign Secretary, came very close to securing that further resolution—I think it was the 18th, not the second. Another Government said that regardless of what was in that resolution, if there was a deadline they would not support it. Hence there was no chance of proceeding with the resolution.
It is clear and incontrovertible that Saddam Hussein was in breach of the United Nations resolution. In January and again in March, in the famous 173-page document, Dr. Hans Blix set out all that would be required of Saddam Hussein were he to comply. The international community united in resolution 1441—on the basis of broadly similar intelligence throughout the world—in saying that Saddam Hussein was in breach of resolutions, and was known to be seeking to develop his weapons of mass destruction even further.
As Lord Butler has said, it would be a rash person indeed who would conclude that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I must admit that for me there is a question mark over what happened between the carrying of resolution 1441 and the action that took

247
place the following March. What actually happened on the ground? In that connection, intelligence would be important. Much has been done to decry our intelligence services this afternoon, but they do an extremely difficult job in very dangerous circumstances. Those who did obtain intelligence—and it should be remembered that not all of it has been discredited—could have paid for it with their lives.
The reality is that the decisions made by the Government and the House in relation to the situation in Iraq were based on a breach of UN resolutions. At that time, we also debated intention. The Butler report makes clearer than even I had understood—and I was in the Cabinet at the time—the extent of Saddam Hussein's intention further to acquire nuclear weapons. Many of us discounted the whole issue of nuclear weapons because of an allegedly forged document that had originally come from a journalist. That issue went off the boil.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the concept of deterrence would not have worked? Whether Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons or not, if we had had the concept of deterrence he would never have been able to use them against us or our allies. On that basis, this was a wrong war.
Mrs. Liddell: The alleged deterrence had gone on for some 12 years. When would a line be drawn? When would we say that enough was enough?
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the Prime Minister was undoubtedly doing a deal with President Bush. Let me draw his attention to what the Prime Minister said on 24 February 1998:
"We should never forget that if we do not stop Saddam Hussein acting in breach of his agreement on weapons of mass destruction, the losers will be not just those threatened by him, but the authority and standing of the UN itself."
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was sitting next to the Prime Minister on the Front Bench when he said that. Later in the same speech, the Prime Minister quoted Kofi Annan as saying:
"You can achieve much by diplomacy, but you can achieve a lot more when diplomacy is backed by firmness and force."—[Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 174–751.]
I believe that if we had succeeded in securing a final resolution—if the international community had had the strength to stick together—Saddam Hussein could have been deposed in a peaceful way. Let me refer the House to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has said again and again. She said that those who say that containment was working are ignoring its consequences for the people of Iraq on the ground. It is on the collective conscience of this House that year after year, we turned a blind eye to what Saddam Hussein was doing. Now, we have a responsibility to move forward.
We are debating, among other things, the fourth inquiry into the circumstances surrounding our taking action against Iraq. Four inquiries have proved that the Government acted in good faith. Lord Butler, in particular, highlights the extent to which Saddam was in
248
breach, had intention and had the history; and Lord Hutton has made it clear that there were no attempts to embellish the intelligence in the original dossier. I remind the House that when we debated that dossier, the feeling was that it was dull, contained no killer punch and was very low key. The reality was that it was not about proving a case for war, but about proving the arguments that we were taking to the United Nations. I further remind Members that during the discussions that took place in the House that night, the 45 minutes issue was never mentioned.
On that issue, perhaps I might be heretical and say that frankly, I do not care whether the weapons in question were battlefield weapons or long-range weapons. Would those who do care mind saying to the families and friends of those who died in the first world war as a result of the use of mustard gas that it was acceptable to use such a weapon because it was being deployed only on the battlefield? Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, made it clear in giving evidence to the Hutton inquiry that he believed that the evidence in question had come from a credible source. The 45 minutes issue only became an issue after the notorious BBC broadcast.
We are dealing today with very serious issues, and the debate has become partisan, which I regret. [Interruption.] I should point out to Conservative Members that the Leader of the Opposition's speech was the speech not of a true leader, but of a man on the run who is seeking a bandwagon to jump on. It was unacceptable and it should not have been made in a debate of this seriousness.
5.37 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) will acquire some diplomatic skills before she takes up her forthcoming post. She regrets the partisan nature of the debate; none the less, I am sure that that aspect of her speech will stand her in great stead in her new post.
Because of where I am located in the House, I am able to see the Prime Minister's face when he is present. An interesting if not particularly important vignette occurred today that the hon. And learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) should perhaps know about. When he tried to intervene to ask the Prime Minister a question earlier today, I looked at the latter's face as he turned down the hon. and learned Gentleman's request. There was a look of exasperation, consternation and dislike on the Prime Minister's face. If I were the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would not wait too long for preferment from this Prime Minister. However, I also detected a look of fear. The Prime Minister did not want to take that intervention because he knew that it would get to the nub of some of the questions that the rest of us want answered.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked the Leader of the Opposition whether he thought that we had been deliberately deceived. The answer was in no man's land, which is where the Leader of the Opposition spent most of his speech. None the less, I want to answer that question. I believe that we were deliberately deceived, and I shall present the evidence that leads me to that conclusion.

249
On the 45 minutes claim, a week before the dossier was published Jonathan Powell wrote to John Scarlett saying that the dossier
"does nothing to demonstrate a threat",
never mind "an imminent threat". One week later, we had the Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier; and that day's Standard ran the headline, "45 Minutes From Attack".
Now the Government, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers tell us that nobody was bothered about the 45 minutes claim: it was hardly reported at the time. I am sure that Alastair Campbell was on the phone immediately to the editor of the London Standard to correct the wrongful impression that somehow had been conveyed by the dossier. I believe that the 45-minute threat was presented in the unqualified way that it was to produce exactly that headline and exactly that result.
Then, of course, there is the "Panorama" programme, hardly spoken about these days, which perhaps touches on the point made by the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts a few minutes ago. It took place in February 2003 in the run-up to the second United Nations resolution. What the Prime Minister told Jeremy Paxman and a studio audience, not once but on four separate occasions, was that the only circumstances in which the country would go to war without a second UN resolution would be if the inspectors concluded that they could not progress their work and one country had an unreasonable veto. The inspectors actually asked for more time and the bulk of the Security Council wanted to continue the process. The Prime Minister somehow forgot his claims of February 2003.
Perhaps more serious are the questions aired by the right hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook). We are expected to believe that at no stage did the Prime Minister examine the 45-minute claim and that at no stage did it ever occur to John Scarlett or anyone else that somehow the question of the withdrawal of sources for WMD should be reported to the politicians who were under examination from a variety of Committees of the House. My colleague, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), received a parliamentary answer today from the Foreign Secretary on precisely that point. In that answer, the Foreign Secretary said:
"I became aware of the withdrawal of this reporting when I agreed, in response to a request from SIS on 8 September 2003, that the reports in question should be disclosed to the Intelligence and Security Committee."
There is some confusion about that, because the ISC told The Independent a few days ago that a senior member was not aware of the withdrawal of the evidence. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary when he was intending to tell the rest of us about that? When was he going to tell the House—the hon. Members who, unfortunately, voted by a majority in favour of this conflict—that the clear, unmistakeable evidence sweeping across the Prime Minister's desk had actually been withdrawn by the Secret Intelligence Service?
Mr. John Gummer: Does not the hon. Gentleman find it very peculiar that most people out there who supported the war thought that the
250
Government knew things that they did not know, but it turned out that the Government did not know things that they ought to have known?
Mr. Salmond: It is not so curious because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister kept trying to give the impression that there was a mass of evidence, if only he could disclose it and not jeopardise his sources. The impression was conveyed that if only we were able to see what he had seen, there would be no mistaking the case for war. The reality is that the evidence was, at best, fragmented. As the right hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks and for Livingston both concluded—in a first-time and probably only historic agreement between those two right hon. Gentlemen—the intelligence, of course, had nothing to do with the causes and reasons for going to war. Unfortunately for the conscience of the Labour party, the Prime Minister's reason was not to depose Saddam Hussein either. It was to stay close, shoulder to shoulder, with the United States of America and pay the blood price for that alliance.
I accept that there could be an argument for staying close to a major ally, but not so close as we have reached in the current ridiculous position. The foreign policy of this country will not be decided in the general election next May, but in the American election this coming November. If "President Gore" had acceded to the White House and pursued what we know to be his policy, war in Iraq would have been viewed as a distraction from the war against terrorism. The policy of this Government would then have been fundamentally different. I do not believe in my country right or wrong, but the Government believe in another country right or wrong. It is a ridiculous, humiliating and thoroughly immoral position to be in.
Lastly, we in politics all play games about unemployment figures, health statistics and the rest. However, this is not the normal argy-bargy of politics; it is not about moulding statistics or presenting arguments in the best possible way. This is about 13,000 civilian deaths. Many British soldiers are dead, and American casualties are approaching 1,000. That is the blood price that is being paid for the Prime Minister's actions. He has played with other people's chips, and he has done so in a disastrous fashion.
When people examine the matter, they will know the reality. The vast majority sense the deliberate deception at the heart of the process. [Interruption.] Those on the Treasury Bench may laugh, but the people of this country will judge in a much higher court than that of Lords Hutton or Butler, and their judgment on the Prime Minister and his Administration will be much harsher.
5.46 pm
Mr. Marsha Singh: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this most important and serious debate.
Those of us who opposed the war from the very beginning did not need a Hutton or a Butler report. We knew that this country was not under attack or in any imminent danger of attack, and that no ally of ours was either. Therefore, war was wrong.

251
I shall quote what appeared on the front page of The Independent on Thursday 15 July. It summed up the headlines of the Butler report in a most apt and appropriate way. The newspaper stated that the intelligence was flawed, that the dossier was dodgy, that Dr. Brian Jones was vindicated, that Iraqi links to al-Qaeda were unproven, that the public were misled, and that the case for war was exaggerated. The newspaper asked who was to blame: its answer was no one. I shall return to that point later.
However, is it a coincidence that the US Senate Intelligence Committee produced exactly the same findings about the quality of US intelligence as did Butler about UK intelligence? What is going on? Was it agreed on both sides of the Atlantic that the intelligence reports should be spun and beefed up?
If we went to war in good faith, we must accept that that good faith was based on a complete misjudgment about weapons of mass destruction. That much is clear now, but there is a price to pay when a misjudgment is made, and the price for this war has been heavy. House of Commons Library estimates of 16 July show that 885 US and 60 British military personnel have died. There have also been 60 deaths among the other coalition partners.
Estimates of Iraqi casualties are difficult to obtain, because the Americans do not want to know. As a result, they do not know the figures, and the same is true for Britain. However, the website iraqbodycount.net estimated that between 11,164 and 13,118 Iraqi civilians had died up to 16 July. It puts civilian post-war casualties at between 9,015 and 10,503. In addition, there have been 111 deaths among foreign contractors, and nine such people are known to be missing. That is an appalling loss of human life, based on good faith—and on misjudgment.
Mr. Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another price has been paid, and it is the devastating loss of confidence in the western world on the part of the Arab and Muslim world? Our Prime Minister was let down by the US Administration: he was promised progress on the road map, but it has not materialised.
Mr. Singh: I shall come to that point shortly. There is another price—the financial cost—although it is obviously much less than the human price. According to the Library, up to the end of March we had spent £2.5 billion, and another £1.3 billion was available from April. The US Congress has appropriated £100 billion to cover the US military operations in Iraq. The cost of operations to this country is £125 million a month. I cannot speak for the Americans, but I can speak for my constituents, who would rather have seen our billions of pounds spent on schools, hospitals or pensioners, not on bombs, bullets and bloodshed.
What about the war on terror? Every morning and every night we see on our screens the complete lack of success that the war had in the war on terror. A recent book by a CIA agent, entitled "Imperial Hubris", says:
"Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he'd get."
It also says that the invasion of Iraq was an
"avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat."
252
We will never win the war on terror by waging war against Muslim countries. The Muslim world is rightly bemused, both in this country and across the world. We have attacked Saddam Hussein for not following UN resolutions—
David Winnick: If the accusation is that we are anti-Muslim, can my hon. Friend explain why we decided, outside of the United Nations, to liberate Kosovo to stop the killing of Muslims? We did not go in for Christians, Jews, Sikhs or Hindus. My hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) were so opposed to our action, but it was taken to stop the constant killing of Muslims. If we are anti-Muslim, how does my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) explain that?
Mr. Singh: I never said that we were anti-Muslim. I am trying to explain how the Muslim world sees our actions and the American actions. The Muslim world sees the west standing on the sidelines for five and more decades while the Palestinians have been persecuted by the Israeli state. Palestinian land has been under occupation for decades by the Israeli state, and we have turned a blind eye or mouthed platitudes as succour for the Palestinians. That is no succour for the Palestinians or the Muslim community.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Singh: Not now.
For five and a bit decades, we have seen the Kashmiri people denied the right to self-determination, irrespective of UN resolutions. We have seen human rights abuses, murders and rapes in Kashmir, but the Muslim world sees the west standing idly by and turning a blind eye. We have said that we will do our best to promote our dialogue, but we have done nothing for the Kashmiri people.
While the Russians wage savage war against Muslim Chechens, the west and the international community stand idly by and turn a blind eye.
Mr. Straw: It is incorrect for my hon. Friend to say that we have stood idly by in respect of Kashmir. I hope that he welcomes the rapprochement that has now taken place between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, in which we have been actively engaged.
Mr. Singh: I do welcome that rapprochement, but as the Muslim community sees it—and as I see it—there has been talk but no action in all the areas I have mentioned. The way to win the war on terror is to let the Palestinians have their homeland, let the Kashmiri people have the right to self-determination and stop the savagery of the Russians in Chechnya. We have lost the trust of Muslims across the world. That is a heavy price for this country to pay. Indeed, we might have all our contractors in Saudi Arabia chased out by terrorists in months to come.
The war has not made the world a safer place: it has made it immeasurably more dangerous. What has been the cost to my party? Members have left in droves and

253
voters have deserted in their thousands. The evidence of that was here today in the person of the new hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Gill). Only the Prime Minister can draw a line under this affair for our party. Many of us who opposed the war believe that it has besmirched our beliefs, compromised our principles and disfigured our souls. The desert sands are stained in crimson, a crimson that will never be washed away. The souls of the dead and the consciences of the living cry out in anguish because of that premeditated, pre-emptive war, based on a lust for revenge by one leader and political vanity in another. Somebody is responsible for the carnage and waste of life. The buck, as we all know, stops at the top. It is time for the buck to stop and it is time for our troops to come home.
5.56 pm
Mr. John Gummer: There is no doubt that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt either that Zimbabwe would be better off without Mugabe and Burma would be better off without its murderous regime. We could change the lives of people in North Korea and the Sudan by regime change. But we have not chosen to do so, because the fundamental issue is that of the just war. Once one takes into one's hands the ability to wage war when it is not the last and only answer when one faces an imminent threat, one offers the opportunity to everyone else to do the same thing. We say we can do it because we are the sort of people who would not do it unless we had a very good reason. That is our argument, but it is not a true argument.
I am ashamed when people say that we could not continue with containment because it takes so long. Actually, that is the message. If we want a peaceful world, we have to go the extra mile. We have to go on and on until there is no alternative to force. Otherwise, we have no moral position to take. The Prime Minister let this nation down when he tried to pretend that his was a moral position. He was opposed by those who know a bit about morality—the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama and even the president of the Free Church Federal Council all said that he was wrong—but he had to say that, because otherwise he would not have received the vote of this House.
I voted against the war because I had heard the Prime Minister on such matters before. I pressed him again and again to give me a straight answer on the bombing of the aspirin factory in the Sudan. He never gave me that answer. He constantly refused to answer the direct question and finally told me that there were to be no more questions because it was a matter of national security. He was not willing to be straight, and the people of Britain know that.
We have to remember that the Prime Minister told us that we should judge his integrity not simply on the facts but on whether they were properly relayed. It cannot be said that the facts were properly relayed, nor can it be said that the Government, who took, and take, every opportunity to batter the BBC and the media, took any action whatever to counter the generally understood view that we were 45 minutes from disaster. In other words, there was an immediacy at the heart of their argument that did not exist.
254
The problem is that once one accepts the theory of the preventive war, one opens the gates for everyone to claim it in every case—India, Pakistan or any country with a long-standing grudge or a serious problem. All can claim that in their own case, although not in that of others, they are acting to prevent war. That is why the problem is fundamental. One of the most dispiriting and miserable moments I can recall was during Prime Minister's questions last week, when the Prime Minister, in a carefully prepared piece of theatricism, refused to answer the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and engaged in what can only be described as a knockabout affair. A knockabout affair—when we were talking about something that could lead to more and more cases of people taking into their own hands the decision to wage war on their neighbours.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the notion that the Prime Minister used the concept of a looming threat as part of the case for war. Other Members have also cited that as part of the 45-minutes argument. However, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that during the debate on the dossier the Prime Minister said:
"'Why now?', people ask. I agree that I cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next, Saddam will use his weapons."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 5.]
The notion of a looming threat was never put forward as a case for war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Pull the other one!"] The Prime Minister's statement was that there was no looming threat in that month or the next, nor even in the next year. The case for war was based on the fact that Saddam was in contravention of UN resolutions. Containment was not a harmless or innocuous option to keep him on the hook; it cost much greater loss of life than the war.
Mr. Gummer: But the Prime Minister has now admitted that there was no such threat. That is what he said in answer to questions last Thursday. There was no looming threat and he said that it would have been perfectly possible to continue the policy of containment. Containment policies are long-winded and difficult and it is not easy to keep people on board, but they are the proper action of a nation that believes in peace.
The concept of a just war is crucial in our world, which is why I find it difficult that some of my hon. Friends, who are keen on the moral issue, do not recognise that no moral leader upholds the war as just—only politicians do that—and that should make mere politicians just a little wary of wearing the cope and garb of morality.
Mike Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman is hawking his conscience around and taking a position that implies that people who voted for the war are somehow responsible for an immoral act. Would he have been content for the policy of containment to continue and for half a million more Iraqi children to die? How would that go down with his conscience?
Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman had said we must launch a battle in Zimbabwe, if he had said that he wanted troops sent to Burma or Rwanda—of course, none of those countries are oil-rich nations—and if he

255
had said, week in and week out, that it was time we enforced UN resolutions in Israel, perhaps I would accept his words. I do not suggest that the Iraqi regime was anything but horrific. I am merely saying that for a country such as ours not to uphold the historic, moral standards of the just war is to open the gates to the most devastating and continuous use by others of our example for their behaviour in circumstances of which we, as yet, know nothing.
I want to suggest something very simple: everybody knows that we went to war because it was decided a long time ago, perhaps even before the election of President Bush, that the middle east was due for a reorganisation, and 9/11—that horrific occasion—provided, as Rumsfeld so clearly indicated, a new focus for decisions on such matters. The Government were looking for reasons to stand side by side with people who had already decided that, whatever the reasons, they would go to war.
That is why I want to return to the claims about battlefield weapons and 45 minutes. Of course, such weapons are horrific, but that was not the claim; it was that there was an imminent threat of that kind to us and our allies. That is why I think that the Prime Minister is guilty.
Mr. Straw: I know of no occasion when the Prime Minister, or any senior Minister, used the word "imminent".
Hon. Members: What about "current"?
Mr. Gummer: Current is even more imminent than imminent. Current is now; imminent is tomorrow. The Prime Minister did not ask what that meant in the context of WMD. He failed to ask that question. I was a Minister for 16 years and I would not have asked so few questions about a new arrangement for dealing with chickens.
When the chairman of Shell used information that he was given about the company's resources and found subsequently that the information was wrong, he had to go—although he had misled no one in any way. The Prime Minister failed to give us the caveats. He told us that which misled us. That is why he has to go.
6.8 pm
Donald Anderson: It is for theologians to set out the broad principles of a just war, but it is for politicians to make the decisions, often in messy and uncertain circumstances. Even theologians recognise that there can be just wars, when everything else has been exhausted and when there is the capability to do something. It has been said that we will not go into Zimbabwe, but there are questions of capacity, bases and so on. Just war, yes; but the issue is more than a theological one—practical politicians have to do their best in difficult circumstances.
In the Foreign Office, Mandarin is classified as a difficult language. We have seen today that when mandarins speak, there can be very different interpretations, depending on one's starting point.
I was glad that the right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) mentioned the work of the Foreign Affairs
256
Committee, because we can at least agree that, by and large, our reports on Iraq have stood the test of time. I shall just give a flavour of some of the reports. Again, on an all-party, unanimous basis, we concluded:
"Iraq remains the greatest threat to a wider peace in the"—
middle east—
"region."
We warned that,
"if military action is to be taken against Iraq … the objectives will have to be … clearly defined, and a full justification will have to be provided".
We said that the 24 September dossier as a whole
"was probably as complete and accurate as the Joint Intelligence Committee could make it, consistent with protecting sources, but that it contained undue emphasis for a document of its kind."
Clearly, at this interim stage, it is difficult to step aside and consider what future historians will make of the Iraq issue. Much will depend, in my judgment, on the way in which the current situation in Iraq evolves.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Donald Anderson: No, no. I have hardly started.
Yet the Iraq issue is clearly a defining moment for this Parliament, for our relations with the United States and for the Prime Minister's standing. Judgments had to be made on the basis of intelligence, which is naturally never conclusive; but what many commentators fail to appreciate is that there are consequences of action and consequences of inaction, as we saw in Srebrenica and in Rwanda. If no action had been taken, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would still be President. He would still be continuing, as the Butler committee concluded, his strategic intent to pursue banned weapons programmes, his illicit research and development and procurement activities and his development of ballistic missiles. By our action, in my judgment, we have led to certain other positive changes—certainly in Libya, probably in Saudi Arabia and possibly in North Korea.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend's Committee assessed the threat of Iraq against some of the other threats in the world, such as the continuing conflict in Israel and Palestine?
Donald Anderson: There is a very difficult balance to make. I would certainly ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of our next report, on the morning of 29 July, as it covers the Israel-Palestine situation. I look forward to seeing her there, during the recess, to hear our conclusions.
The truth is that the Prime Minister took a strategic decision to side with the US, both in principle and on the basis that the decision bought some influence with the US. That is clearly debatable, yes, in terms of the middle east and the UN course. An isolated and isolationist US would be a much greater danger to our interests than an engaged US.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Donald Anderson: No.

257
That is the background to Butler, whose leitmotiv is clearly that the Government acted in good faith. The Butler committee had access to all the intelligence. It interviewed a large number of witnesses, including six former chairmen of the Joint Intelligence Committee. Of course, it had the benefit of hindsight, which gives 20:20 vision. The key conclusions exonerate the Prime Minister. It said that the dossier was not intended to make the case for war, that it was founded on assessments available at the time and that the intelligence in the dossier was not knowingly embellished. It effectively supported Hutton; it did not support the BBC and Gilligan. However, on page 86, the report says the dossier did not contain the health warnings that related to the limited intelligence that was available.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Donald Anderson: No, I want to move on.
If the Prime Minister is to be criticised, surely it would be on the basis that he did not sufficiently rigorously question the intelligence that was put to him. The report says that the dossier was an unprecedented exercise in public information, but that, in retrospect, it was probably misconceived and is unlikely to be repeated in that form.
On the intelligence, other countries shared the same broad conclusions. Butler concluded that the JIC assessments were not pulled in any direction to meet policy needs and that there was no deliberate distortion, and so on—save, of course, for the failure of the 45-minute claim—yet there were failures. Dr. Blix said in terms that the best information was given, but nothing was there.
On weapons of mass destruction, perhaps the Prime Minister now regrets putting so much emphasis on WMD, as opposed to the UN resolutions and human rights, but Butler is clear that Saddam Hussein had the strategic intent to pursue banned weapons programmes and was carrying out illicit research and development. Even now, in his judgment, it is premature—or "rash", as he says—to reach conclusions.
All that said, I remain personally puzzled by a number of questions. Why Iraq? Presumably the answer must relate to the UN Security Council resolutions. Was war inevitable? Clearly, if Saddam Hussein had at the last minute seen those forces massing at his frontiers and allowed full co-operation with UNMOVIC, there would not have been war—it would have been wholly impossible for the Government to persuade the British people to have gone in. Where have the weapons gone? Have they been looted or concealed? What is the sufficient explanation? Why did Saddam Hussein not come clean if he had no weapons when the US and the coalition forces were massing at his frontiers and the UN resolution 1441 said that it was his last chance?
Butler's key conclusion was that the Government acted in good faith, and the question for us now, after four reports, is whether we continue to look at the past, turning over stones in the hope that we might find something; or given that Iraq is now on a knife edge and
258
could go either way, do we therefore keep on looking as though, somehow, a silver bullet will be found that will harm the Government's case?
We have toppled a brutal dictator, who had been warned for 12 years by successive UN Security Council resolutions, culminating in resolution 1441, which gave him a last chance. Whatever may have been the decisions and divisions when we came to the vote, surely we now face the biggest historical task. Are we ready to meet the challenge of helping to create and build a better Iraq? That surely is the key question that should now face the House and members of the coalition.
6.17 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I hope that we can all at least agree with the concluding sentiments and remarks of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
This has been the most sober, sombre debate that I can remember for a very long time. We have heard two members of the Prime Minister's party call explicitly for his resignation and another—the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who made a very powerful speech that brought a new dimension to our debate—call implicitly for his resignation.
We have heard Conservative Members, who supported the war with the same degree of steadfastness as I did, regretting their decision and saying that, in fact, if they had known what we now know, they would have voted otherwise. Those of us who did support the war, and who do support the war, have a duty to examine our consciences and decide where we go from here.
I do not regret the vote that I cast on 18 March last year. I voted as I did for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) gave in a very powerful and characteristically witty speech. I voted as I did because I wanted to see the end of a brutal dictatorship. I voted recognising that the fact that I could not ensure the removal of every dictator of whom I disapprove was no reason for not voting to remove one who could be removed.
As one who had ploughed a very lonely furrow over Bosnia, when the Government whom I supported were in power, and who felt deeply ashamed by the pusillanimous attitude of the then British Government, not supported by the then Opposition—save for a few doughty souls, such as the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald)—I felt that I did not want to repeat that mistake.
I also felt that the Prime Minister acted with extraordinary courage for the leader of the Labour party—a party with a very honourable tradition of pacifism and a less honourable tradition of anti-Americanism. I thought that the leadership that he gave was of a national character and that it deserved support. Nothing that I have heard or read since has persuaded me that I was wrong. Therefore, I still believe that the decision taken on 18 March last year was correct. I regret that there has been on the Conservative Benches a degree of nit-picking, although I absolve my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes

259
(Mr. Ancram), who is on the Front Bench. It is important that we now look at what happened and where we should go.
Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I will in a moment.
There can be no hon. Member who voted for the war who is not deeply distressed and ashamed by the inexcusable, brutal treatment of prisoners. That defaces our cause and diminishes our stature. We all should feel a degree of collective shame about that. That most of those incidents appear to have been perpetrated by American troops does not lessen the anguish that we should feel.
We should all feel a degree of regret at the way in which the reconstruction of Iraq was perhaps not thought through as carefully as it might have been, although I believe that there has been much black propaganda and that things in Iraq are better than many would have us believe. However, we also have to address the fundamental ethos of Government in this country and why it is that the Prime Minister, who in my view behaved honourably and did not deceive the House or the country, is now held in much lower esteem than he was.
I offer the House an analogy. A little over a year ago, the Prime Minister, sitting in his room and thinking of his reshuffle, decided to get rid of the office of Lord Chancellor. He thought that he would like to do that because he is a broad brush man—he is not a man for detail. He did not realise the implications of that decision. I fear that, in the lead-up to war, he was perhaps a little careless when it came to the intelligence. He was passionately convinced of the need for war. He was absolutely convinced that it was right for this country to take the action that was taken, and I think that he was right. He was less than careful perhaps in the way in which he studied some of the intelligence that came before him. I believe that it is that cavalier disdain for the facts, that unwillingness to think things through in detail, that has landed him in the position he is in today.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: How could I resist?
Mr. Salmond: I understand that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Prime Minister is a broad brush man, but Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell are not broad brush men. What exactly were they doing with their comments and interference in the dossiers with which we were presented?
Sir Patrick Cormack: It is all very well to criticise those below. We should all recognise that every Prime Minister, certainly in my time, has had a kitchen Cabinet or the equivalent thereof. Every Prime Minister has had a few people he or she has trusted rather more than others, and sometimes those people have been a bit strange. I will not give the House a catalogue because we all know what I am talking about, but the point implicit in the hon. Gentleman's remark is that he believes that the Prime Minister was far too informal. Indeed, I
260
believe that Butler does too, but the former head of the civil service would, would he not? We must look at the matter in perspective.
What we face as a House collectively is a serious situation. Our troops are still in Iraq. They have served the country with enormous bravery and distinction. They deserve our united backing. There is an interim regime in Iraq. It may not be perfect but it is infinitely better than what was there before and it deserves our backing. There are elections promised in Iraq. It is in all our interests that they should take place.
I listened with great respect and interest to what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) said about his Muslim friends, but as one of those who led the battle to save Muslim friends in Bosnia, I think that I can say this to him: "Please go and talk to your constituents. Neither the British Government in particular nor the House of Commons in general is anti-Muslim, but it is in the interests of all who believe in freedom and democracy and a peaceful world that what is happening in Iraq should succeed and that terrorism should be defeated."
As we rise for the summer recess, I hope that we can exorcise the partisan spirit that has been present, perfectly understandably, for much of the debate. I hope that we can unite in supporting our troops and the people who are struggling towards a better system in Iraq. If we can do that, recognising and respecting the differences that divided us on 18 March last year and which have divided us since, we will not have served ourselves badly.
6.26 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has anguished his conscience before us and has portrayed the process and the leadership that took us to war in a characteristically generous and magnanimous way. I am sure that he is deeply sincere, but we have been taken to war on grounds that many people now regard as deceptive. The issue in this debate more than in any other discussion that has taken place is accountability. That is now paramount.
The most striking characteristic of the Butler report, as many hon. Members have said, is the disjunction between analysis and judgment. It catalogues a litany of failures and then pulls all its punches by declaring that in effect no one is to blame. George Tenet was sacked as head of the CIA for intelligence failures over Iraq, but John Scarlett, who is responsible for exactly the same intelligence failures in this country, is still recommended by the report for promotion, despite all the damning evidence in the report to the contrary. It is a very British establishment charade, but as an exercise in accountability, which is the crux of what is needed, it is completely unacceptable.
The facts, which I think are no longer seriously in dispute, are stark. The United States went to war over Iraq both because of oil and for reasons of American control of the middle east region, set out clearly in a "Project for the New American Century" document published for the Bush election team in September 2000. As we now know from United States Treasury Secretary O'Neill, that war was planned from the first days of the Bush Administration. Then 9/11 provided the pretext for launching it, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said.

261
The United Kingdom went to war over Iraq because President Bush wanted British support. At the Crawford summit in April 2002, the Prime Minister in effect committed to providing that, publicly pledging to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush. From that point on, the assessment of intelligence data conflated analysis into advocacy in order to find a rationale for the war that had already been decided on for other reasons.
David Winnick: If my right hon. Friend whom I respect and he should not take this remark personally—felt so strongly at the time, the inevitable question, which he realises I am going to ask, is: why did he not resign from the Government?
Mr. Meacher: I believed what the Prime Minister said so categorically and authoritatively. I thought that he spoke with great authority, and like so many others in this House and the country, I thought that he had access to a repository of intelligence data to which none of us has access; and that if he was so certain and spoke with such assurance, we had to accept what he said. I am quite prepared to admit that I also supported the war because I have long believed passionately in the principle of military intervention for humanitarian purposes. Yes, I believe in that, but I am deeply uneasy, as I was at the time, that there are no international criteria that give legitimacy for taking such action in many other cases, as has been pointed out.
Paul Flynn: The Butler report makes it clear that what are described as excellent papers were prepared with all the caveats in them for the Cabinet Committees and members of the Cabinet to see. Butler says that they did not see those papers, and that that impaired their ability to make a correct judgment. Obviously my right hon. Friend did not see the papers, but was he aware of their existence? Does he think that, if he had read them, he might have come to a different conclusion?
Mr. Meacher: We all have to assume that, if that material had been made available, a different judgment would have been made. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Gummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he, like many others, thought that the Prime Minister knew more than he was able to say? Is not the real problem that it all turns out that we knew more than he was able to say?
Mr. Meacher: I think that that is the case. Indeed, if I can develop my argument, I shall go on to say that that is exactly the point to which I think the House needs to give its attention.
The decision having been made to go to war, Whitehall provided a briefing that any rationale depended on being able to show incontrovertible evidence of "large-scale" activity by Iraq in weapons of mass destruction. However, because the UN inspectors left in 1998, the evidence was almost non-existent. That is the root of the problem. The CIA admitted that its resources on Iraq were "thin", and the JIC had already
262
concluded in March 2002, as has been repeated many times in the Chamber, that intelligence on Iraq's WMD and ballistic programmes was "sporadic and patchy".
The key point is that, in the evidence put together over the crucial five months from the Crawford summit until the publication of the September dossier to justify the war, we now know that all the specific data were flawed. As we now know, the inventory of chemical and biological weapons and weapons parts that the Prime Minister presented to the House dealt with weapons unaccounted for since the first Gulf war, 12 years before. They were not presented as weapons unaccounted for, however; they were presented as weapons that were believed definitely to be currently possessed by Saddam.
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way any further.
The 45-minute claim referred to battlefield nuclear weapons, but the impression was given that the threat went much wider. Accordingly, when it was reported thus—this was exactly as we saw it presented—no attempt was made to correct the misreporting, despite the belief that it was wrong. The claim that Iraq tried to buy 500 tonnes of yellowcake from Niger was still included in the dossier, despite the fact that it was known that a visit made to Niger by a former US ambassador six months before had confirmed that the claim was completely bogus.
The Prime Minister claimed to the House in February last year—perhaps my hon. Friends will listen to this point, as I think that it is quite important, and it has received virtually no attention—that the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son in law, in 1995 had revealed
"the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme".—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 123.]
But as we now know from a Newsweek exclusive a few weeks later, what Hussein Kamal actually said in his debriefing was exactly the opposite:
"all weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed."
As Butler has pointed out so poignantly, all the ifs and buts, qualifications and caveats in the raw intelligence data were dropped from the dossier, while the positive allegations were distinctly over-hyped. Sources were treated as reliable when they clearly were not, and they were not checked with the expertise of intelligence staff.
Anyone who reads appendix B of the Butler report, which I think is excellently set out, can see set out step by step how the process of massaging and accretion steadily accumulated, until we were finally told in the September dossier that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme was "active, detailed and growing", and that the intelligence on which that judgment was based was "extensive, detailed and authoritative", when in fact, Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction at all.
Nobody—and I think that this is true—is doubting the good faith of the Prime Minister or that he sincerely believed in the policies that he was pursuing. He believed in them passionately, and I think that everyone recognises that, but that is not the issue. The issue is his judgment and his over-eagerness to take us into a war on

263
grounds that far exceeded the available evidence. The issue now is accountability, and I think that that is now the issue for this House to exorcise. One cannot take this country into a war under false pretences and then proclaim, as Butler does, that nobody can be held responsible.
Over the Gilligan affair, which is utterly trivial by comparison, the Government made it clear that they expected heads to roll—and they did. On this matter, there are two central issues on which I think that those responsible must be held to account. One is the presentation of the evidence that persuaded the House to agree to war. Being sinuous with the truth may not be lying, but it is certainly not open or honest. Presenting a seriously misleading account of the facts may not be lying, but it is not truthful or straightforward either. The second central issue is the framework of governance that allowed the decision to be taken. Those are the key issues, and a debate on a motion for the Adjournment is not an adequate format—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
6.37 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to follow an extremely important and powerful speech by the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). I agree with him in a number of respects, including on the importance of the meeting in Crawford, Texas, where I think that the course taken by the United Kingdom was set. I also agree with what he said about accountability, as well as about the Prime Minister's sincerity.
I do not think that there was any doubt about the Prime Minister's sincerity when he made the case for war. In the past seven years, this House and the country generally have been treated to one or two rather stomach-churning thespian performances from the Prime Minister, but anyone who saw his performance on 18 March last year will have known that it was of an entirely different quality. On Iraq, he has usually spoken with simple conviction.
My concern is the same as that of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton—that it is the Prime Minister's judgment and the strategy that has flowed from the depth of his conviction that have proved flawed. As he was so convinced in the virtues of his actions and the United States was so focused on regime change, the necessary focus on post-Saddam Iraq was missing. A number of speakers have referred to the fact that Iraq was on the Bush Government's agenda before 9/11, as we have heard in comments attributed to Condoleezza Rice in her interview with The New Yorker. It was clear to informed observers that, in early 2002, the United States was set on this strategy, which was obviously made explicit to the Prime Minister at that vital meeting in Crawford, Texas. The Defence Committee heard evidence that British officers attached to Centcom were then privy to the planning for the operation in Iraq in early summer 2002. For the United States, Iraq was unfinished business from 1991. For the Prime Minister, it was about weapons of mass destruction—I think that that was his sincere belief—combined with the capacity of the suicide attackers demonstrated on 9/11.
264
The results of the coalition strategy have been disastrous in many respects. The collapse of the Prime Minister's credibility means that his ability to persuade Parliament and the country about the need for future war, should it arise, has been fatally undermined. Several Labour Members have called on the Prime Minister to consider his position, but if there is a need for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to come to the House of Commons to make a similar case to the one that he made—this was the fifth time that the country had gone to pre-emptive war under the right hon. Gentleman's leadership—he will have a serious problem persuading the House and the country. The leader of the United Kingdom should not carry such a handicap.
A further element of the problem is the demolition of the liberal west's moral authority, which is most graphically seen in the pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib prison. A further cause for Osama bin Laden and his zealots to exploit has been created through the collapse of a country that was diametrically opposed to them. Of course, there is a real risk of civil war in Iraq if a satisfactory federal settlement cannot be found, so we might find that statements about how fewer people are now dying in Iraq than was the case under Saddam Hussein could be completely reversed, with appalling consequences, if it falls into civil war during the months and years to come.
If I knew on 18 March 2003 what I know now, I would not have voted for the motion, but that is not because I would have thought that the resolution was unjustified. I agreed with the analysis of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who made his case extremely well. However, the problem is the way in which the policy has been acted out in practice and how the coalition has conducted operations because that has meant that the possible benefits of the operation have been overtaken by the costs.
The mistakes that were made have been rehearsed many times. The Pentagon was in charge, yet was not equipped for the more challenging role of rebuilding a state. Insufficient priority was given to the planning of post-conflict operations. Under the Rumsfeld doctrine, a military operation was conducted on the cheap with a lightening strike to take Baghdad—that was a brilliant operation—but insufficient forces were left on the ground to deal with the collapse of the government of Iraq. The army and other security forces were disbanded and, of course, Iraq was used as an experiment for transformative politics, as envisaged by Paul Wolfowitz.
The core strategic mistake was made because we should have been absolutely clear about the outcome at the outset: to remove the regime and produce a replacement Iraqi Government. The very moment at which we had leverage over people such as Ayatollah Sistani, representatives of the Shi'a community—both those in Iraq and in exile—and the Kurdish leaders, all of whom wanted Saddam Hussein to go and were desperate for the coalition powers to intervene, was before we intervened. We should have ensured that the post-war settlement of Iraq was clear because we now have the problem that we have to rely on the wisdom and leadership of Ayatollah Sistani more than anyone else. We need him to reach an agreement with the Kurdish leaders, in particular, that will meet their desire for a satisfactory element of self-government for that

265
part of Iraq, in addition to the desire of the majority of the Iraqi population for proper influence on the whole country's affairs.
We are now engaged in the difficult process of moving towards democracy in Iraq. Iraqi experts agree that the moderate middle in Iraq is weak and that political parties with appeal to the intelligentsia have neither organisation nor a significant democratic base. Given the way in which the United Nations elections are being set up, it is likely that individuals will be encouraged to run for elections on the basis of not party support, but personality. There is a danger that that process will by default lead to the mass support of demagogues who will attack the whole parliamentary and governmental system and try to sweep away such parties, as has happened all too often in modern Iraqi history.
Our real problem as a coalition is that we will not know what to do if Iraq begins to descend into civil war. If the security situation deteriorates and the interim Government cannot maintain the minimum level of legitimacy and control, what are British and American forces supposed to do? I do not know, and I am not sure that the Government do either.
6.45 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Two contemporaneous debates are being conducted as we speak. One is going on in the rather esoteric environment of the House of Commons, but to people inside the House, let alone those outside, it is riddled with pedantry and hyperbole and it often seems futile. A more important debate is going on outside the House in the minds and hearts of the British people and people throughout the world about the extent to which a decision taken long ago was right. I often wonder what people make of these debates—they are bad enough for the British public, so God knows what the international public think.
During today's debate, we heard a lucid and cogent speech from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has the added merit of maintaining a consistent position over time. The Leader of the Opposition displayed tautological contortions as he tried increasingly to justify the rather bizarre ambivalence of his position on the war. The Prime Minister's contribution contained elements of defensive sophistry, but it did not really add to the total knowledge of people outside the House, although the same problems keep reoccurring and members of the Government repeatedly maintain things that they know not to be true.
For example, two outstanding arguments were made in the run-up to the war, and they have been rehearsed consistently since. The first argument was about the legality of the war, although I am prepared to accept that a case for a legal war could be made under UN Security Council resolution 1441—I know that hon. Members could have a big argument about that.
Secondly, a political case was made and, to defer to the Foreign Secretary, I shall not claim that it was said that there was an "imminent" threat, but that a clear and present threat emanated from Saddam Hussein. The political argument won over many people in the political class and many outside the House. It was repeated ad
266
nauseam in the newspapers—of course, it was promoted on behalf of the Government because that is what Governments do. Nevertheless, it has been shown that the argument was wholly untrue. There was no threat and there were no weapons of mass destruction. I am not someone such as Lord Butler who cautiously says, "Don't close down the possibility", because we know a threat when a threat exists and know a weapon of mass destruction when it exists. Curiously, when Lord Butler wrote about the background to the weapons of mass destruction, he did not mention where they actually came from. He made a cursory mention of what Iraq had before 1990, but he did not refer to the countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, that provided the very weapons of mass destruction that would later become politically problematic.
People outside the House realise where we are today. They know that there was no threat, nor any weapons of mass destruction. It would be easy for those of us who voted against the war to say, "We told you so. We were right"—we were right, actually. However, the truth of the matter is that on 18 March 2003, we voted for the simple premise that the case for war was not proven. It is wrong and misleading to suggest that the people who voted for that were somehow condoning Saddam or, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) implied, that we were all pacifists, or that we took the view that would not resort to military action when that was appropriate. However, we found the case unconvincing on that occasion. We were able to argue that without the merits of Butler and Hutton because many of us thought that it was evident at the time that the Government's case did not stack up. Nothing has happened to change our view since then, although I hear people who took a different view trying to reconcile their consciences with what they now know. If they did vote for war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, they did so because of a fallacious argument that should never have been made, but I can say that with hindsight.
People out there will still have a view on whether we should pursue this argument. I have a view on that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) again implied that we should draw a line under this and hope that the whole thing goes away. It may be an embarrassment to him and his Committee, the Government and the official Opposition, but the fact remains that many thousands of people have lost their lives, as we heard today, in an illegal and immoral war.
Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently on this subject a number of times and it is a pleasure to hear him speak again. Will he expand on where he believes the evidence did not stack up? People say that the intelligence evidence is now disproved, but we never believed it because when the weapons inspectors went to places identified by the intelligence officers as having weapons, there were none. That undermined the argument that there was any real evidence in the first place.
Mr. Kilfoyle: I could wax eloquent all night on those points, but let me put it simply. On the night of the great debate in the Chamber, I and others made the point that inspectors were in Iraq dismantling the weapons of war that had been found. Hon. Members may recall the

267
Prime Minister referring to appeasement, as though those who were opposed to war were appeasers, akin to those in 1938—in fact, I think he actually referred to it in that way. I said that we did not have League of Nations inspectors dismantling the Panzers, but UN inspectors dismantling the weapons of mass destruction.
Anyone who knows anything about such things would wonder, as I did at the time, why we had spent so many years missing all the weapons of mass destruction when we had alleged precision-targeted bombing of every military installation in Iraq. Where were they? What about satellite reconnaissance and all the rest of it, which is supposed to tell us the location of a truck or, indeed, the man standing beside the truck? The case clearly needed more evidence than was available. We did not get that evidence and today certain views have been vindicated.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman says that the war was immoral. Is he saying that continual breach of United Nations resolutions, massive human rights violations against the people of Iraq and the desire to disable the regime responsible for the latter, could never constitute justification for intervention? If he is not saying that, in what circumstances would he countenance intervention?
Mr. Kilfoyle: I am not saying that at all. We are discussing an entirely separate set of circumstances. Nor do I agree, by the way, with some of my Back-Bench colleagues who would transpose the conditions raised by the hon. Gentleman into another set of geopolitical circumstances.
I am sure that I speak for most of those who were against the war when I say that we did not in any way condone either Saddam personally or the regime that he headed. However, those were not the explicit reasons for going to war. Regime change was never on offer, no matter how repulsive the regime might have been. To return to my theme about the British public, what was certainly on offer was the case that there was a clear and present danger—a threat—emanating from Saddam. That was demonstrably not the case then and is demonstrably not the case now.
Deciding to go to war will be a very difficult sin—to speak in my own terms—for us to eradicate as a party. We will be held to account as a party for this war whether we voted against it or for it. The morality of the case was put eloquently by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) was more eloquent than I could ever hope to be about the damage that the war has done to my party. More importantly, however, is the damage that has been done to our position in Europe and the United Nations and to our relationships with the Muslim world. I hope that that damage is not irreparable, but it is very great indeed.
6.55 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: In following the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), I can only say how much I agree with everything he said.
The Butler report gives a useful overview of the use and role of intelligence, and I suspect that it is as much for the good of the House of Commons as it is for the
268
Government and perhaps the Cabinet. In his overview of the use and role of intelligence, Butler talks about the limitations of intelligence and the various types of intelligence—human, imaging and signals—and says how important corroborative evidence is when human intelligence is involved. It is not enough to have a single source or a single source at third hand who cannot be traced afterwards, which seems to be the case with the Iraq intelligence. He stresses the importance of assessment, a stage that was apparently missed out in the case of the 45-minute claim, which came at a late stage.
Butler also makes the point that it is necessary to challenge at every level. The intelligence services must be challenged. The Joint Intelligence Committee must continue to challenge information. On a political level, both the Prime Minister and the Cabinet must be challenged. It is important that we take all four reports into account. When I looked at the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as I did soon after its report came out, I was astonished to find at paragraph 73 of page 24 that of the seven Departments that acknowledged they had received a copy of the first draft of the September dossier, only one, to its credit, made any comment. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was, apparently, not sent a draft. The private offices of some Secretaries of State decided that their masters did not need to see it. However, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Trade and Investment at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office both commented on it.
Some of those Secretaries of States, some of whom have since left the Government, have commented on how Cabinet work lacks overall Cabinet responsibility because one person makes the decisions, but they did not even look at the draft. If they made it clear to their outer office that they did not want to be troubled with the information, how on earth can they complain afterwards that they were not involved?
I have been fascinated over the past couple of years to watch the Prime Minister. I have been trying to understand why he climbed out further and further on a limb. He clearly genuinely believed what he told us. I could not believe that someone would go so far out on a limb on intelligence that at best had lots of ifs and buts about it. Careful reading of the information issued and the statements made revealed that deniability was written into much of the phrasing. When deniability is put into almost every line, one begins to wonder why that deniability exists.
Butler talks about the backdrop and gives four case studies, including North Korea and Iran. He mentions the creeping tide of terrorism and the concern that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the JIC clearly had. In paragraph 285, the Prime Minister is reported as telling the Butler committee that
"the place to start was Iraq"
out of all the various threats across the world
"because you have the history of the United Nations Resolutions and you have the … fact that we'd taken action in respect of WMD in the aftermath of the Gulf War, then again in 1998".
The Prime Minister saw Iraq within a context. He did not see it as an isolated case, according to what he told Lord Butler. Yet he was telling the House of Commons something different—
It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order. No. 15 (Exempted Business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister may continue, though opposed, until eight o'clock and that the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, Energy Bill [Lords] and any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Question agreed to.

Iraq
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Mrs. Calton: The Prime Minister lays great stress on the strengthening of the JIC assessments in 2002. Was he aware, when he made his decision, of the risks of "group think" to which Lord Butler draws attention in paragraph 57 of his report? In paragraph 58, Butler says:
"The assessment process must be informed by an understanding of policy-makers' requirements for information, but must avoid being so captured by policy objectives that it reports the world as policy makers would wish it to be rather than as it is."
The Government have set up machinery whereby everyone from teachers to doctors, policemen and civil servants know that they must see the world as the Government see it or they are out. If they step out of line they pay the price, so naturally the JIC produced the reports that the Government wanted. Commenting on the first draft of the dossier to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Defence Secretary said that it was "insufficiently dramatic", as if that were its most important feature. It is almost impossible to believe that that comment would not have seeped out.
Today, the Prime Minister quoted selectively from Butler's conclusions, and omitted the conclusion that Iraq did not
"have significant—if any—stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them."
The Prime Minister made it clear that he believed that Iraq continued to produce biological weapons and their means of delivery.
As I am running out of time, I shall conclude. As a citizen of this country and a Member of Parliament, I expect people with access to material used in the buildup to war to take individual and collective responsibility for it. It is simply not good enough to be left in a position where we do not know whether anybody has asked any questions. There is a sense of public outrage about the war. Governments cannot slide into war using dodgy, unchecked information—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady has had her eight minutes.
7.3 pm
Tony Wright: There has been a certain amount of soul searching today, and I am afraid that I am about to indulge in a little more. Those of us who could not support the Government on military action had a duty to test their case not at its weakest but at its strongest. We had to set the bar as high
270
as possible. Had we set it as low as possible, confining ourselves to details of intelligence, we can easily see why we would have run into trouble. I always wanted to make sure, however, that I tested the Government's case at its strongest. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister many times, as he spoke about the new era and
"the security threat of the 21st century".
The connection between rogue states, proliferation and terrorism meant that one had to draw a line in the sand and take a stand. I took that case seriously and was particularly anxious not to be associated with people who were naturally deemed to be in a different camp. I did not want to be thought anti-American, and certainly did not want to be thought an appeaser who wanted to sustain a vile dictator. The Government's case therefore had to be tested at its strongest.
I read the Butler report to help me to understand the policy considerations that informed the decisions that we were asked to make. Members have found that help in different parts of "What the Butler Saw", and I found it in paragraph 429, which says that in spring 2002 the Government considered two options for future action. One was a toughening of containment and the other was a move towards military action. The report says that regime change would not be lawful, and noted the difficulty in achieving UN acceptance of military action. It says that the UN
"would need to be convinced that Iraq was in breach of its obligations; that such proof would need to be incontrovertible and of large-scale activity; but that the intelligence then available was insufficiently robust to meet that criterion."
It goes on to say that that formed the background to the Prime Minister's meeting with President Bush at Crawford on 6 and 7 April 2002.
I fear that, at that point, a strategic judgment or decision was made, making it necessary to mobilise intelligence to sustain it. As the intelligence became thinner—we know from Butler that that is the case—the advocacy for military action became stronger. Eventually, that contradiction impelled the House of Commons to action, forcing it to take a view. We can see that more clearly now than we did at the time. The Prime Minister did his very best to keep the international community together, and would have liked to resolve the situation without military action. However, President Bush and his Administration could not walk away from Iraq without taking military action. The Prime Minister could have done so—it would have been a kind of victory for him—but for President Bush, it would have been a catastrophic, humiliating defeat, given everything that he had said about the United Nations and international policy on Iraq.
When former President Clinton, who was in the country last week, spoke about those matters, he paid great tribute to the Prime Minister and his efforts to keep the international community together, but he also said that in retrospect it was clear that we should have allowed the inspectors to continue their job so that we could establish beyond peradventure whether Iraq had been successfully disarmed or not. If we had established that the policy had worked, I believe that the Government would not have come back to the House for a decision. There was not a great distance between people holding different positions.

271
Those of us who took a different view of military action were persuaded that it, or the threat of military action, was required to sustain the United Nations' position, but we believed that that position was working. It now seems that that was the case, and we could have kept the international community intact and disarmed Saddam. Indeed, we could have flooded Iraq with human rights inspectors, as that was rightly a consideration. That is my understanding of the policy considerations.
Mr. MacDonald: That was a key point of dispute between us at the time of the decision to go to war. What makes my hon. Friend think that another two months of inspections would have clarified whether Iraq had disarmed or not, when six years of inspections had not clarified that, one way or the other?
Tony Wright: The answer is that we had embarked upon a process that had that at its centre. What we did not do was to test whether it had worked or not. We now know that it had worked. That is the fundamental conclusion.
I have one more point to make, which came out of my reading of Butler. It is important for the House to reflect on it. As I read the report and many of the things that Butler said, I thought it was a vindication of what we sometimes call the awkward squad. A theme of Butler is that we did not have enough people asking the right questions as the process went along.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Cabinet!
Tony Wright: I will do the list, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
We did not have the right people in Cabinet asking the right questions as the process went along. We did not have the right people among the official Opposition asking the right questions as it went along. We did not have the right people in the JIC asking the right questions as it went along. One of the few heroes in the story, by the way, is Dr. Brian Jones, who was a member of the awkward squad and did ask some of the questions.
What Butler says in his recommendations—of course, mandarins do not talk about awkward squads, but I translate the high mandarin into our kind of language—is that not only do we need the awkward squad in those places, but we need to give the awkward squad institutional and constitutional protection to ensure that those considerations are raised at each point in the process. That is embedded in a number of Lord Butler's specific recommendations.
I conclude by saying that we shall never know the answer to some of—
Mrs. Mahon: May I tell my hon. Friend that that was an excellent speech? He spelled out everything I would have wanted to say, had I been called. Will he reflect on this: had we known, about 20,000 Iraqis might still be living, we might not be poised on the verge of a civil war, and the entire huge tragedy might not have unfolded in front of us? I take my hon. Friend's point about flooding Iraq with human rights monitors. We had Saddam on his knees and weakened and we could have done that.
Tony Wright: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point.
272
Only the historians will tell us what really happened. It is only they who will get to see the papers. It is only they who will get the real evidence that an inquiry might see, which can tease out the policy considerations, what happened when and who said what to whom. Only they will tell us the origins of the military action and what its real consequences were. All we can do is say that we probably did make a serious mistake in what we did; but having done it, we have an obligation to try to make Iraq a rather better place now than it was before.
7.13 pm
Mr. John Baron: If the Prime Minister's only mistake in this affair is that we went to war even though it is now clear that there are no weapons of mass destruction, it would have been right to question only his wisdom. However, because it is also now clear from the Butler report that there was a very wide margin indeed between the extent to which the intelligence services qualified their remarks when reporting to the Prime Minister and what the Prime Minister told Parliament and the country, it is also right to question his integrity and credibility.
The issue at the time was not whether regime change was desirable; it was whether Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented a danger. It is now clear to any objective observer that the Prime Minister did not accurately relay the intelligence at his disposal. As a result, the country was duped into a war under false pretences. For it is clear that the Butler report has confirmed that the JIC's intelligence reports during 2002 were full of qualifications and reservations, yet the Prime Minister clearly stated that there was no doubt that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction justified war. But we know that that was not the case.
In justifying the case for war, the Prime Minister excluded those reservations and, with the zeal of a barrister determined to win his case in court, claimed that the facts had been established beyond doubt. Even Lord Butler, operating within the limited remit of his brief, believes that the omission of the intelligence qualifications was "significant".
Richard Younger-Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman believe, however, that perhaps the Prime Minister thought he ought to go down that road because he was being pushed to do so by the official Opposition, who kept accusing the Government and others of being anti-American in any criticism of what George Bush said on the middle east and on Iraq in particular?
Mr. Baron: No, I disagree with that. I think that our Prime Minister, unfortunately, was being pushed by the Americans. That is the centre of the issue. Let us consider the 45-minute claim. That is clear evidence that we as a country were misled by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the second time, I think, that the hon. Gentleman has used that word. He should be very careful with the words he uses. We have strict conventions in the House.
Mr. Baron: We all remember that the claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was integral, if not

273
central, to the Prime Minister's case for war. Like other hon. Members, I find it incredible that the Prime Minister did not ask the basic question whether the chemical and biological weapons that he thought Iraq possessed could be fired at targets outside Iraq or just used on the battlefield.
No, the fact of the matter was that the decision to go to war had been made, regardless of the intelligence. The lesson from that must be, as other hon. Members have highlighted during the debate, that in future there must be much closer questioning of the evidence at hand. Partly because the House was not privy to the intelligence reports, which made its task extremely difficult, the assumption was that the Prime Minister knew more than we did, but that was not the case. There was no shortage of evidence with which to contradict the Prime Minister.
For example, we know that Iraq used to possess weapons of mass destruction. We know that because America and the west supplied Saddam Hussein with those weapons. However, the Iraq of 2003 was a shadow of its 1991 standing. It had been the most watched-over country in the world, yet no concrete evidence could be produced that Iraq possessed WMD. All that could be produced was the dodgy dossier, which was essentially a reworked thesis that was more than 10 years old.
Meanwhile, not enough credence was given to the evidence on the ground. Mr. Scott Ritter, one of the most aggressive UN chief weapons inspectors during the 1990s, repeatedly said that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix and the other UN inspectors in the period leading up to the war wanted a little more time to complete their task because they, too, could not find WMD.
Mr. Wareing: I have been listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying and agreeing with almost all of it, but did he vote against the war when many of us were saying those things?
Mr. Baron: I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I did vote against the war and I resigned from the Front Bench in order to do so.
There was no shortage of evidence from the US Government to contradict the Prime Minister. That has not been touched on much during the debate. For example, Secretary of State Colin Powell said at a press conference in Cairo in February 2001:
"And frankly, economic sanctions have worked. Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMD. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
On 15 May Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to
"build his military back up or to develop WMD for the last 10 years".
As late as July 2001, Condoleezza Rice also publicly described Iraq as weak and militarily defenceless. Yet soon, the Prime Minister was to tell us all just how dangerous Iraq was. The fact is that the situation on the ground had not changed since 2001; only the political priorities of the US Government, who had decided to invade Iraq regardless of the issue of WMD, had changed.
274
The collective failure identified by the Butler report also involved the intelligence services, for despite the Prime Minister's exaggeration of the threat, the JIC approved the wording of the dossier. In my view, the JIC was at least subconsciously influenced by its knowledge of the Prime Minister's desire to state the case for war—a fact that was at least acknowledged by the Butler report when it recommended that future JIC chairmen should be experienced in dealing with senior Ministers and demonstrably beyond influence. The intelligence services should be the eyes and ears of the Prime Minister, not his mouthpiece. It is tempting to conclude from this whole episode that policy indeed led intelligence rather than intelligence leading policy. That is another lesson that needs to be taken away from this affair.
We have since heard the Prime Minister justify the war by saying that although WMD might not be found, the world is a much better place without Saddam Hussein. To me, that is very dangerous talk. Civilised nations do not go goose-stepping around the world invading countries because they think that they may be a threat, then, when they find that they are not, justifying it by claiming that the world is a better place. That is the law of the jungle. It is illegal, because article 2 of the United Nations emphasises that member states cannot engage in regime change.
The Government may take refuge behind resolution 1441, as they have in the past and probably will again this evening. However, the countries that signed up to that resolution did so believing that it could justify war only if there were no alternatives. Indeed, the US ambassador to the United Nations at the time was at pains to emphasise that there were no hidden trigger points for war in the resolution. That is one reason why the US and the UK could not muster even a moral majority when it came to the second resolution. In truth, all other approaches had not been exhausted. The threat of force, deterrence and containment of Saddam Hussein were working, as was recognised by the US itself as late as 2001, and as is confirmed by post-war evidence. The same policy had worked during the cold war and when dealing with rogue states such as Libya.
Meanwhile, UN weapons inspectors wanted more time but were denied it, despite some progress being made. There was nothing to be lost by giving them a little more time to complete their task—indeed, there was much to be gained—but instead we were rushing to meet an American military timetable that had only one outcome, namely war. I should add that I am not anti-American—quite the reverse—but I believe that good friends need to point out when bad mistakes are being made.
The simple fact is that war was not justified. War must always be the measure of last resort when all other approaches have been exhausted and are futile. Indeed, war can be justified only when there is no other possibility. If we lose sight of that, we lose the moral high ground that is often a source of strength in challenging times. We will be signing up to the law of the jungle, and the world will be a worse place because of it. We all agree that Saddam Hussein's was a revolting regime, but that was not in itself sufficient justification to go to war.

275
War is the ultimate responsibility and act of politicians, yet in many respects it also illustrates their ultimate failure. The crime here is that the Prime Minister turned qualified judgments into unqualified certainties. As a result, this country sleepwalked into war and the world took a step backwards as a consequence. That mistake must not be made again. Lord Butler is right to say that there was collective failure, but the Prime Minister's responsibility for that failure is paramount. His credibility, as well as that of the country, will continue to suffer as a result.
7.24 pm
Mike Gapes: This will be an eight-minute speech delivered in one and a half minutes. I refer hon. Members to my speech on 4 June last year, which sets out some of the arguments that I am about to make.
The situation that we are in today is fundamental to the future of the Iraqi people. Hon. Members who have argued as though this debate is entirely internal should listen to what the Iraqi people are saying. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will no doubt respond to the points that they raised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made clear, the Iraqi people are glad that they were liberated from Saddam Hussein. When I went to Iraq with the Select Committee on Defence, we flew into Basra in a Puma. Tragically, I fear that some of the people I met there may have been involved in this week's horrific crash.
Our people in Iraq are doing a fantastically important job in rebuilding the infrastructure, supplying clean water, helping with electricity supplies, training the new army and the police, and dealing with many other necessities. We have to finish that job. Let us support them, then help to build a democratic Iraq and self-determination for an Iraqi people who are free from Ba'athist fascism.
7.25 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on probably the shortest speech that he will make in the House for a long time.
This has been a most interesting debate, which has partly been about the situation in Iraq but also, crucially, about the Butler report and the information that it disclosed, for which the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular must answer and be held to account. We have heard many fine speeches. I will not have time to deal with them all, but I should like to mention a few.
I shall start, if I may, with the typically humorous but percipient contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who rightly described the whole saga as a monumental PR failure and asked whether, in the end, the intelligence mattered to the Government. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will answer that question.
As I expected, several different views have been expressed, as in the debate on 18 March. Once again, I listened to them with great respect. We have conducted our debates accepting that we have differences of opinion, and we have dealt with those differences in an exemplary way.
276
I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whose position is not new. He has always made a powerful moral argument, and did so again today. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor)—he, too, has always held to his position. I listened to the Father of the House, who has been consistent in the position that he has taken, as has the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) made some important observations about the impact that this has had on Muslim opinion, not only in this country but abroad. It is important that we consider his comments very carefully and take action to address the situation that he identified.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) asked—it has been asked before—whether there was a deal between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister to back a war against Iraq and if that was why the intelligence ultimately matched the policy instead of the policy being made on the basis of the intelligence. The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made the same point.
I repeat those points because they go to the heart of the confidence that we have in the way that the system has operated. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give us unequivocal answers.
I turn to the situation in Iraq. I welcome the handover of power to the Interim Government. Given yet another spate of car bombings, they are having to operate in a very grim situation. Their task is not easy, and my party and I wish them well.
Although we inevitably view the security situation with concern, I want to join the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in once again paying tribute to the magnificent work that is being carried out by our armed forces. Their dedication and professionalism remains a matter of great pride.
It is worth recalling why they are serving their country in this way. They went out there to deal with a United Nations-recognised threat to international peace and security. As a result of coalition action, Saddam Hussein and the international threat that he posed are gone. That is why we supported the war and were right to do so. I still believe that, as I said in the debate on 18 March last year, had we not gone to war then, we would have had to do so in future when it might have been much more dangerous and difficult. After the war, our servicemen and women remained there to help to give Iraq the chance of democracy, freedom and prosperity. That could make it a force for stability and good within the region as a whole. Completion of that objective may still be some way off, but we do Iraq no favours by talking only about the bad side and never about the good.
The first good news is that Saddam Hussein has gone. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reminded us, the people of Iraq are delighted by that. I have always taken the view that regime change was not a reason to go to war. I have always doubted the legality of regime change, but I believe that we can all rejoice in the fact that the people of Iraq are now free from that reign of terror.

277
Other things are improving on the ground in Iraq. The health budget is now US$948 million, compared with US$16 million under Saddam Hussein in 2002. In education, 2,500 schools have been rehabilitated and 32,000 teachers and education workers have been trained. In terms of the utilities, which were a matter of such concern when I was in Iraq last autumn, there is still much work to be done. However, water quality has been improved for 1.6 million people, and electricity generation is at last improving. Progress towards our post-war objective is therefore real and welcome, but there is still a long way to go.
Too much of the current instability is caused by unemployment. There is not enough investment, there are not enough jobs and, in too many cases, having no wages leads people to believe that they have little or nothing to lose through unrest. The Government must accept a good degree of blame for this situation. Before the war, I pressed them for assurances that a comprehensive plan for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq was ready to be put in hand. I was assured that there was such a plan. I also asked for assurances that the Government had made adequate provision for the swift delivery of humanitarian aid and, again, I was assured that they had. It was only after the successful military action that we discovered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) reminded us, that those assurances were not worth the breath that they were given with, because there were no comprehensive post-war plans in place.
Only now are many of the things that should have been happening then beginning to happen. I believe that, in time, Iraq will come good. Unlike the leader of the Liberal Democrats, I think that we have a duty to stay there and to help the Iraqi people until it does. It would be a sign of good faith to those people if the Government at least acknowledged their failure to plan and acknowledged the time that has been lost. Perhaps that is too much to expect, however, from a Government and a Prime Minister who have never acknowledged their failures in the run-up to the war and in its aftermath.
The Prime Minister has been in denial again today. This is not some party political game. This is about a decision to go to war; it is about grave issues. These are matters in which confidence in the Prime Minister, and in what he tells Parliament and the country, is central. Yet, once again, he brushes aside the issues of trust and confidence—issues that even Alastair Campbell, in his notorious diaries, described as "huge stuff". Once again, the Prime Minister seems to assume that, because we supported—and continue to support—the war, he should somehow be beyond our criticism. Let me tell him: he is not.
The fact that the war was justified does not mean that the manipulation or enhancement of intelligence is beyond reproach; it is not. Even if I did not need the Prime Minister's rhetoric to persuade me of the justification for war, I still have the right to believe that his interpretation of the intelligence was accurate. At moments of national or international crisis, the Prime Minister is the conduit to the public and to Parliament on matters of intelligence. Great care must be taken to ensure that what the public are given is the unvarnished
278
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Butler report clearly demonstrates that, in relation to WMD, those standards were not met. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) pointed out, the emphatic picture of their current and threatening existence that the Prime Minister painted at the time quite simply ignored the caveats, warnings and qualifications on the quality of the intelligence on which his assertions were based.
We have asked the Prime Minister why he failed to disclose those crucial caveats and why he did not temper his certainty as a result of them. We have received no answer. Let me remind him again of the speech that he made on 24 September 2002, when he said that the intelligence
"concludes that Iraq has"—
not "had", but "has"—
"chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them".—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 3.]
When I asked the Foreign Secretary in the debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee on 8 July whether, in the light of that statement by the Prime Minister, the intelligence had shown that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at that stage, the Foreign Secretary replied that
"the analysis of that question is the focus of the Butler inquiry, which will be subject to full parliamentary consideration."—[Official Report, 8 July 2003; Vol. 423, c. 1099.]
Yet another clear and informative answer from the Foreign Secretary. This debate is the only parliamentary consideration that has been made available and, so far, we have not had an answer. The Foreign Secretary owes the House one.
The JIC report talks about capability. It does not talk about the existence of the weapons themselves. That is a crucial difference. We know from Butler that the intelligence was flawed; in his own words, it was "sporadic", "patchy" and "limited". We now know that it could not have supported the statements of the Prime Minister that the current existence of the WMD was "beyond doubt". The Prime Minister is a lawyer, and he knows that the words "beyond doubt" have a particular significance. He used them then, he has used them again today, and he used them in an interview that he gave to Sky more than a year ago. We now know that the judgments in the dossier of 24 September 2002 were not "beyond doubt". Butler said that they
"went to … the outer limits of the intelligence available."
We already knew that the second "dodgy" dossier of 3 February 2003, which the Prime Minister told the House was "further intelligence", simply could not justify that description. There may be explanations for these discrepancies. If so, we have not been given them. As a result, we are left with the conclusion that there was a conscious attempt to enhance the intelligence in order to minimise dissent in the House and the country.
For democracies, war must always be a serious option. It should never be a matter for spin, but tonight we are left with the conclusion that in this case it was. It has been argued that the decision to go to war was taken with our support, that the war is over and that none of this really matters any more. I totally disagree. What is at issue is not only the judgment of the Prime Minister but his credibility, and that is crucial. This is a matter of

279
trust, and once that trust is breached, it is gone. The next time the Prime Minister purports to advise the House and the country on matters arising from intelligence, on what basis can we be confident that the intelligence has not once again been enhanced? As a number of my colleagues have already pointed out, that is a situation that this country cannot afford.
That is why the questions posed to the Prime Minister today have been of such importance. So what answers have we had? What has happened to the WMD? We did not hear anything about that today. I remind the Prime Minister that, in his interview for Sky on 31 May last year, he said:
"I certainly do know some of the stuff that has been already accumulated … What we are going to do is assemble that evidence"—
again, he knows the importance of the word "evidence"—
"and present it properly to people … I have no doubt whatever that the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be there."
Well, a year and a half later, where is that evidence of which he was so certain? Why did he ignore the caveats? He has admitted today that they existed; why did he not qualify his language as a result of them? Butler criticised the way in which the Downing street team worked. The Prime Minister told us that he accepted the findings of Butler, yet we have heard nothing today about changes being made in that regard.
Of course, we have still to hear from the Foreign Secretary, who may yet provide us with the answers to some of these questions. Indeed, one strange feature of the run-up to the war was the difference of tone struck by the Foreign Secretary throughout, in relation to weapons of mass destruction, compared with the categorical assertions of the Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary was always careful to found the case for war on the United Nations resolutions and Hans Blix's reports, rather than on direct assertions of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps he took the caveats more seriously. Perhaps he could explain to the House what he knew at that time.
I would like the Foreign Secretary to explain something else as well. We have heard today about the intelligence that was withdrawn, which we read about in the Butler report. The Foreign Secretary knew about that intelligence as long ago as last September. Is it not the case that the head of MI6 informed him of the withdrawal of that intelligence on 8 September 2003? If so, will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why the Prime Minister was not told about it? If it was important enough for the Foreign Secretary to know about, I would have expected him to tell the Prime Minister. Perhaps he will tell us why he did not.
Butler shows what a sorry mess the run-up to the war was. Many misjudgments were made at many levels. Some people have paid for those misjudgments with their jobs, among them the chairman and director-general of the BBC. Butler speaks of "collective blame" at Government level, yet no one here pays the price—indeed, one person gets promotion. In the end, the responsibility rests with the Prime Minister—not just theoretically or semantically, but in a very real way. The buck stops with him. Today he has failed to restore his credibility, and it is unlikely that he will be trusted in the
280
future, when that trust may be crucial. That is the reality that he must face up to; that is the dangerous vacuum that he should urgently be seeking to mend.
7.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): As the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has said, this has been a wide-ranging debate with some very good speeches. With apologies to those whose speeches I do not mention, I want to mention particularly those of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack).
Since a point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should apologise for the fact that I was absent for some of the speeches. I am afraid that one has to blame Cabinet Government for that, and, I might add, without approval from the Cabinet, the new hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On that, I speak entirely in a personal capacity. I had to chair an important Cabinet Committee, the timing of which had been rearranged twice to accommodate changes in the order of speeches and the timing of this debate. I apologise to those right hon. and hon. Members whose speeches I missed.
I want to begin this wind-up by paying tributes to two groups of people. The first group are our armed forces and civilians who have been working in Iraq over many months and who continue to do so. The reputation of British forces is second to none in the world: I do not happen to believe that that is a cliché I happen to believe that it is true. All that I have seen of the British forces confirms the truth of that—they are the finest and bravest forces anywhere in the world. I have also had the privilege of going to Iraq three times and seeing the extraordinary work by civilians, too. Although they were not putting themselves directly in harm's way as our forces were, they too showed great courage in working in Baghdad, Basra and elsewhere. Our colleagues in the armed forces and civilian British officials are still there helping to rebuild a better Iraq.
The second group to whom I want to pay tribute are those who work in our intelligence and security agencies. Over the past seven years, I have had the privilege first of being responsible for the Security Service—MI5—and, for the past few years, for the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. From my direct, day-to-day, comprehensive dealings with all three agencies, I have been profoundly impressed by their professionalism, by their commitment and, as questions have been raised about this, by their complete integrity.
As we spelled out in the dossier, intelligence rarely offers a complete account of activities, which, by definition, are designed to remain concealed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out in his foreword that gathering intelligence—in this case, inside Iraq, but, I might add, almost anywhere—is not easy. Certainly, that is absolutely true. But in chapter 2 of the Butler report, the Butler committee spells out details of intelligence-led operations in respect of A.Q. Khan, the nuclear proliferator, Libya, North Korea and Iran. I

281
have been familiar over the past three years, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been familiar over the past seven years, with the nature of those operations. We have had an opportunity more recently, certainly in respect of A.Q. Khan and Libya, and to a degree, in respect of North Korea, to make an assessment about whether that intelligence has turned out to be right or wrong. Butler and his committee say in terms that they have been very impressed by the quality of the intelligence and by its provenance.
In many circumstances, the only defect of that intelligence has been that it has underestimated the scale of what we have subsequently found, rather than overestimated that. I say that because Ministers and the intelligence services' assessment of the intelligence and developments needs to be seen in that context: it was the very same people who were supervising, and in some cases obtaining, the good intelligence in respect of Iran, Libya, North Korea and A.Q. Khan who were also doing the very careful assessment in respect of intelligence in the case of Iraq. They were doing their best, we had every reason to believe that they were doing their best, and their track record is one of the best.
Lynne Jones: Could my right hon. Friend explain why GCHQ intercept information, which we are told by the Intelligence and Security Committee existed, was not passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as was required under Security Council Resolution 1441, whereby member states should pass on all relevant information?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend knows very well that we never, ever, give details of interception, and I would not begin to do so. As she also knows, or at least I hope that she does, I wrote to her and signed off this morning—so that she would get it in time for this debate—a detailed letter replying to her specific concerns. Her specific concerns related to uranium yellowcake, which has been the cause of controversy. As I set out in the letter, I invite her to examine the conclusions of the Butler inquiry in respect of uranium yellowcake from Niger. As to whether the claims made by British intelligence—not those made elsewhere—were well founded, as Butler points out, they were indeed well founded.
Mr. Salmond: What about the withdrawal by the Secret Intelligence Service in July last year of two reports, because the sources had been discredited, on WMD generally and on the 45-minute claim specifically? When were the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister informed of that withdrawal, and whom did they then tell?
Mr. Straw: The withdrawal about which I was informed in September, which took place in July, did not relate to the 45-minute claim but to other intelligence to which Butler refers in the body of his report, which had not been directly included in the dossier or the JIC assessment but, as he spells out, gave some comfort and backing to the assessments that had been made. I was informed about that on 8 September last year. On the next day, the intelligence reports were passed on to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
282
The Intelligence and Security Committee had been told orally by the head of the Secret Intelligence Service in July about the nature of that intelligence and the fact that it was being withdrawn. What I was asked, on 8 September, was whether I agreed, as I am required to do by law, to authorise the passing of the intelligence to the ISC, and I duly did so.
Mr. Mackay rose—
Andrew Mackinlay rose—
Mr. Straw: I want to answer some of the other points that have been made in this debate.
I have mentioned Iran. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston raised two key issues. First, he raised an issue about Iran and referred to an interesting report that appeared in the The Times on Saturday. All that I can say to him is that I do not believe that what is suggested in that is United States policy, but that is a matter for the United States Administration. Certainly, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
My right hon. Friend also raised the wider and critical issue of pre-emption. He asked for a commitment that we would never again agree to pre-emptive action. We did not, in my judgment, agree on 18 March last year to a preemptive action. Pre-emption implies rushing to judgment—I do not believe that 12 years involves rushing to judgment, and it took us 12 years in respect of Iraq. The truth is that since the United Nations charter and chapter VII—which is the chapter authorising military action—were drafted, circumstances have changed, and we in the House, and the international community, must take account of those changed circumstances. We faced that over Rwanda and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, and we did nothing. I applaud my right hon. Friend for the fact that by 1999, when we faced similar genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, he took the lead—in the international community and the House—in arguing for action, although we did not have a Security Council resolution and could not get one because we knew that one country would veto it. Let me also say that the action that we authorised in the House on 18 March was no more pre-emptive than Operation Desert Fox in 1998, and was based in part on non-compliance with the same resolutions.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have taken a different view from the Government—and many Conservative Members—in respect of Iraq have said that containment and sanctions were working. It is extremely important—because it goes to the heart of whether there was a real alternative in March last year—to spell out the truth of that situation. Operation Desert Fox took place shortly after the inspectors had effectively been kicked out at the end of 1998. In 1999, we finally secured Security Council resolution 1284 to get the inspectors back in, but that resolution was not unanimous. Some of those who had said they would support it in the UN failed to do so. The resolution was wholly defective, in that it watered down previous requirements on the Saddam regime in respect of the

283
admission of inspectors. The inspectors, for example, had no power to enter various key sites in Iraq, including vast presidential palaces, without the permission of Saddam Hussein himself.
Not only was the resolution defective, it simply had no effect. Despite the fine words of resolution 1284, Saddam simply thumbed his nose at the resolution and at the international community and refused to comply with any of the terms. In the intervening period, containment absolutely failed to work. Containment required at least some element of co-operation from Saddam, and he absolutely refused to co-operate at all.
Alongside that, it is said that sanctions were working. Sanctions were not working in terms of the objective set for them. Sanctions were hitting the poor of Iraq, making them poorer and less well. Sixty per cent. of Iraqis were on food aid. Sanctions were not working to hit the regime or to undermine its own capabilities and prominence. They did not hurt the rich and the powerful, who continued to be able to divert huge resources—which should have gone to the poor of Iraq—for their own ends.
A number of Members have referred to 11 September—
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Before my right hon. Friend deals with that, may I take him forward to the period between January and February 2003? Hans Blix had told us that he had visited the sites most likely to harbour weapons of mass destruction. He did not find any, and he had a telephone conversation with our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20 February. Why was there no re-evaluation of the intelligence following Hans Blix's statement?
Mr. Straw: I shall deal with that in a second. I was not listening in to the telephone conversation with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—just to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones)—but my right hon. Friend had many conversations with Dr. Blix. So did I. I went to the Security Council five times in 10 weeks over that period, but we did not require a telephone conversation with the Prime Minister to let us know what Dr. Blix thought; nor did we require any intelligence about Iraq. What we did have were Dr. Blix's reports on the Security Council table—on 27 January 2003, on 14 February 2003, on 28 February 2003 and on 7 March 2003. Each of those statements from Dr. Blix made it clear that the Iraqi regime was simply not co-operating.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle)(Con)rose—
Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
Lynne Jones rose—
Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way. I have already given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. What I will do—as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has raised the issue of non-compliance—is refer the House to pages 188 to 196 of the Butler report, which explain how Iraq had failed to comply with resolution 1441.
284
I respect most of those who disagreed with the House's decision on 18 March to go to war, but I ask colleagues to remember that—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out so eloquently earlier today—once resolution 1441 had been passed, the argument was not about intelligence. Once the resolution had been passed, the argument about intelligence fell away. I scarcely, if at all, remember referring to intelligence of any kind, still less to 45 minutes.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
Lynne Jones rose—
Mr. Straw: I have already given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak.
The issue was whether there had been compliance with resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 laid down, in very specific terms, very clear obligations on Saddam Hussein—first, for a full, complete and accurate disclosure of everything he had by 9 December. Saddam failed to make that full, complete and accurate disclosure by 9 December. So that the House understands the transparency with which we dealt with the issue before it, let me say that I submitted to the House a lengthy statement about Iraqi non-compliance with resolution 1441, giving chapter and verse of how Iraq had failed to comply.
There is only one respect, in this document, in which what I said was based on intelligence. It is contained in 10 pages. It concerns the requirement for Saddam Hussein to allow scientists to be interviewed—without tape recorders, without bugs in walls, without five minders turning up with the scientists, which was what happened to begin with—and in certain circumstances to allow them to be interviewed outside as well as inside Iraq. We said that that requirement had not been met. That was patent to everyone: intelligence was not needed. However—I own up to this—we went on to say
"There is evidence that Iraqi scientists have been intimidated into refusing interviews outside Iraq. They—and their families—have been threatened with execution if they deviate from the official line."
The other 10 pages arose from facts that were known publicly. I do not think anyone would seriously dispute that Saddam was a murderer, ready to threaten execution for far lesser crimes than he would have had in mind—and he most certainly would have done so.
Moreover, what is absolutely the case is that Saddam did refuse to allow scientists to be properly interviewed. He did refuse compliance. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, I was in the Security Council five times, and on none of those occasions—not on 20 January, not on 27 January, not on 5 February, not on 14 February, not on 7 March—did one of the other 14 members of the Security Council ever say that Saddam was in compliance with the terms of resolution 1441. That is what we need to remember. That was the basis on which we put a motion to the House on 18 March, and the basis on which we went to war.
Mr. Dalyell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 255.

Division No. 234]

[7:59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Marshall-Andrews, Rebert

Barnes, Harry

Organ, Diana

Berry, Roger

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Dinefwr)

Cohen, Harry

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Salmond, Alex

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Sawford, Phil

Dalyell, Tam

Sedgemore, Brian

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Shepherd, Richard

Doughty, Sue

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Singh, Marsha

Efford, Clive

Skinner, Dennis

Ewing, Annabelle

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Fisher, Mark

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Trickett, Jon

Gerrard, Neil

Wareing, Robert N.

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Weir, Michael

Hancock, Mike

Wishart, Pete

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Tellers for the Ayes:

McDonnell, John

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and

Mahon, Mrs Alice

David Taylor

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Challen, Colin

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Alexander, Douglas

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Allen, Graham

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Pentlands)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Darwen)

Clelland, David

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Coaker, Vernon

Atkins, Charlotte

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bailey, Adrian

Corston, Jean

Baird, Vera

Crausby, David

Barron, rh Kevin

Cruddas, Jon

Bayley, Hugh

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Beard, Nigel

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Begg, Miss Anne

Darling, rh Alistair

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bell, Sir Stuart

David, Wayne

Benn, rh Hilary

Davidson, Ian

Best, Harold

Dawson, Hilton

Betts, Clive

Denham, rh John

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dhanda, Parmjit

Blizzard, Bob

Dismore, Andrew

Blunkett, rh David

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Borrow, David

Dodds, Nigel

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Brennan, Kevin

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Browne, Desmond

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Buck, Ms Karen

Edwards, Huw

Burnham, Andy

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Byers, rh Stephen

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Cairns, David

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Flint, Caroline

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Caplin, Ivor

& Rye

Casale, Roger

Foulkes, rh George

Caton, Martin

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

286

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

McWalter, Tony

Gilroy, Linda

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Mallaber, Judy

Goggins, Paul

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hain, rh Peter

Martlew, Eric

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Michael, rh Alun

Hanson, David

Milburn, rh Alan

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Miliband, David

Healey, John

Miller, Andrew

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Moffatt, Laura

Hendrick, Mark

Mole, Chris

Hepburn, Stephen

Moran, Margaret

Heppell, John

Morley, Elliot

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Morris, rh Estelle

Heyes, David

Mountford, Kali

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mullin, Chris

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Munn, Ms Meg

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Sefton E)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hoyle, Lindsay

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Urmston)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Olner, Bill

Humble, Mrs Joan

Owen, Albert

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Perham, Linda

Illsley, Eric

Picking, Anne

Ingram, rh Adam

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Plaskitt, James

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pollard, Kerry

Jamieson, David

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Jenkins, Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

E)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Prescott, rh John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Purchase, Ken

Jowell, rh Tessa

Purnell, James

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Quin, rh Joyce

Keeble, Ms Sally

Quinn, Lawrie

Kemp, Fraser

Rammell, Bill

Khabra, Piara S.

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kidney, David

Raynsford, rh Nick

King, Andy (Rugby)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Bow)

Bellshill)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Anniesland)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Lammy, David

NW)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lepper, David

Rooney, Terry

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Ruane, Chris

Linton, Martin

Ruddock, Joan

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Chester)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Salter, Martin

McAvoy, Thomas

Shaw, Jonathan

McCabe, Stephen

Sheerman, Barry

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

MacDonald, Calum

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

MacDougall, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McFall, rh John

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Soley, Clive

McIsaac, Shona

Southworth, Helen

McKechin, Ann

Squire, Rachel

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

McNulty, Tony

Lochaber)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

287

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Straw, rh Jack

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Ward, Claire

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Watts, David

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

White, Brian

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Timms, Stephen

Wicks, Malcolm

Tipping, Paddy

Wills, Michael

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Winnick, David

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Woodward, Shaun

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Woolas, Phil

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Yarmouth)

Kemptown)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Joan Ryan and

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Gillian Merron

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
Lords message considered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 28H. If the House agrees to the amendment, I will arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.
Lords amendment No. 28DA
8.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 28H.
Mr. Lammy: Last week, the other place agreed to the amendments proposed by this House, but proposed that two further consequential amendments be made. Amendment No. 28DA is consequential on amendments Nos. 28C and 28D, already agreed by this House. These amendments introduce an additional flexibility to the procedure for the review process in the High Court. That will be after a case has been considered by the new asylum and immigration tribunal—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, so that we can make progress with the next business?
Mr. Lammy: That process will be after a case has been considered by the new asylum and immigration tribunal and a party to the appeal has claimed that the tribunal has made an error of law.
In the majority of cases, the judge in the High Court will simply look at the applicant's papers to decide whether or not there may have been an error of law. However, in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for other submissions to be considered. For example, it might be helpful for the respondent to file submissions in fast-track cases. Where speed is key, allowing respondents' submissions would enable the reconsideration to take place more quickly.
Amendments Nos. 28C and 28D allowed rules of court to make provision for that flexibility. Amendment No. 28DA introduces a similar flexibility while the filter is in place. For a transitional period, the tribunal will first consider the review application. The amendment means that the rules of procedure for the AIT can similarly allow the tribunal to consider additional papers.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: How long is it intended that the transitional period will last?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that the transitional period has very much been devised in consultation with the judges themselves, who are

289
conscious that asylum levels remain, as we move to a new system, at a level that they can handle. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how long the transitional period will be in place, but it is right to give the tribunal the opportunity to consider the application before it goes up, as it were, to the High Court.
8.15 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: On the transitional period, one matter on which people will want to be clear is which cases will be caught by it and whether it will then fall into the new system. Will the Minister confirm exactly how that will work?
Mr. Lammy: All cases that are appealed from the initial determination by the tribunal will be caught within the transitional net and within the proximity of the tribunal's being able to make the initial determination as to whether it needs to be reconsidered or the High Court should look into it again. All cases that are appealed beyond that tribunal determination—or at least all cases in which the parties chose to make the application—would be caught by it. It would be surprising if they did not want the tribunal to look further into the case before it goes to the High Court.
I will now turn briefly to amendment No. 28H. Members will recall that when we considered the Bill last week, the Government brought forward amendments to provisions for new legal aid arrangements for the review and reconsideration process. Those amendments responded to concerns expressed in the other place that the focus of the scheme should be on merit and not just on success. That has always been the Government's intention and we recognised that the Bill was perhaps not clear on that point.
Amendments Nos. 28F and 28G met many of the concerns raised, but clearly not all, which is why, following discussions, we tabled amendment No. 28H in the other place. The amendment is designed to enable the High Court to award legal aid for the review application even if no reconsideration order or Court of Appeal referral has been made. Examples of when the power might be used include when a reference to the Court of Appeal is made or when a review application is made with good prospects of success, but is then rendered unsuccessful because a lead case on the subject was decided after the application had been lodged. It is clear that that might arise in exceptional cases. In the vast majority of cases, however, the tribunal will be best placed to take the decision on funding at the reconsideration.
On that basis, I ask hon. Members to agree to amendments Nos. 28DA and 28H.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I agree that Lords amendment No. 28DA is a tidying-up amendment, and I accept that the filter procedure is necessary while the courts continue to be burdened. The Minister is therefore to be commended for making sure that the rules governing the filter system and the review by the tribunal follow the approach taken by the High Court. The amendment is therefore quite unexceptionable and we are happy to support it.
290
Lords amendment No. 28H concerns legal aid. When this matter was before the House on Monday last week, it was clear that Lord Filkin had assured my noble Friend Lord Kingsland that conditional fee agreements would not be imposed in respect of asylum claims. The Minister was kind enough then to give a number of assurances that the Bill would be amended, but it was clear that there had been a lacuna in respect of review, as opposed to reconsideration. The amendment remedies that and I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with that matter. I am happy to accept this amendment as well.
That disposes of this extremely complex Bill. In conclusion, I shall only say that I am delighted that the official Opposition have been able to set the pace and to rewrite and restructure the Bill as it has passed through both Houses. It bodes well when one sees a Government following the Opposition and dancing to their tune.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Today appears to be a day for the Conservatives to start rewriting very recent history. I suspect that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has just given us the most recent example of that. However, today also seems to be a day for the Liberal Democrats to outdo the Conservatives. I suspect that I can outdo the hon. Gentleman in terms of brevity as well.
We still have some concerns about the procedures contained in the Lords amendments. We are especially worried about the lack of flexibility associated with written determinations at this stage in the appeal procedures. Time will tell whether that can be made to work.
I have one final question for the Minister, in connection with the legal aid provisions. The Bill, quite properly, is silent about legal aid in Scotland, which is a matter for the Scottish Executive. However, there is no doubt that the provision of legal aid is an important part of the deal that has been struck. Will the Minister say whether any discussions have been held with the Scottish Executive about the provision of legal aid for cases before the Court of Session? What response has been received from the Scottish Executive?
Mr. Lammy: Discussions have been held and they are ongoing.
Lords amendment No. 28DA agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 28H agreed to [Special Entry.]

ENERGY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th May 2004:
Consideration of Lords Message of 15th July
1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message of 15th July relating to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 46.

Division No. 235]

[8:23 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Ainger, Nick

Cummings, John

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Alexander, Douglas

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Allan, Richard

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Dalyell, Tam

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Darwen)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

David, Wayne

Atkins, Charlotte

Davidson, Ian

Austin, John

Denham, rh John

Bailey, Adrian

Dhanda, Parmjit

Baird, Vera

Dismore, Andrew

Barnes, Harry

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Barrett, John

Doughty, Sue

Battle, John

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Bayley, Hugh

Drew, David (Stroud)

Beard, Nigel

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Begg, Miss Anne

Edwards, Huw

Beith, rh A. J.

Efford, Clive

Bell, Sir Stuart

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Benn, rh Hilary

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Bennett, Andrew

Fisher, Mark

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Berry, Roger

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Best, Harold

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Betts, Clive

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Blizzard, Bob

& Rye)

Borrow, David

Foulkes, rh George

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Browne, Desmond

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Buck, Ms Karen

Gerrard, Neil

Burden, Richard

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Burgon, Colin

Gidley, Sandra

Byers, rh Stephen

Gilroy, Linda

Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

Godsiff, Roger

Cairns, David

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Grogan, John

Fife)

Hain, rh Peter

Carmichael, Alistair

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Casale, Roger

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Caton, Martin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Challen, Colin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hanson, David

Chaytor, David

Harvey, Nick

Clapham, Michael

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Rhymney)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Healey, John

Pentlands)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clelland, David

Heppell, John

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hesford, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Heyes, David

Cohen, Harry

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hinchliffe, David

Corston, Jean

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Cotter, Brian

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cousins, Jim

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Crausby, David

Sefton E)

Cruddas, Jon

Hoyle, Lindsay

292

Humble, Mrs Joan

Morley, Elliot

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Morris, rh Estelle

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Mountford, Kali

Illsley, Eric

Mullin, Chris

Ingram, rh Adam

Munn, Ms Meg

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Jamieson, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jenkins, Brian

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

O'Hara, Edward

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Organ, Diana

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Owen, Albert

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Perham, Linda

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Picking, Anne

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Kemp, Fraser

Plaskitt, James

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Pollard, Kerry

Khabra, Piara S.

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Kidney, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Primarolo, rh Dawn

King, Andy (Rugby)

Prosser, Gwyn

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Purchase, Ken

Bow)

Purnell, James

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Quin, rh Joyce

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Quinn, Lawrie

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Rammell, Bill

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lammy, David

Raynsford, rh Nick

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Rendel, David

Lepper, David

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Leslie, Christopher

Anniesland)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

NW)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Linton, Martin

Rooney, Terry

Love, Andrew

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Ruane, Chris

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McCabe, Stephen

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

McCafferty, Chris

Chester)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

MacDonald, Calum

Salter, Martin

McFall, rh John

Sarwar, Mohammad

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Savidge, Malcolm

McIsaac, Shona

Sawford, Phil

McKechin, Ann

Sedgemore, Brian

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

McNamara, Kevin

Sheerman, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Sheridan, Jim

McWalter, Tony

Short, rh Clare

McWilliam, John

Singh, Marsha

Mahmood, Khalid

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Lunesdale)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Martlew, Eric

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

Meacher, rh Michael

Kincardine)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Soley, Clive

Merron, Gillian

Southworth, Helen

Michael, rh Alun

Squire, Rachel

Milburn, rh Alan

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Miliband, David

Lochaber)

Miller, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moffatt, Laura

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Mole, Chris

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Moore, Michael

Straw, rh Jack

Moran, Margaret

Stunell, Andrew

Morgan, Julie

Sutcliffe, Gerry

293

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Wareing, Robert N.

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Watts, David

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

White, Brian

Teather, Sarah

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Wicks, Malcolm

Timms, Stephen

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Tipping, Paddy

Willis, Phil

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Wills, Michael

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Winnick, David

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Woodward, Shaun

Trickett, Jon

Woolas, Phil

Truswell, Paul

Worthington, Tony

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wray, James (Glasgow

Baillieston)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Kemptown)

Yarmouth)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Mr. Jim Murphy and

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Ms Bridget Prentice

NOES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Baldry, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

Ottaway, Richard

Surrey)

Paterson, Owen

Brady, Graham

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Burt, Alistair

Dinefwr)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Randall, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Redwood, rh John

Barnet)

Robathan, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Dodds, Nigel

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

M-Kent)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Rosindell, Andrew

Ewing, Annabelle

Salmond, Alex

Forth, rh Eric

Shepherd, Richard

Grayling, Chris

Stanley, rh Sir John

Grieve, Dominic

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Gummer, rh John

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Weir, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Whittingdale, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Hogg, rh Douglas

(Macclesfield)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Lidington, David

Mr. Simon Thomas and

Lilley, rh Peter

Pete Wishart

Question accordingly agreed to.

Energy Bill
Lords message considered.
Lords amendment: No. 10A.
8.35 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That this House does not insist on Commons amendment No. 10 to which the Lords have disagreed, and agrees to their amendments to the words so restored to the Bill.
We argued in both Houses that the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—are already covered by legislation. However, not everybody was convinced by the persuasive arguments that I advanced. We have listened closely to views from both Houses. I was especially impressed by the strong feelings expressed on Report by my hon. Friends. I am also aware that the sustainability duty has considerable cross-party support and that it has support outside the House, including from industry.
There is a widespread view that the current arrangements leave a gap. My hon. Friends have argued that if the duty can be made to work for the water regulator, why not for energy? The proposed amendment thus closely follows provisions in the Water Act 2003 and, for consistency, we are amending the Gas Act 1986 so that there is a similar duty in respect of gas and electricity.
I am pleased and relieved finally to be arguing that a sustainable development duty be added to those already imposed on the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority under the Gas and Electricity Acts, reflecting our strong commitment to sustainable development.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am amazed that the Minister's eloquence failed to persuade everybody. We support the amendment.
The Bill, which we support, has been greatly improved by work in another place; in particular, Lady Miller of Hendon, Earl Attlee and Lord Jenkin have done an incredible amount of work and have added provisions that have made the Bill even better. I do not intend to detain the House, so I will say only that the Government have our support for the amendment.
Brian White: As I have been arguing for such a provision since the passage of the Utilities Act 2000, I am grateful to the Minister for proposing the amendment, which will be key to Ofgem's response to the Bill. Ofgem responded well to the regulatory impact assessment provisions of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, so I am sure that it will respond equally well to the new duty set out in the Energy Bill.
I thank the Minister again for listening and for taking on board the views of his Back Benchers.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: We, too, welcome this very important step back from the Minister's original position. We need to remember that a majority in Committee believed that the clause should stay in the Bill and that the Government insisted that it should come out. I am delighted that they have had

295
second thoughts and that they are taking a much more rational approach to gas, water, electricity and, of course, sustainability, which is the key element of the strategy that was missing before. We very much welcome the Government's change of heart.
Mr. Colin Challen: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his consideration of the words "sustainable development", which are very important because they are more concise and define more clearly what some of us who sit on the Labour Back Benches were always seeking: the proposed extra duty. That is to his credit. Indeed, I praise how he took us through the Committee, clearly showing a very good grasp of the brief, which has persuaded us in the end that we are now pursuing the right course.
Mr. Michael Weir: I am sorry to break the love-in over the clause. I support the aspect relating to sustainability, but it seems to point to a contradiction in relation to sustainability that lies at the very heart of the Bill—a contradiction that my colleagues and I have mentioned on numerous opportunities.
This amendment relates to the duty of the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Market Authority in relation to sustainability. That is fine in so far as it goes, but a large part of the argument about sustainability relates to renewable energy, particularly in the north of Scotland. The amendment would give GEMA a role in achieving sustainability, but I have serious concerns about the role of Ofgem, which has been mentioned already.
In Committee and on Report, I referred to transmission charges in the north of Scotland. The Minister may not be surprised to learn that that issue is at the heart of my concerns because those charges will have a huge impact on sustainability. As part of our preparation for the debates on Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and I met representatives of Ofgem to press our concerns about their policy on transmission charges. Three times during that meeting Ofgem's representatives were asked whether they supported the Government's targets for renewable energy; three times they refused to answer.
I can only conclude therefore that Ofgem is not interested in pursuing policies that would assist in establishing those targets. I ask the Minister just what effect the amendment would have on dealing with the regulators? How will GEMA
"contribute to the achievement of sustainable development",
as the amendment states, when the regulator seems to be acting in direct contradiction to the policy that is supposedly being pursued by the Government and, presumably, by the Secretary of State?
The problem goes further than that, however, because what Ofgem and the National Grid Company wish to pursue by means of locational charges will lead to a huge increase in transmission charges in northern Scotland. Given that clause 177 provides a sunset provision solely to help renewable generators with those charges, the economic viability of future renewable energy projects in the north of Scotland will be completely undermined,
296
thus seriously damaging the only existing conventional generator there—the most efficient combined gas cycle plant in Europe.
At that meeting with Ofgem's representatives, I asked why they thought that the charges should be higher in the north of Scotland. They replied that they felt that generation capacity should be located nearer to centres of population because of the large number of applications for generating capacity in Scotland. I ask hon. Members to think about that for a moment in the light of the fact that, under the amendment, the sustainability objective will be imposed on the Secretary of State and GEMA.
I would put it to Ofgem that there were so many applications in northern Scotland because they were for renewable energy development and that it was the obvious and most appropriate area for such projects, as the Government recognise in clause 177. Ofgem, to be fair, agreed with that. The regulators accepted that renewable generators were seeking to set up in the area, which the Government recognise as suitable for such generation, but in pursuance of their own madcap economic theory, those regulators were seeking effectively to price the generators out of the market by imposing substantial transmission charges.
8.45 pm
Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this was not included in Ofgem's terms of reference, so Ofgem was right to look at economic interests? With the amendment, it will have to take into account renewables and his argument will be completely different in future.
Mr. Weir: I do not accept that. Throughout the passage of the Bill there have been arguments about Ofgem in particular. My meeting with Ofgem left me extremely depressed. I do not think that it has any idea about the realities of renewable energy, that there is any support for renewable energy within Ofgem, or that the provision will make much difference. It will mean that projects will be sabotaged.
Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he believe that Ofgem should be disestablished?
Mr. Weir: In its present form, Ofgem is not serving the move towards renewable energy well. In my discussions with its representatives, it seems to be intent on sabotaging that. Hon. Members may draw their own conclusions from that. If someone is going to set up a renewable energy generation system in the north of Scotland they will, at best, face a massive increase in transmission charges halfway through the life of that project. That would mean that Ofgem—if there is anyone on the Tory Benches, perhaps they should listen to this—wanted to see a massive expansion of energy production not in Scotland but in southern England. Perhaps we can envisage large wind farms across the Sussex downs, or tidal barrages in the English channel.
The amendment seeks to impose on both the Secretary of State and GEMA a duty to pursue sustainability, yet other provisions in the Bill and the work of Ofgem in particular will undermine that. That

297
contradiction is at the heart of the Bill. Even with the amendment, I do not think that the clause will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
Dr. Desmond Turner: I add my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for the amendment. We had several quite intense debates about the role of the Secretary of State and Ofgem in relation to renewable and sustainable energy. It is a matter of great joy to me that the will of the populace has prevailed. The Minister has recognised not only that Ofgem is a pivotal player in determining future growth of renewable and sustainable energy, but that it has been seen as something of a barrier and has operated on neoliberal economic principles that were not compatible with some of the difficulties of renewable energy. That recognition is now in the Bill and it is totally consistent with the Government's intentions. I always think that that is what legislation should be like—it should say what it means on the tin. Now that we have the amendment, I am very glad.
On the point that was made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) concerning the effect of locational charges on renewable generators, I still have some difficulties with the locational charges argument. After all, wave heights and tidal streams are not very strong at the notional centre of consumption just north of Birmingham. The system disfavoured renewable energy and therefore needed the protection of clause 177, or clause 181, depending on which version of the printed Bill one looks at.
Unfortunately, the Bill contains sunset clauses. I still cannot understand why they are there. It is slightly sad that we ran out of time on Report in the House and did not get to the amendments seeking to delete those sunset clauses. It is important, if we are going to make the best use of the magnificent natural resources off the northwest coast of Scotland, that we give investors the confidence to tackle the big challenges that they face over and above the straight commercial challenge. On the face of it, the sunset clauses introduce a note of unpredictability and uncertainty, and a lack of protection.
Mr. Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more is at stake? The time scale for the projects is very long—it will probably be about 25 years—but there is a maximum of 10 years relating to investment. Not all projects will necessarily start at the beginning of that 10-year period.
Dr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman is right; I was about to make the same point, and he has saved me the labour of doing so.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will have to address that issue and give some assurance to investors in renewable energy that there will be consistency of approach over a time span sufficient to match the development and investment time scale that is involved.
298
We have made a significant step forward with the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister and I do not think that anyone will oppose it.
Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) for their kind remarks. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who both played a very constructive part in our debates in Committee and in the House, as have hon. Friends of theirs who have had the opportunity to speak in this debate. I agree with what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said about the constructive contribution that has been made in the other place as well.
I think that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) spoke in favour of the amendment. I was not entirely sure, but I believe that that was the import of his speech. I understand the point that he raised, which has been drawn to my attention by others as well. There is a process that will lead to a decision on transmission charging later in the year, and it will be for the independent regulator to make that decision in the light of the duties that have been imposed on it. I would not want to anticipate at this stage precisely what the outcome will be, but I understand the concerns that he has raised.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown is right and that the amendment will command universal approval.
Lords amendment No. 10A agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 10B agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 17A to Commons amendment No. 17 agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With the permission of the House, we shall take motions 6, 7 and 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DEVOLUTION
That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North West Region) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North East Region) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (Yorkshire and the Humber Region) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
Question agreed to.

DRAFT MENTAL HEALTH BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 15th July relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 31st March 2005.
That a Select Committee of 12 honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Mental Health Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—

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

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

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

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

That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
That Mrs Liz Blackman, Mrs Angela Browning, Mr David Hinchliffe, Mr George Howarth, Tim Loughton, Mr Paul Marsden, Laura Moffatt, Ms Meg Munn, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mr Gwyn Prosser, Dr Howard Stoate and Hywel Williams be members of the Committee.—[Gillian Merron.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PETITIONS

  Fuel Duty
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: The voice of rural Dumfries and Galloway has not always been heard by this Government, but wind of this petition has clearly blown across Parliament square to the Treasury. Faced with the signatures of thousands of my constituents, the Chancellor announced late today another postponement in the proposed 2p a litre rise in tax on petrol and diesel. That increase displays callous disregard for rural motorists and their anger on this issue cannot be put aside; it must be acted on.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons,
  The petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway,
  Declares that further increases in tax on petrol will have an adverse effect on the livelihoods of those living and working in Dumfries and Galloway.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reverse his decision to impose the increase in tax on petrol due to be implemented in September 2004.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Victoria Road Post Office
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I rise this evening to present a petition of no fewer than 731 of my constituents of Romford who are deeply concerned by the prospect that one of their local post offices could be closed under the current review being conducted by Post Office Ltd. The petitioners are concerned that the Victoria road post office could be yet another victim of the review and the policy that has led to post office closures throughout the country.
  The Victoria road post office serves the area of my constituency between Victoria road in central Romford and the Brentwood road, which borders the constituency of Hornchurch. It serves a large community, and many elderly people live in the area and depend heavily on the services that it provides. It is a focal point in the community and if it were to close, it would have a damaging effect on the local area.
  The petition is supported by all shopkeepers in Victoria road and the surrounding area of central Romford. It is strongly supported by St. Alban's church in Princes road in Romford, together with the parents of children at local schools, including Manor primary school. It is also supported by members of the local residents association—the New Century residents association—and has the backing of the three local councillors for the Romford Town ward: Wendy Brice—Thompson, Frederic Thompson and Andrew Curtin. The main signatory to the petition is Mr. Ajit Chaterjee, a former teacher of mine at Marshalls Park school.
  The petition reads as follows:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the People of the Victoria Road area of Romford
  Declares that Victoria Road Post Office is threatened with closure. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to keep Victoria Road Post Office open.
  And the Petitioners Remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Mr. Ross Donovan
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merronj]
  8.57 pm
  Alistair Burt: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise in the House the case of my constituent, Ross Donovan, who I believe has lost his business as a result of negligence and carelessness by the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am pleased that the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment is in the Chamber because he has taken a personal interest in the matter and has met my constituent and me. I hope that he will be in a position to shed some light on my remarks.
  Ross Donovan is a chartered engineer by profession and he is 45 years old. He has a degree in mechanical engineering, a masters degree in manufacturing management and is a member of his professional body, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. I suggest, therefore, that he is a man of some competence and reliability.
  Ross Donovan's work in industry has taken him to several different businesses, but some years ago he worked for Silver Spoon on an energy recovery system and developed a specialty in such matters. Aware of legislation such as the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, the climate change levy and landfill tax, together with the rising cost—in all senses of the word—of fossil fuels, he was persuaded that a new market existed for alternative heating systems. He believed that some businesses with heating needs could use their cardboard packaging, otherwise treated as waste, as a fuel. As many businesses used baling machines to achieve volume minimisation of their cardboard waste, it made sense to design a system that could process such standard sized bales. The system would not be a substantial size, but modest and small scale.
  In simple terms, Ross Donovan set out to design a machine that would burn bales of cardboard and use the heat generated to warm a space that required it. Accordingly, he raised money from sponsors to back up his idea and constructed a prototype.
  Aware of the regulatory nature of incineration issues, Mr. Donovan sought the advice of the Environment Agency in Brampton, Cambridgeshire. On 14 February 2001, he wrote to it and said:
  "Further to our recent conversations I wish to confirm that it is our intention to site a prototype"
  waste—to—energy
  "plant at the above location. The plant is fuelled by packaging waste such as paper, cardboard and possibly wood and is designed to have a maximum net thermal input of 395 kW. I have now studied Statutory Instrument 2000 … The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 and believe that the above plant is outside the scope of this document. Please can you confirm this is true?"
  He concluded:
  "Additionally is there any other legislation that the"
  waste—to—energy plant
  "is required to comply with? Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated."
  302
  On 28 February 2001, Mr. Donovan received a reply. It mentioned the need to comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, and Mr. Donovan was invited to complete a form to return to Brampton under the latter regulations so that
  "The Agency will note your details on the public register".
  There was no mention of something called the waste incineration directive. Based on the letter and the legislative requirements of which he was aware, Mr. Donovan constructed a prototype system. It burned bales of cardboard and provided cheap heating for about 6,000 sq m of glasshouses in a horticultural nursery.
  The Environment Agency was approached a number of times to seek guidance on different issues regarding the operation of the system. Mr. Donovan keeps meticulous notes, as we would expect from his background and qualifications, and believed the Environment Agency was well aware of what he was testing and developing—after all, he was on a register. Indeed, in June 2002 the system was consuming so much cardboard that he needed a new source of supply and he approached the Environment Agency, as it was likely to be aware of where he could source it, and it duly obliged.
  In November 2002, Mr. Donovan visited a trade show at Olympia and met a Scottish company dealing in woodchip-based energy systems. During their conversation, the company raised the waste incineration directive. Mr. Donovan looked at the website of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. From that site, he felt reassured that the waste incineration directive applied only to larger incinerators than his, but he decided to double check and spoke to the Environment Agency. He was told not to worry as his system was below the threshold limit—in effect, too small.
  By July 2003, the system was good enough to be marketed and after all the time and effort Mr. Donovan put in, after applying for and being granted five patents, he received firm orders for two machines, but only, said the purchasers, if the system was waste incineration directive approved. On 24 July 2003, he had a meeting with Environment Agency officials. He took with him all the specifications and technical details and the matter was discussed between experts in some detail. He left that meeting with a verbal assurance that, as previously advised, his system was outside the scope of the directive because it was too small. As his purchaser wanted that advice in writing, the Environment Agency said that it would write, checking with its policy unit based in Bristol.
  On 13 August 2003, the Environment Agency wrote the letter that has cost Mr. Donovan his job, his savings and his business. It said that directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste did indeed apply. What were the practical consequences of that? In effect, it required modifications to be made of such scope that the economics of his small-scale business went out the window. For example, the system used a manual firing process. Colloquially put, someone put their hand in, lit a handful of waste paper and, when up and going, the cardboard fuel could be fed in. The regulations

  303
  indicated that that was not possible and that an expensive gas-firing system should be fitted instead. There were other such modifications.
  Compliance with the directive would make Mr. Donovan's small-scale incinerator uneconomic and he faced ruin. He contacted the Environment Agency again, trying to seek clarification. Was this true? How far did he have to comply? Was there any leeway for this system, so much smaller than the major incineration systems, presumably the target of the regulations? The Environment Agency in Cambridge, with which he had been in contact throughout, had little firm knowledge of the situation and was unsure whether the regulations were in place, but the policy unit had told it that there was no de minimis rule, so no system was too small to be covered.
  My constituent came to see me. He could not understand why the Environment Agency had given him no notice of the likely impact of the directive. After all, he was on a register at its insistence. He was also keen to discover whether there was a way out. Were the rules final, and was there anything that the Government could do for him? He sought help from the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which had become involved as it had issued the guidance on applying the policy. However, he did not receive any; he was simply told that the directive must apply.
  The de minimis issue, however, remained open, as no one was prepared to confirm that it was completely out of the question. That gave him hope, and he made repeated requests for DEFRA or Environment Agency officials to come and see his system. They did not do so until November, and Mr. Donovan tells me that that was only after I had made some phone calls on his behalf. He says that the officials seemed unaware of the commercial implications of their delay. While they equivocated about advice on a directive to which he had drawn their attention, he was trying to sell an energy system that was flawed, although no one could tell him just how badly. Regrettably, I can confirm my constituent's complaint. I spoke to officials, and afterwards understood why he was concerned as they could neither give a clear answer as to whether his system was covered by the regulations, nor tell him when they might he certain.
  I wrote to the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment on 23 October 2003 questioning what had happened and looking forward to efforts to find a way out for my constituent. I received a holding reply, then a further reply on 16 November saying that a full reply would follow once officials had visited the site. The Minister finally gave a reply on 1 January 2004. This is not a case in which time did not matter. Mr. Donovan's business was at stake, and I was regularly in touch with the Minister's office seeking a reply. I think that they could all have moved faster.
  The Minister was good enough to agree to a meeting with my constituent and officials on 29 January 2004. To his credit, Mr. Donovan was less concerned about how we had reached the current position than with trying to find a way forward. We expected the Minister and his officials to be as helpful as possible. Could UK officials for once interpret a directive as helpfully as possible for UK manufacturers, rather than find reasons to say no? Mr. Donovan took with him an environmental
  304
  consultant, Simon James, who asked if virgin cardboard could be used as a fuel without being subject to the regulations. He was informed by officials and the Minister that it could. He then asked whether, if that same cardboard had been previously used or if virgin cardboard was unsuitable for its intended use, it would be allowable as a fuel outside the regulations. He was told that if the intention was to discard the cardboard, it would be waste and thus subject to the regulations. Mr. James suggested that there may be no intention to discard the cardboard, but to segregate it specifically for the alternative use of energy production. As it was intended to be used for energy production, it should fall outside the definition of waste. The Minister agreed to look at the proposal and said that he would seek advice. To reinforce the case, on 27 February Ross Donovan sent the Minister a copy of a letter from Simon James restating his argument.
  We heard nothing from officials or the Minister for a month. On 26 February, I tabled a series of written questions; on 3 March, I wrote to the Minister again, forwarding a copy of Simon James's letter. On 15 March I faxed to the Minister a copy of a letter from Caroline Jackson, MEP, with an idea on the subject. I was faxed a copy of the Minister's reply to her, but I did not receive a reply to my own letters. To date, Simon James has not received a considered opinion on his proposed solution, and Ross Donovan has not received a reply to his letter of 27 February. Yesterday, four and a half months after my letter of 3 March, I received a faxed copy of the Minister's reply—conveniently, a day before this Adjournment debate, and after the Minister had been notified of it.
  During that official silence, Mr. Donovan could not sell his system. Sponsors withdrew funding and took the intellectual patents from Mr. Donovan. He lost his business, his idea and his savings. It is now time to ask the hard questions that have been avoided while my constituent struggled to keep his business going. Why was he not told by the Environment Agency at the earliest possible stage that the directive might affect him? His letter of February 2001 was a clear request for information from those who might have been expected to hold it. It was not as if they did not have such information. According to the Minister's letter to me of 1 January 2004, the consultation on the directive was launched in July 2002. We know that those consultations do not come out of thin air. The directive in draft had been around a good length of time, and the Environment Agency knew of Mr. Donovan's interest and had registered it.
  As for the de minimis point, the Government, according to the Minister at our meeting in January 2004, were discussing de minimis with Commission officials in 2001, and arguing for it, I believe. If that was the case, why was my constituent not made aware of the issue under discussion when he raised a general query in February 2001 or when he made a more specific inquiry in November 2002? Why were such high hopes placed on the argument?
  I spoke last week to Karl Heinz Zirrock in Directorate C, Environment and Health, of the European Commission. He told me that the discussion had gone on for years. There had never been any intention of a threshold, small incinerators had always been a target of the regulations, and the Commission wanted to close

  305
  them, leaving open for research only experimental testers burning less than 50 tonnes of material a year—a long way from even Mr. Donovan's small-scale commercial system. Mr. Zirrock said that all officials in member countries should have been well aware of those discussions. So why was my constituent not told?
  There are three aspects to this shambles. First, there is clear evidence to suggest that the Environment Agency or DEFRA or both were at fault in not informing my constituent of the likely impact of the waste incineration directive at a time when he could have taken a completely different course of action from the one that he took. Secondly, when he tried to get information from officials to help him move forward, or even some clear decision when the problem of the directive had been made clear, he did not receive it. He found officials slow, indecisive and unhelpful.
  Thirdly, when matters came to the Minister, there were extraordinary delays in letters, despite faxed messages emphasising the need for speed of response as a family's livelihood depended on it. There was a failure to reply to suggestions on a way forward and a general lack of enthusiasm from DEFRA or the EA even to try something sensible as a way forward, in terms of a redefinition of waste and fuel, which might have been of benefit to Mr. Donovan and would have made a difference to the way in which cardboard packaging is dealt with in an environmentally advantageous manner.
  I am not arguing for special dispensation for my constituent or, tonight, for a redefinition of the directive that would have suited his system, although I think there is more than common sense in the proposal from Simon James. There may have been nothing that could be done to amend the directive, but my constituent, fatally, was not told until it was too late. The impact on him has been dreadful and unacceptable. It is with some regret that I initiate this debate. I have been a Minister and I know that errors and problems can occur, but this appalling catalogue of error, delay and indifference, which has cost a professional man dearly, cannot be swept under the carpet without explanation or apology. I call on the Minister to provide both.
  9.13 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has made a comprehensive case on behalf of his constituent. He knows that at our meeting I made a genuine attempt to address his constituent's concerns. As he said, Mr. Donovan proposed an innovative design for burning bales of cardboard. We in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recognise that energy from waste has a role in the waste hierarchy. It comes below recycling, but we recognise the role that it can play in waste disposal.
  I shall try to deal with the detail of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is certainly entitled to an explanation and I hope that I can provide that tonight. If there have been any failings on the part of DEFRA, he is owed an apology. I am not sure that there have been any failings on the part of DEFRA, although the hon. Gentleman is free to pursue the detail of my remarks at the end of the debate.
  306
  I am informed that Mr. Donovan wrote to the Environment Agency in February 2001. He sought confirmation that his proposed plant fell outside the scope of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000, as the hon. Gentleman stated. The agency confirmed that the plant would not need a permit from the agency under those regulations because it fell below the 1 tonne-per-hour capacity threshold.
  Mr. Donovan also asked in his letter whether his proposed plant would need to comply with any other legislation. He was informed that it would need registration as an exempt activity under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The advice that he received was in direct response to his questions and was consistent with national legislation as it then stood.
  On 4 November 2002, Mr. Donovan phoned the Environment Agency to ask whether its technical guidance documents on waste incineration covered his proposed plant. He was told that the agency's technical guidance documents on waste incineration did not because his plant was below the 1 tonne-per-hour capacity threshold above which agency regulation would apply under the pollution prevention and control regulations as they then stood.
  Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste was finalised on 4 December 2000, and member states had until 28 December 2002 to transpose it into national legislation. The waste incineration directive places stringent design, operational and monitoring requirements on the incineration plant that it covers, together with stringent emission limit values for a range of pollutants. The directive has the stated aim of preventing or limiting, as far as is practicable, negative effects on the environment and resulting risks to human health from the incineration of waste.
  In June 2002, my Department issued a consultation paper on the implementation, asking for responses by 9 September 2002. The waste incineration regulations for England and Wales were finalised in the light of those responses and came into force on 28 December 2002. They have the effect of applying the waste incineration directive's requirements to all incineration plant as defined in the directive, regardless of capacity—so there was no de minimis.
  On 16 January 2003, my predecessor gave a news conference to publicise the transposition of the directive. Draft guidance on the directive and its requirements was published by my Department on 7 February 2003. The consultation document and draft guidance were placed on my Department's website and sent in hard copy to organisations that were known to have an interest. Unfortunately, as my officials were not at that time aware of Asgard Systems Ltd., those documents were not sent direct to that company.
  Alistair Burt: The Minister is explaining where the legislation was at each particular stage, but he has not explained this: even though the directive was not in force, it was known about. The agency officials with whom Mr. Donovan was dealing must have known about that directive, so they must have been able to connect what they knew that he was doing, because he had given them full information about it in 2001, with

  307
  the proposed directive that had been sealed in 2000 but had not yet come into effect. Mr. Donovan and I have never understood why that connection was not made. The agency answered his questions, but did not go wider when he asked for guidance on what other legislation might affect him. That is not good enough.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot speak for the agency. All I know is that Mr. Donovan asked several questions of the agency and was given answers in line with the legislation that applied at the time.
  On 24 July 2003, Mr. Donovan met Environment Agency officials to talk about regulatory requirements applicable to his plant. As the waste incineration regulations had by then come into force, he was informed that the plant was likely to be subject to those requirements. That was confirmed in a letter from the agency dated 13 August.
  Incidentally, the agency has a complaints procedure by which any complaint from Mr. Donovan about the advice that he received would be investigated if he chose to make one. The hon. Gentleman might like to bear that in mind.
  Following my receipt in October 2003 of a letter from the hon. Gentleman about Asgard, my officials, accompanied by an official from the Environment Agency, visited Mr Donovan's premises to examine the plant. At the beginning of January 2004, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to explain that the plant is considered to be an incineration plant and is therefore subject to the waste incineration directive's requirements. My officials had already written to Mr. Donovan on 16 December informing him of that. They reached that conclusion because of the presence of design features, such as an ash screw and a primary air fan, that are consistent with the description of a technical unit included in the directive's definition of incineration plant.
  I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the definition of waste. The cardboard for which Mr. Donovan's plant was intended does not arise as a by-product from a manufacturing process. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, if it were such a by-product, it might be treated somewhat differently. It comes, however, from the use of cardboard as packaging. Once the cardboard has served its purpose, the holder discards it and it is therefore considered to be waste under the definition in the waste incineration directive, which in turn is taken from the waste framework directive of 1975 as amended in 1991. The European Commission is currently developing a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. We and others have raised the issue of the definition of waste, although the basic definition, as it applied to Mr. Donovan, is unlikely to change.
  The hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to me in March, in which he passed on some of Mr. Donovan's comments about the definition of waste. I wrote back to the hon. Gentleman in April on this matter. As I said in my letter, the ruling of the European Court of Justice in April 2003 deals with the determination of whether a process used for dealing with waste is disposal or recovery, rather than whether a material is waste according to the
  308
  definition of waste. Indeed, that was something that Christopher Booker, in his comments in The Sunday Telegraph, got completely wrong.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: That is not unusual.
  Mr. Morley: As my hon. Friend says, that is not unusual at all. Indeed, there is a great deal of inaccuracy in most things that that gentleman says in his column.
  Alistair Burt: The Minister referred to a letter that he wrote to me in April. I have here a copy of the letter that I was faxed yesterday, and it is dated July. It begins:
  "Thank you for your letter of 3 March 2004 which followed my meeting with you on 29 January 2004. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you."
  It makes no mention of a further letter in April.
  Mr. Morley: I noticed that the copy letter that the hon. Gentleman received was dated July. July was the date on which it was sent from the office in the past few days, in response to a query from his own office as to whether it had received a letter. It is not impossible that that letter might have gone astray. All I know is that I remember signing that letter around April, and its being processed at that time. Mistakes happen, however. I do not know the circumstances here, but it might be possible that that letter has gone astray. That would be very unfortunate in the circumstances, but these things happen.
  The ECJ case, which was mentioned by the environmental adviser that Mr. Donovan brought with him, is not relevant to whether cardboard packaging is waste: it is, and the waste incineration directive therefore applies. Mr. Donovan also drew attention to an ECJ case in 2002 known as Palin Granit. Again, my advice is that it is not correct to interpret that as meaning that cardboard packaging segregated for use as a fuel should not be regarded as waste. The ECJ Palin Granit case referred to materials produced in a manufacturing or extraction process. While the Court held that in certain circumstances such materials could be regarded as by-products rather than waste, in Mr. Donovan's case the cardboard has come from the activity of using cardboard as packaging, not from a manufacturing or extraction process. So that is a completely different ruling in a completely different case. The plant's intended use therefore brings it within the scope of the waste incineration directive, which applies regardless of the capacity of the incinerator.
  Mr. Donovan was informed, when he came to talk to my officials and me, that his plant could burn certain vegetable wastes from forestry, agriculture and food production, because those are exempt from control under the directive. Wood chipping is a case in point, for example. It may be that the plant has a niche for use in those circumstances, although other regulatory controls may still apply. The burning of fibrous vegetable waste from the production of paper from pulp is also exempt. However, I am afraid that that exemption does not extend to burning waste cardboard. Although recent

  309
  developments in European legislation allow the incineration of packaging waste with energy recovery to count towards packaging waste recovery targets, recycling is our preferred means of dealing with waste cardboard. We encourage and welcome innovatory ways of dealing with waste, but it is essential that such approaches are capable of meeting regulatory requirements. I am genuinely sorry that Mr. Donovan's innovation apparently was not.
  I asked officials to do all that they could to examine whether there were ways of assisting Mr. Donovan, which might account for some of the delays—there were complicated legal issues in terms of interpretation—and
  310
  I am sorry that, in the end, that was not the case. Obviously, I will be only too happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman if he has any further queries in relation to this case. I very much hope that he will accept that while I cannot speak for the Environment Agency in terms of all those procedures, I do not believe that there was any form of deliberate attempt to obstruct Mr. Donovan. As far as my office is concerned, I genuinely believe that when I asked officials to do all that they could to see whether they could assist, they did so. In the end, the regulations were clear, and no more could be done in this case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Nine o'clock.

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

Denominational Schools
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.]
9.30 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am pleased to have secured this debate as it offers the opportunity to discuss the role of faith schools in our society. In particular, it gives me the opportunity to highlight some of the current challenges facing faith schools with regard to education policy. It allows me to respond to some of the unfounded criticisms made by Members of this House, Select Committees and the wider media when addressing the role of faith schools in society.
I speak in today's debate from my own personal experience as a Christian, an alumnus of a faith school, a former teacher, a school governor in my constituency and a Member of Parliament for 38 years who has seen and admired the continuing contribution made by faith schools over those years. Although most of my speech will be based on my experience of Catholic schools, the principles that I am outlining appertain to other denominations, Christian and non-Christian. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their sterling work.
To start, I want to express my opposition to calls to water down or undermine the role of faith schools, not only in improving education standards but in the wider community. That is not to say that one particular type of education is beyond criticism. There is always scope to perfect existing services.
There are those in our midst who want to abolish faith schools. They have tried many times over recent decades, and they will use every modern fad to rehearse the same old tired and lame arguments. They are seeking not the end of prejudice or discrimination but their reintroduction. They want to impose their secular beliefs. They want choice removed from the equation. They want to undermine one of the longest-established traditions in our education system and a basic human right: that children should be educated in accordance with their parents' wishes, as far as is compatible with the effective use of resources.
Such an aim was outlined in section 76 of the Education Act 1944 and repeated in section 9 of the Education Act 1996. Our aim as legislators must not be to replace the role of the parent within the state; it must be to help parents to do their best to raise their children. Indeed, the historic role of the Churches was in pioneering popular education, long before the state intervened. Our role as legislators is to build a pluralist, not a secularist society. Secularism is the French way, not our way.
Secularism overrides individual rights, freedom of expression and free will in favour of uniformity. It dictates what people can wear and where they can wear it. That may be the French way. To do things differently,
2WH
and to deny children the right to a religious schooling because of their faith, would not he our way. It would be a retreat from long-held principles and would raise questions about our human rights obligations, which commit us to ensure that
"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."
That is article 2 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights.
Referring to education provisions, the UN declaration of the rights of the child states:
"The best interest of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents."
Those instruments outline the concept that parents are first and foremost educators of their children, and that the state, while properly setting educational standards and ensuring the proper use of public funds, should be a facilitator to ensure that all children, as far as is practical, can be educated in line with their parents' religious and philosophical convictions. We must continue to maintain that right.
There have been calls from Members of the House and others for faith schools to be forced to admit a quota of those of a different faith or of no faith. That would be an unwelcome and unnecessary intervention on the part of the state and I caution against it. First, it would mean excluding children from their own faith schools, denying parental choice. Imposing a fixed quota would have serious practical implications. In some places the demand for places in faith schools outstrips supply, and imposing a quota would have huge implications. To meet demand, schools would have to increase provision for pupils who have been displaced. Catholic dioceses and, I suspect, others would that find very difficult and expensive.
Secondly, there would be a knock-on effect on community schools, with a reduction in demand for places in those institutions. Introducing a quota is likely to be unpopular with providers of faith schools as well as with those responsible for community education. Many faith schools already have considerable numbers of students from other faiths. In 2003, on average, one in five pupils in Catholic secondary schools were not Catholic.
Thirdly, a more effective approach would be to let local faith schools work in partnership with the local community and to respond to local circumstances rather than setting targets in Whitehall that ignore local needs and situations. To support that view, it is worth mentioning the decision taken by the Leeds diocese, which, after local consultation in Bradford, implemented a new strategy for Catholic schools. Instead of closing one school and leaving two schools fully subscribed with Catholics, the decision was taken to keep all three schools open, with each school taking a percentage of non-Catholic, usually Muslim, children. At the same time, there was a drive to develop an ethos to enable children of other faiths to feel at home. Prayer rooms were made available and provision was made to meet the need of Muslim girls for appropriate school uniforms. The idea of twinning Catholic schools with

3WH
other schools with a significant Muslim intake was also proposed as part of this strategy. That, to put it simply, is the practical way of doing things; it is practical common sense applied at the local level. Adopting such a voluntary approach is far more effective than imposing a national quota.
Some of my colleagues have argued that one of the main reasons for the academic success of faith schools is their strict selection procedures. That is quite wrong. They do have high academic and social standards, but the sole criterion that guarantees admission to the school of which I am a governor is a baptismal certificate. Figures for one of the largest faith school providers in the United Kingdom, the Catholic Church, contradict the popular myth. First, the figures for the ethnic and cultural mix of pupils who attend Catholic schools reflect our diverse society far more than do those for the non-faith sector. For example, 70 per cent. of pupils in Catholic schools are, on average, white and British—a figure that jumps to 81 per cent. for all other schools.
Madeleine Bunting's recent article in The Guardian highlighted the rich diversity in Catholic schools in Hackney. She had observed seven-year-olds taking part in a school assembly on friendship. She said that there were
"40 different nationalities, over 20 different languages—and one faith. Nigeria, the Philippines, Colombia, Eritrea, Vietnam, Portugal, Italy, Ireland: what goes on in this Catholic primary school is an extraordinary process of integration that makes the public debate about the divisiveness of faith schools appear absurd."
This is evidence of the diverse cultural and ethnic nature of faith schools, which bring together children and parents of different backgrounds, social classes and nationalities who are committed to their children's education and to the needs of the local and wider community. We should do all we can to encourage such an approach; we should not attack or undermine it.
Faith schools have become renowned for their educational achievement and have gained a reputation for high standards and educational attainment—a view that is supported by the evidence. In general, attainment in Catholic schools is higher than that in other sectors. An analysis of GCSE results achieved by both 11 to 18-year-olds and 11 to 16-year-olds between 1996 and 2001 found that, for nearly all levels of disadvantage based on free school meal eligibility, a higher percentage of pupils in Catholic schools than in other schools achieved the required standard each year, despite the fact that many families live in poverty. One has only to consider initiatives such as the programmes for African-Caribbean boys in Gunnersbury school in west London, or the work done by the Zacchaeus centre in Birmingham, to see the commitment of Catholic schools to improving the attainment level of underachieving groups. We should be trying to expand and support that work, not attack it. What happens in Catholic schools happens in the schools of other faiths. Given those achievements and that community involvement, the Government should try to support faith schools and ensure that they are not disadvantaged when they participate in the Government's education agenda.
4WH
I am concerned about home-school transport provision and how that affects faith schools. It is worrying to see an increasing number of local education authorities trying to reduce costs by removing school transport provision for children attending such schools. Proposals to end transport provision for such children are being discussed by East Riding of Yorkshire council, which is to reach a decision tomorrow. The arguments for that are based on subjective judgments and highly questionable notions of social gain, and they probably border on some sort of underlying hostility to faith schools, if not on sectarianism.
If agreed, the changes will have a profound impact on many families who choose to send their children to faith schools, particularly those on low incomes. The implications of the proposals go beyond East Riding and into my constituency in Hull, where many pupils from East Riding attend schools. The proposals would affect the 136 secondary school pupils from East Riding who attend St. Mary's college, of which I am a governor and which is in my constituency, and would have a profound impact on admissions to the school.
It is clear that the draft School Transport Bill, currently being considered, might discriminate against parents who wish to send their children to a faith school, although that may not be the Government's intention. That would be unacceptable and could be a Trojan horse for attacking the very principles and existence of faith schools.
It is worth remembering that the physical location of many Catholic schools has already been agreed with the local education authority, sometimes a number of them, and encouraged by former Governments—indeed, the sites have almost been designated by Governments. Then, transport costs and subsidies were among the factors considered and the fact that there were subsidies meant that the Churches could accept the sites. Catchment areas for faith schools, therefore, are often considerably larger than the equivalent areas for community schools. Catholic schools located in rural areas have been specifically sited, with Government and LEA encouragement, so as to have the widest possible catchment areas; the introduction of charging for school transport would bear down more heavily on the children who go to such schools and their parents, and would thus be discriminatory.
Essex county council is introducing a charge for home-school transport of £100 per term at St. Benedict's secondary school in Colchester, and applications for that school's 2004–05 intake have reduced by approximately 30 per cent. The school is located to serve the widest possible rural area.
It is clear from such evidence that school transport charging has an impact on the possible future development and continued existence of some faith schools. It is possible that misguided notions of education policy are guiding the introduction of the charges as a way of getting faith schools closed. The Government need to address the problem urgently. Pupils of faith schools cannot be discriminated against in this way. If necessary, central Government must intervene to stop the local education authorities abusing their powers vis-á-vis faith schools. Faith schools cannot be sacrificed merely to cut costs.

5WH
Urban Catholic schools provide education to a wide diversity of ethnic groups and children with economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Although the proposals in the draft School Transport Bill ensure financial assistance for children in receipt of free school meals, many families just above that threshold will incur a significant financial cost. Large families, for example, could be severely affected, and the ability of families to access their preferred education could be jeopardised.
I welcome the assurance given me in a written parliamentary answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, in which he stated that
"It is important that parents can choose a school in accordance with their religious convictions and in approving schemes, we will not expect LEAs to disturb well established arrangements for denominational transport, particularly where they are associated with local agreements or understandings about the siting of denominational schools."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 472W.]
However, I would be obliged if the Minister could confirm that that will be made clear in the Bill and that the Government will stop any proposal, such as those of Essex and East Riding, to introduce discriminatory school fees. The introduction of charging and the draft School Transport Bill run the risk of forcing parents to make a choice in respect of their children's education on the basis not of their philosophical and religious beliefs but of their financial means. Such financial coercion will hurt those who can most benefit from faith schools: the poor. I would be greatly saddened if that happened under a Labour Government, particularly given the proud record of previous Labour Governments, and indeed this Government, and the fact that the proportion of capital costs that faith schools are required to provide was reduced to 20 per cent. in 1967 under Wilson, to 15 per cent. in 1975, again under Wilson, and to 10 per cent. in 2002 under Blair.
The aim of the welcome "Building schools for the future" programme is to ensure that pupils are taught in well designed schools that motivate teaching and learning and provide the education that is expected in the 21st century. That is something from which faith schools would want to benefit—as indeed does my constituency in Hull, for which I put in a special plea for the next round of funding.
Although the fund is widely welcomed, there are specific implications for faith schools. As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, the diocese is required to make a 10 per cent. contribution to capital investment in building costs and major school repairs. The Catholic and other sectors are committed to sustaining that, but there are clearly huge financial implications for all dioceses and other faiths if their secondary schools are to benefit from the "Building schools for the future" programme over the next 10 to 15 years. Finding the 10 per cent. contribution—estimated at about £250 million for Catholic schools alone—will be difficult for many dioceses. The funding of such programmes is complex and, just like LEAs, the Church cannot transfer funds between dioceses.
There is a danger that a two-tier system could emerge from "Building schools for the future", with Catholic and other faith schools being excluded owing to financial constraints and thus not benefiting from this welcome programme. I understand that there are
6WH
further difficulties for Church and other faith schools with private finance initiatives—such schools are charities, and that creates some problems for the Treasury. Officials at the Department for Education and Skills have been in communication with the Catholic Education Service and other interested groups on that issue. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to find a way of overcoming that obstacle to ensure that all secondary schools can benefit from the programme.
The Children Bill offers the biggest reforms of children's services in a generation. That is an area in which faith schools can make a valuable contribution to realising the Government's vision for change. However, some elements of the reforms may not be acceptable to governors of a Catholic school. For example, when looking at the proposals for extended schools, Catholic schools are unlikely to accept on-site pregnancy advisory services as part of their extended school, although many extended school activities are and will continue to be important to Catholic schools.
We have only to look at the support that Catholic schools give to parents at present—for example, offering parenting classes—to see that they are already providing things provided by extended schools. Parenting services are already provided by Notre Dame, Southwark and St. George's secondary, Maida Vale. Those parenting classes are not limited to the Catholic community but are advertised locally in libraries and health clinics for the wider local community.
It is better for extended schools to be based on the needs of their local communities. I know that Catholic schools want to participate in providing extended schools and wider opportunities where possible, but they should not be expected to supply services or offer advice or counselling contrary to their core values.
I shall now address the findings in several recent reports that single out faith schools as one of the main causes of segregation, conflict and riots in local communities. That was one of the conclusions of the Cantle report, and was more recently echoed in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee report on social cohesion. Findings that are based on ignorance and prejudice, ignore statistics and play to the somewhat prejudiced London sectarian gallery should be treated with caution. Compared with the state sector, Catholic schools have greater social cohesion in terms of class, race and ethnicity, and one in five of the students in Catholic schools come from other faith groups or has no faith. Rather than criticising, some commentators might do better to figure out how some of the non-faith sector could adopt the model of success found in many faith schools.
Although it would be wrong to state that religion is never the cause of conflict, there is no evidence to suggest that faith schools are a major cause of social unrest in this country, or indeed in Northern Ireland. Those who believe that such schools are a cause of social unrest often give the example of Northern Ireland, but they clearly misunderstand and oversimplify the causes of its problems. Are they seriously suggesting that integrated education would have prevented the riots, stand-offs and killings? It is perhaps easy for a mainland British audience to blame religion, but those who look more carefully will see that the issue has far more to do

7WH
with politics, human rights and national and community identity. We in this country cannot get ourselves off the hook that easily.
Rather than blaming faith schools for Britain's modern urban ills, we should look at the high levels of poverty, unemployment, poor housing and discrimination, as well as the lack of opportunity, in many of our areas. Those problems are common throughout this island and Northern Ireland.
Dr. John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee went to Oldham to look at the schools, it found that pupils in some community schools were almost entirely white and English, while those at other schools were entirely Bangladeshi or from the wider Asian community. The disjunction between those schools had little to do with religion, and a lot to do with feelings in those communities.
Mr. McNamara: Yes, I understand that.
Faith schools are not the problem; they are part of the solution. One of the main causes of social segregation is ignorance of difference and fear of the unknown—perhaps that is the reason for the situation that the hon. Gentleman described. The guidance given to Catholic schools in the document "Catholic Schools and Other Faiths" clearly spells out the role that they can play, stating that they
"should be ready to share resources with other schools and with other faith communities—especially if the Catholic school is situated in an area of deprivation and racial tension."
That attitude is shared by other faith schools, and I gave the example of what is happening in Bradford.
Inter-faith relations have progressed over the past few years. Now is the time to step up the inter-faith dialogue, and faith schools have an important role to play in it. We should be working to give Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and others the opportunity to establish faith-based schools where there is demand. Abolishing, watering down or undermining faith schools will only push religion to the periphery of society, increasing ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. We must reject pressures to do so.
I would like to put on record my appreciation of the Catholic Education Service, which often works professionally with representatives of other faiths and effectively raises issues and concerns relevant to faith communities. The continuation of faith schools is important not only to ensure parental choice and education standards but to overcome the challenge of prejudice and intolerance. In that respect, the CES is making a significant contribution to the debate.
When he was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he wanted to "bottle" the ethos of faith schools, and I hope that he intended to pour it over the whole of society. I also hope that the Minister shares that view.
9.54 am
Jim Dobbin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on obtaining this important debate at just the right time. I intend to make a reasonably short contribution. Many of my remarks will be appropriate to the Catholic sector, although they apply to all the different faiths.
I should declare that my wife was head of religious education at a Catholic secondary school in Rochdale for 15 years. My daughter has taught in a Catholic primary school in Nottingham and is now an educational psychologist. I have a son who was doing teacher training in a large Catholic secondary school in London, but he has changed his mind and is setting off on another career.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the role of denominational schools and the challenges that they face. I have recently received letters from head teachers in my constituency who are worried about the damaging effect that the proposals for faith schools may have. My hon. Friend listed those issues so I do not intend to go into them in detail.
I live in an area where there are immigrants from Pakistan, India, Ireland, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Italy, Latvia and Croatia—and I must mention Scotland, because I am one of those immigrants. I understand the value that the Scottish bishops place on the Catholic education system in Scotland, where Catholicism is a minority faith. Minority faiths across the world have the same problem.
Recently there has also been an influx of people from various African countries to my area. They are beginning to appear in my constituency. We also have many travellers who stay for a few months and move on—but they use the Church schools, and the Catholic system in particular. The local central Catholic primary school is in the middle of the borough of Rochdale. The oldest Catholic church in the town is next to the railway station. It was built to serve the needs of the wave of Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine, and it is adjoined by the school.
Last year I was invited to a nativity play. It was a wonderful event, performed by children from all the countries that I have listed. The story of Jesus's birth was enacted with carols and music from different countries, sung beautifully by those children. Their parents were there and were really proud of what they were listening to. What I am describing is a multicultural, multi-faith society, where people of different faiths and cultures can exist peacefully and happily together. That is not unusual nowadays. In most Catholic schools, as my hon. Friend mentioned, about 20 per cent. of the pupils are non-Catholic.
Historically, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 gave the Catholic Church a new role in England. At the same time, because of Irish immigration caused by economic conditions, there was a huge increase in the number of Catholics in the country. When the hierarchy was restored in 1850, Catholic schools were given the same rights and financial help as other Christian schools, although much less than the board school grants that were then available. It was under the leadership of Cardinal Wiseman, who was appointed the first Archbishop of Westminster, that the bishops

9WH
decided that rather than building more churches they would build more schools. They saw that as the vehicle for strengthening and maintaining the faith of the population.
From the time of the Education Act 1870, which introduced universal elementary education, there were, thanks to the great financial sacrifices of the mainly poorly paid working-class Catholics, about 100,000 children in Catholic schools. The right that Catholics had struggled for, to bring up their children according to their religious beliefs, was conferred by the Catholic emancipation Act, but the financial cost was enormous.
By the time compulsory schooling for children up to 10 was introduced, Catholics had paid more than £4 million in donations and collections and through private means. By 1900 there were 1,054 Catholic schools. The Education Act 1902—the Balfour Act—abolished school boards. Local authorities were then allowed to give Church schools grants from the rates. In 1905 the Catholic Education Council was set up. It showed great firmness of purpose and the schools continued to expand. The Education Act 1944—the Butler Act—brought about a dual system giving grants to Church schools, with shared administration.
The original schools survived thanks to the support of the parents, the religious orders that provided teachers and helped to found many schools, and the commitment of the hierarchy. As a result of that determination to overcome prejudice and discrimination there is a strong and well respected Catholic education system in England and Wales and an educated Catholic laity.
Why would people who had not two halfpennies to rub together struggle to finance a system of education to run alongside a free system? Should the underlying principles that have dominated the maintenance of Catholic education remain unchanged despite the problems and influences of society, or should they be modified to suit changes in society?
Catholic schools were set up first and foremost to pass on the Christian faith. There should be no apologies for, no fear of and no embarrassment about that. The Catholic school is sure of its stance on faith and morals; that is what makes the faith school distinctive. The basis of the Catholic school is the revelation of God through Jesus, according to the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church.
The ideal is a synthesis of faith and life, in which the tenets of faith have relevance to the problems of living in the modern world. I have no problem with parents wishing to educate their children in schools of another denomination if it supports and helps them in their task of bringing up the children in their own faith. I fully support that. It is obvious that if parents are interested in their children's education, the children will do well. The Catholic bishops of today are encouraging the sharing of resources with other schools and faith communities. I see that in my own community.
Perhaps the way forward is for all schools to focus on their raison d'être. Perhaps the values that parents want taught to their children should be the starting point for the debate on education, so that all those involved share the values that permeate the school's entire curriculum. Faith schools have proven their worth and gained a reputation for good discipline and high educational standards. We can see that in the number of parents who
10WH
want to send their children to such schools. The schools have not remained static but have taken up the challenge of meeting the needs of our modern, secular, multicultural and polycentric world.
As my hon. Friend said, various arguments have been advanced suggesting that the segregation of children according to faith leads to conflict and riots. He mentioned Ted Cantle's report on the riots in Oldham three years ago, which suggests that that was a main cause of conflict, when in fact the segregation was in nothing more than housing. I could identify a state school in a borough of Rochdale where Pakistani and Kashmiri people live, and nearly 95 per cent. of its pupils are of ethnic origin because that is where those people live. Ted Cantle's suggestion was totally off the mark. He also said that segregated schools in Northern Ireland have been blamed for the bigotry and conflict, yet segregated schools in England have not provoked that problem.
It is too simplistic to put the blame on schools when so many causes of conflict can be seen in both of the examples that I cited. Ted Cantle said that poverty, racism, under-development and housing also contribute to the problem. For instance, children in Yugoslavia were taught in integrated secular schools but that did not prevent conflict between communities. How can the restriction of parental choice in education guarantee peace and harmony?
Parents have the right to choose a faith-based education for their children. As we can see from the difficulties in establishing faith schools, that right was hard won. It would be a brave Government who attempted to change the system without agreement and take away those hard-fought-for rights. It would be a brave Government who took on the huge pressure group that supports faith schools. I applaud my hon. Friend for raising the issue this morning.
10.3 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on raising this important matter at such a pertinent time. I agree with almost everything he said. We often hear that we live in an age of choice. Choice is very much the word of the moment. Governments and political parties would be ill advised to take away parents' right to send their children to the school of their choice, based on their faith or religion.
There is no doubt that Church schools, be they Catholic, Anglican or otherwise, are extremely popular with parents. The Anglican Church has far fewer secondary schools but an enormous number of primary schools, particularly in rural areas. There is often a great desire on the part of parents who live in towns to send their children to Church of England schools in villages. The same applies to schools of the Catholic faith.
The idea that there needs to be a quota for a Church or faith school is not only unwise but goes completely against the principle on which such schools are based. By their nature, they are comprehensive schools, within the terms of their religion. Taking away the baptismal certificate and replacing it with another test for entry would favour the children of the better-off and the better

11WH
educated. Church schools would no longer be all-embracing community schools but would become increasingly selective, and the selection would not be based on anything other than heredity or wealth. Therefore, far from making society more equal and open, the quota would work in entirely the opposite direction.
One of the reasons for the importance of faith or Church schools is that they are a counterbalance to the prevailing materialism of our time. The Government in their wisdom have rightly concentrated on encouraging secondary schools to specialise in a particular area, whether it be mathematics or the arts. The Government seek to put an ethos into schools, so that there is a raison d'être for a school. That philosophy already exists in the Church school system. There is a particular reason for going to a certain school—because that is the school of one's faith.
My hon. Friend made a number of points, one of which touches on my constituency. He referred to the policy of Essex county council, on which both the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and I have sat at various times in our lives. The council has introduced a policy of ending free school transport to denominational schools in our county. He referred to St. Benedict's in Colchester—a school that I have visited, which is held in enormously high regard in north and central Essex. He stated that schools were situated to serve rural areas. That is especially so in the case of St. Benedict's, which serves an area that runs all the way from my constituency on one side to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), on the other. Children travel large distances to go to that school, because it is the school of their choice. For decades, the county of Essex has provided free school transport to the nearest denominational school.
There was another reference, I think in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), to the 1944 Act. The Butler Act, as it is known, was introduced by R. A. Butler, who was my predecessor in that he represented part of my constituency. Indeed, only on Saturday I spoke at a rally in defence of maternity services in our area with his stepson, Julian Courtauld. That tradition of liberal Conservatism, if I may put it that way, is still strong in certain parts of the country, although it does not seem to be as predominant as it once was at the top of certain public institutions.
Let me return to the school transport situation in Essex. Ending free provision for distances of more than three miles is discriminatory in a number of ways. Free provision still obtains if the parents choose to send their children to the nearest school beyond three miles, although that school is highly likely not to be a Catholic secondary school. As a consequence, parents face the choice of either paying to go to the school of their faith or receiving free transport if they opt out. That seems to be an abomination, in terms of human rights and our history of freedom of religious choice.
The situation goes beyond that, however. The county is discriminating against children from poorer backgrounds. Better-off parents, with their four-wheel-drive cars, will drive their children to whatever school
12WH
they choose, because they can afford to do so with ease. If one is not in that privileged position, one has to make hard choices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton mentioned that the Churches have survived for many centuries on the support and donations of poor people who have shown the strength of their faith by overcoming the poverty in which they live. I should not have thought that, in this century, we should put that obstacle in the way of people exercising the choice to which they are entitled.
Another point that flows from that is that the Catholic Church has paid considerable lump sums for the construction and maintenance of the schools. When built, 25 per cent. of the schools' costs were normally paid for by the local parishes; I believe that to this day 10 per cent. of external structural work is still paid for by the parishes. In that sense, education is subsidised and cross-subsidised by the religious communities.
In these times, we need to pay more attention to matters that rise above pure financial self-aggrandisement. Church schools offer a focal point at which such matters can easily be discussed. That is not to say that all schools make strong efforts to direct minds away from the current fashions and advertising campaigns—some schools base their school uniforms on designer labels rather than on blazers—but it is a fraction easier with the overriding community purpose that is found in church schools.
I hope that the provision of Church schools will be not only preserved but expanded, so that everybody has the right to choose which school they go to, and other denominations or faiths will consider whether to bring schools into existence along the lines that the Catholic Church and the Church of England have devised over a long time. That diversity will strengthen education and our communities.
10.12 am
Mr. John Grogan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and to take up a couple of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whom I congratulate on securing the debate.
I will continue the Catholic flavour for a while. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) mentioned Catholic immigration from Ireland. My surname betrays my links with that immigration: I understand that it means "the wild hairy one" in Gaelic—obviously, some of those genes have been lost over the years.
I want to take up two of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North: first, the attitude of the Catholic diocese of Leeds to Catholic education, which has been progressive, and secondly, the subject of East Riding of Yorkshire and school transport. My family has been very much involved with Catholic education in Yorkshire down the years. My late father spent many years working as a teacher in a Catholic school and trying to build it up—forgoing his pension rights and getting the kids fish and chips on a Friday because there was no school kitchen. My brother is the chaplain to a school in Bradford that the Catholic diocese of Leeds has kept open as a contribution to inter-faith relations in Bradford, even though the

13WH
number of Catholic children attending it probably would not justify doing so. Children from several faiths attend the school, which is one place in Bradford in which there is some dialogue between faiths.
One of the most depressing surveys in recent days was one that found that few people of any age in our society have friends in different ethnic groups. The Catholic diocese of Leeds is conscious of that problem in Bradford, and there is a real mission to contribute to inter-community relations there, which is not always easy. Often, the young people in my brother's school show interest in other faiths. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said, there is provision for Muslims—an imam can come into the school and so on—and my brother even jokes that there could be problems if there started to be conversions; at that point, parents might begin to make representations! It is not without problems, but on the whole it is a positive experience that I thought was worth sharing when my hon. Friend brought up the subject.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions about school transport in East Riding of Yorkshire, which is a very topical issue. If he does not have the answers to hand, perhaps he could write to me. All the education authorities in the north of England are waiting to see what is decided in East Riding. Its policy is largely officer-based, and I hope that councillors there will revolt against their officers and show some sort of political control. As my hon. Friend said, because it is a rural area, what happens there impacts on neighbouring counties and districts. In my constituency, the Holy Family Catholic high school at Carlton has 432 pupils on roll, 207 of whom live in East Riding. The East Riding authorities have consulted on a proposal that from September 2005, only children who live more than three miles from their local catchment school, or if that is full the school to which they are allocated by East Riding, will get free transport.
Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that a decision is supposed to be reached tomorrow night?
Mr. Grogan: Indeed. I am aware of how current this is, and how important the decision is. I urge councillors to think very carefully in the next 24 hours and also to consider two legal implications. It is not clear to me that the council can adopt such a blanket approach. I understand that section 509(4) of the Education Act 1996 requires it to
"form a judgement, in relation to any particular person, as to whether it is necessary for the Council to make arrangements for free transport for that person. In forming that judgement, the Council is"—
I understand—
"required to have regard to any parental wish that the pupil should be educated at a school where the religious education or training provided is that of their parents' religion or denomination."
In other words, there is a considerable body of legal evidence to suggest that councils have to consider the matter case by case and that a blanket ban would be inappropriate and possibly legally inadvisable.
I also draw attention to the admirable Department for Education January 1994 circular. Can the Minister tell us whether it remains in force and whether, given the
14WH
debate in East Riding and the Government's general support for denominational schools, it is worthy of reissue? It was stated then:
"The Secretary of State hopes that LEAs will continue to think it right not to disturb well established arrangements … He continues to attach great importance to preservation of the opportunity to choose a school or college in accordance with religious convictions".
That is fairly straightforward, and as I understand it, it has not been rescinded. Can the Minister comment?
Finally, I appeal to the councillors in East Riding. Their officers are saying that a child should automatically go to the nearest school in the catchment area. That denies the whole agenda of choice. Take the Holy Family school again. It is passed by just one bus—going from Goole to Selby. A lot of Catholic children at school in Selby are from the East Riding, and there is no way they could all get on the one bus. East Riding would be saying in effect, "If your family does not have a car, or is not very well off, you cannot make a denominational choice." That is a scandalous proposition. If the councillors think carefully in the next 24 hours, they will realise that in East Riding of Yorkshire, and in the neighbouring areas, there is strong support among the electorate for the continuation of denominational schools, which have contributed so much to local communities. I hope that councillors will kick out their officers' proposals tomorrow night.
10.20 am
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing the debate.
I want to start by laying my cards on the table. My children went to a Catholic comprehensive school, I am the governor of one and I taught at one in the inner-city area of Bootle—strangely, it was largely staffed by old boys from St. Mary's, Crosby, which is the hon. Gentleman's former school. The debate is clearly a thoroughly incestuous occasion, and one dreams of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) showing up at the last minute to break up, if not the Liberal consensus, at least the Catholic consensus, which is alive and well.
Denominational schools have a distinct position in our society. Many countries do not have them, and severely separate religion and education. They allow religious education, but not at the state's cost, for fear that the state could be seen to favour or promulgate a particular religion. The United States is a classic example of that.
For largely historical reasons, Britain is different. The state took a late interest in education, and the Churches had largely got there first. Essentially, the state absorbed the existing Church system. That arrangement was controversial, and it has always been fairly favourable to the Churches. At the start of the last century there were lively political battles, featuring slogans such as "Rome on the rates". Since the Butler Act, however, peace has largely reigned, and the issue of religious education was relatively uncontroversial until quite recently. It was accepted that the arrangements were fairly stable and that they should exist to allow Church members to have their children educated in Church schools. New schools could also be set up where there

15WH
was demand for denominational places, so it was not just a question of the state absorbing a pre-existing system; to some extent, the arrangement helped to promote the supply of denominational places.
As I understand it, a denominational school is set up primarily to provide an education flavoured in a way that is appropriate for members of a given Church. The essence of denominational schools is that they are part owned and part run by Church representatives. They are justified if they provide a distinctive ethos and education. The state can support them—in many cases, one could argue that it should do so—if their ethos and objectives are not inconsistent with or contrary to the state's ambitions for its citizens.
To some extent, I part company with the hon. Member for Hull, North when he says that it is the state's job to cater for every philosophical persuasion. There are some very odd philosophical persuasions, which the state would not wish to cater for, and he would not want it to. It must have a view, and it need not cater for all philosophical or religious persuasions. The question is whether they are consistent with its aspirations for its citizens.
Contingent on that is the fact that denominational schools in many places have high educational standards. Indeed, there is an argument in education at the moment that suggests that denominational schools generally are more likely to have high educational standards, although we should acknowledge that some do not. Whatever denominational education is provided, however, the fundamental point is that it should not conflict with the state's legitimate ambitions for pupils.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon in the debate on his ten-minute Bill, have alleged that that is exactly what denominational education does. People have said that the presence of denominational schools frustrates the state's legitimate desire for social cohesion. It has been well argued in this debate that that is not the case—unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not here to hear it.
Opponents of denominational schools have also argued that they encourage social division and selection. One could make a fair case for saying that about some parts of the country, but that is not the case in Merseyside, where I come from, or anywhere in Lancashire. If those are features of denominational schools, they are contingent features that can be remedied. Denominational schools have taken an unfair share of the blame for social division where it exists; Oldham, for example, has been well covered in this debate.
There are, however, issues of which the state needs to be mindful. If it is true that denominational schools favour denominational pupils, which is a fair point to make, or that non-religious parents have rational objections to denominational schools, which I believe we would all accept, the state could, in certain circumstances, be said to be offering a better or wider choice to some citizens, who are religious, than to others, who are non-religious. That must not happen.
Non-religious citizens of our country do not regard the option of a religious school as a real choice, so their choice as non-religious people should be at least as good
16WH
and in no way diminished by the presence of denominational schools in their area. That should be an agreed principle between secular people and religious people. I am not completely convinced that the Government have understood that. In certain circumstances, they may be guilty of trying to promote denominational schools in the absence of demand and on advantageous terms. The crucial point is that if they are seen to be doing that and are not catering for demand, there is almost a link between their activity and proselytising. Clearly, those things should be separate. They should not promote denominational schools in a vacuum without there being demand. It is not sufficient to say that good education is provided in the process—I am thinking in particular of certain academy projects—as the state can clearly provide good education in other ways that do not have a denominational context or flavour.
That is my caveat about current procedures, and it is a legitimate and reasonable one. If the archdiocese is going to scour over the details of the debate, I make a particular plea that relates to some extent to the academy projects. I come from an area that is struggling very hard to deal with surplus places. Part of the problem is that very acceptable high-performing primary schools are under severe threat. St. Teresa's infants school in my area is full to capacity, yet it is scheduled to close. The archdiocese must agree or disagree in some way to that project. Simultaneously, it is promoting an academy in which it is investing funds, although the reason for closing the infants school is that funds are tight.
There is an obligation on those who run denominational schools to ensure that it is a priority that the base service be provided and sustained in the community. There are circumstances in which the misguided promotion of new ventures can seriously harm effectively run current ventures. It will be a very sorry day when that occurs.
10.29 am
Angela Watkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing this debate, which is turning out to be one-sided, with great consensus. I agreed with almost every word he uttered, and I am happy to join the serried ranks of supporters of denominational schools.
We—the Opposition, not the royal "we"—are strongly in favour of denominational schools, which form a popular and essential part of the spectrum of education provision in the country. We believe that schools should be as varied as the demands of parents and should suit pupils' needs. In particular, denominational schools provide a choice for the large number of parents who seek places for their children at schools with a religious ethos, and it is right that those places should be available to them.
Most denominational schools are heavily oversubscribed, and for that reason alone must turn away pupils who fit their admissions criteria. That is certainly the case in Upminster at both primary and secondary level. Competition continues to grow for places in many of London's denominational schools, especially in those that dominate the league tables. In some cases, such as Monken Hadley Church of England primary school in

17WH
Barnet and St. Paul's Church of England primary school in Camden, three applications are received for every place. That necessarily means a lot of disappointed parents. It is an extremely traumatic experience for a family when their child is refused a place at the school of their choice and allocated a place at another school which, however good in other ways, does not have the denominational ethos that is important to them. Having sat on admissions appeals committees in the past as a district councillor, I can attest to that.
The issue of free school transport has been raised by several contributors to the debate. As a former Essex county councillor, I have defended free school transport for denominational schools in the county on many occasions. I would therefore like to defend Essex county council, as I am sure that this unwelcome policy change is being led by budgetary pressure rather than a desire to withdraw free transport for denominational pupils.
The impressive examination results achieved by many excellent denominational schools on a comprehensive intake are testimony to their success and one of the two main reasons for the growing demand for places. The 19th report of the Public Accounts Committee concluded that faith schools and single-sex schools do better than average, and the Local Government Association report on the impact of specialist and faith schools on performance concluded that Jewish schools performed exceptionally well and Church schools performed consistently well in English. In general, denominational schools outperform maintained schools consistently, but of course results are not the only reason for their popularity; it is the whole package that parents find attractive.
The other main reason for the popularity of denominational schools is the ethos shared by parents, staff and Church, which is recognised in the community. That shared ethos between like-minded people provides pupils with a secure learning environment that brings out the best in them and encourages them to achieve their full potential. Shared ethos is the key to the success of denominational schools.
I know about the issue from personal experience as a former local authority governor of the De La Salle school in Basildon, as a current governor of the Sacred Heart of Mary girls school in Upminster, and as a Christian but not a Roman Catholic. Sacred Heart is a secondary, single-sex Catholic comprehensive school with a flourishing sixth form. It is a prime example of a school with a shared ethos. It also teaches tolerance and understanding of other faiths. The school comes consistently very high in the annual national league tables, and it has a truly comprehensive intake with its fair share of special needs pupils. Do not assume that they are all from comfortable middle-class homes; not that that should ever be held against a child, as children are quite unable to influence their parents' financial circumstances—but prejudice against the middle class has become fashionable in middle-class circles.
By an historic arrangement, part of each cohort at the school comes from the neighbouring parish of Dagenham, where the community is less advantaged. Nevertheless, those girls feature prominently among the highest achievers in terms of exam results and positions of responsibility in the life of the school, which are achieved on merit and without social engineering. Pupils flourish under an ethos that insists on high standards of
18WH
behaviour and effort. Interestingly, this single-sex Catholic girls school is also attractive to Muslim families who require a protected disciplined educational environment for their daughters. Although the faiths are different, there are many shared social values, such as the importance of marriage and the family as the basis of a stable society and of high educational achievement, which are an integral part of the ethos of the school.
Already over-subscribed, Sacred Heart receives four to six calls every week from families moving into Upminster who want a place for their daughters. Denominational schools have, uniquely for providers of generalist education in the maintained sector, been permitted to interview applicants and their parents in order to ascertain religious affiliation and commitment where that is explicit in the admission requirements. There have been suggestions that the procedure has, from time to time, been used to make a selection based only ostensibly on faith. On the balance of likelihood, there are probably a few examples of that, but it would be unjust and damaging to ban interviewing for all because of a suspicion that a few interviews may have been unfairly conducted.
There is no evidence of widespread abuse of admission interviews, and schools receiving two or three applications for every place must decide which pupils are to be offered a place. The whole point of denominational schools is that everyone who is part of that school, whether pupil, parent or teacher, shares a denominational background and core values. That is what gives the school its special character.
Such is the level of demand that there can be no justification for the introduction of quotas, which force schools to accept pupils who do not fit their criteria while refusing places to others who do. If that were to happen, the school would no longer be a denominational school. There has to be a way of determining adherence to the faith of the school, and ticking boxes on an application form is likely to give a less reliable result.
Of course, where there is spare capacity many schools accept pupils who are not of the same faith but share their ethos. Admissions criteria for denominational schools, and all others for that matter, should be set by the schools and should fit local circumstances. They are a matter for head teachers, governors and parents, not for central Government. Schools should be wooing parents, persuading them that what they have to offer will be highly beneficial to their children, rather than parents chasing too few school places.
Denominational schools have an established winning formula. It works well for the pupils and their parents support it. If a denominational school is achieving better results, has better discipline and a higher reputation than its neighbours, the answer is to make the others better, not to change the formula of the successful school. We need to see levelling up to the highest common factor, not down to the lowest common denominator.
Let the other schools adopt an ethos worth sharing, secular if that is their choice. Let them consult parents and establish an ethos that will engender pride in belonging to that school, ambition and a determination to succeed. That is the way to drive standards up in less successful schools so that parents will choose to send their children there.

19WH
It would be quite wrong to destroy successful denominational schools by changing their admissions criteria on the old socialist maxim that if everyone cannot have something, nobody can have it, thereby driving standards down. Just like the doctrinal objection to grammar schools and the abolished assisted places scheme, which gave able pupils from disadvantaged homes the opportunity to widen their horizons—
Mr. McNamara:You are spoiling it now.
Angela Watkinson: I stand here as living proof, as an old grammar school girl from a poor working-class background. The winning formula of denominational schools will be destroyed if the Government meddle in their admissions procedures. They should leave well alone and concentrate on raising the standard of other schools to meet those of denominational schools.
10.38 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I join colleagues of all parties in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing this debate on an important issue. He has clearly brought his considerable experience, educational and political, to the debate.
As others have said, the debate has been characterised by remarkable consensus on an issue that we know to be contentious, for some of the reasons that have been set out. I also echo my hon. Friend's tribute to the Catholic Education Service for the excellent job that it does. I pay tribute to the other faiths that are part of the system, as he did.
I want to put it clearly on the record that we regard faith schools as playing a very important part in our education system. As a number of hon. Members have said, there is a long and proud tradition of faith-based education in this country. For many years, we have acknowledged parents' wishes to educate their children in mainstream Christian schools.
Since 1944, faith communities have been able to apply to set up schools in the maintained sector in response to demand from parents. Given our multi-faith, multicultural society, it is only right that such opportunities should be available for parents and communities of other faiths, and that they should have similar opportunities to educate their children in accordance with their beliefs. I strongly support what my hon. Friend said in distinguishing the pluralism of our society from a secularist approach. I associate myself completely with his contrasting of our attitude with that of France on such questions. That is an important philosophical point that connects well to some of the community cohesion issues that he and others referred to.
Faith schools have an important and positive role to play in protecting and enhancing the pluralist character of our society. They are very popular with parents and typically play a valuable role in enhancing standards of education. As my hon. Friend said, they also play a valuable role in their local communities—the faith communities themselves, and more broadly.
20WH
Faith schools usually have a distinct ethos and mission. We know from evidence and common-sense observation that such things tend to be at the heart of school improvement—the schools that do best and provide the widest range of opportunities tend to be those with that clear sense of ethos and mission. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) talked about specialist schools. Part of the reason why they tend to do well is that they have that sense of drive, ethos and mission, and the same applies to faith schools.
In the 2001 White Paper "Schools—achieving success" we made it clear that we welcome faith schools in the maintained sector when parents and the local community want them. As a Government, we are certainly not campaigning for more faith schools. I take issue with the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and any suggestion that we would seek to establish faith schools in communities where there is not that demand. In many respects there is an opposite issue, to which the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) referred, of there being far more demand than the number of places and therefore scope for further faith schools.
Dr. Pugh: The issue between us is how the demand is assessed. If large numbers of people in Gateshead were already members of fundamentalist Churches and wished their children to be educated in a school with a fundamentalist ethos, that would fit in with what the Government say. If, on the other hand, somebody promoted a school that represented only a minority faith in the area but still attracted pupils who came largely from other faiths or no faith at all, that would be a different kettle of fish. How do the Government assess the demand for another faith school?
Mr. Twigg: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to one of the academies—to be fair to him, he said that in his opening remarks. The academy programme is very new; for it to succeed, clear support from parents and the local community is required. Otherwise, the schools concerned will not attract the pupils and will not achieve the improvement in standards. A very substantial investment of money is going into the programme—predominantly public money, with some private and charitable money. The clearest test of whether that is a worthwhile investment will be demand—that is, take-up—and improvement in standards. If standards do not improve we shall have to consider that.
Dr. Pugh: Are parents being offered the choice between an academy and an academy with a fundamentalist ethos? Are both those offers, or just one of them, on the table? If people want an academy, do they have to have one with a fundamentalist ethos?
Mr. Twigg: I quarrel with the description of the academy as having a fundamentalist ethos. I have not visited the academy in Gateshead, but my understanding from colleagues who have is that the school's ethos is impressive and the quality of education high.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important, broader issue, which I do not want to dwell on now, but which I am sure we shall return to in future debates: how we fully

21WH
engage communities, by which I mean not only the local authority but the broader community, including parents, in questions of the ethos and nature of new schools in general, and academies in particular. He makes a legitimate point in that respect.
I was trying to make the broader point that we do not want to campaign for more faith schools but that where there is demand or support for them in communities we welcome that as an aspect of diversity and of real choice. From my experience as a Minister and a constituency Member, I feel that there is a great deal for us to learn from faith schools. I have been hugely impressed by what I have seen.
As other hon. Members have said, about three in 10 state schools in England have a religious character. There are about 7,000 faith schools, of which 600 are secondary and 6,400 are primary. Of course, the majority of those are associated with the major Christian denominations. However, in recent years other faiths have promoted schools. There are now 34 Jewish schools, one of which, Wolfson Hillel, is in my constituency; it is an excellent Jewish primary school. There are four Muslim schools, two Sikh schools, one Greek Orthodox school—St. Cyprian's in Croydon—and one Seventh Day Adventist school.
I believe, from my discussions with the communities in question—perhaps most notably the Muslim community—that non-Christian minority faith communities have a growing interest in the possibility that some of the independent schools that already exist in those communities could become part of the maintained sector. I warmly welcome the interest that is being shown, and the Department is doing its best to enable that to happen, where it is appropriate, and where there is support in the communities locally.
When we set out our departmental five-year strategy two weeks ago, one of the five key principles that the Secretary of State maintained was that we should promote greater personalisation and choice, placing the wishes of parents and pupils centre stage. I am confident that faith schools can, should and will be part of that choice for parents and pupils.
I want to discuss some of the issues that have been raised today about admissions and the character of faith schools. I also want to talk about community cohesion. However, first I want to respond to the points that have been raised about school transport. There are two separate but related issues. One is the draft School Transport Bill referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, which is intended to revisit the existing arrangements for home-to-school transport, which, as hon. Members will know, date back to 1944.
We are considering whether to change the law to allow local education authorities to run trials of alternative packages of school transport. The draft Bill has been open for consultation. Pre-legislative scrutiny has been carried out by the Education and Skills Committee and the Department is considering the results. I have met representatives of the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England, and they expressed some of the concerns that my hon. Friend set out today.
I believe that the pilots, through a possible transport Bill in the coming Session, could provide an opportunity to deal with some of the issues that have arisen in the
22WH
debate. The Bill could provide a vehicle for authorities to improve the availability of transport to denominational schools.
On the second set of issues raised by a number of my hon. Friends, what is happening in Essex and in East Riding is happening under existing legislation, and in that sense it is nothing to do with the draft School Transport Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) reminded the House of the circular of January 1994. I am pleased to be able to inform him that that circular is still operational. We have not changed it, but we will reconsider it in the light of recent consultation on school transport. The circular remains in force for tomorrow night's meeting. I share the concerns that he and others set out in respect of East Riding and Essex. They have sent a clear message to those councillors who have to make a decision tomorrow. It is true that such decisions are made locally under the framework of the 1944 legislation, but I reaffirm that what is set out in the 1994 circular still stands. The East Riding and Essex examples demonstrate some of the iniquities of the present system of school transport. I would argue that a case should made for exploring alternatives, which is what we seek to do through the draft Bill.
Mr. McNamara: Do we need to explore alternatives? Should we not simply establish a principle: that parents choosing denominational schools should have school transport, provided that they meet the distance criterion?
Mr. Twigg: If we were to go down that route, it would require changes to the 1944 Act. One of the features of the existing situation is that what my hon. Friend described happens in some authorities but not all. As he and others have said, the tendency is to move away from such policies. Providing more flexibility in the broader system of school transport may allow more children and young people to benefit from free or subsidised transport, including transport to denominational schools. However, going down the route that he described would be a radical change, and it would require primary legislation to make the necessary changes.
As we proceed with the draft Bill, I am keen that the pilot schemes test the impact of transport policy on the accessibility of denominational schools. I was interested in some of the examples given of the impact of charging on access to certain schools. I make it clear that we would not want the policy on charging to result in parents being deterred from sending their children to their first-choice schools. If that is happening, the subject will be included in our further consideration of the draft Bill.
The other issue raised by my hon. Friend was the building of new schools. The Catholic Education Service and the Anglican Church have raised the matter with us. We are convening a new working group, to which we shall invite the Catholic Education Service, the Church of England and other faiths. It will have its first meeting shortly, when it will consider the question of the 10 per cent. requirement with respect to capital costs. My hon. Friend has placed that issue firmly on the record, and I shall ensure that that is made clear to the working group.

23WH
In the remaining five minutes, I shall refer to some of the broader issues. We know—the subject has been explored this morning—that faith schools are popular with parents. In the light of that, hon. Members will want to know more about the Government's commitment to providing more places in popular schools. We have already introduced new funding incentives to enable popular and successful secondary schools to expand. So far we have been able to agree to support six schools, of which two are faith schools, and we are considering a number of other applications.
We have amended our guidance to school organisation committees and schools adjudicators, so that when they consider proposals there is now a strong presumption in favour of approving such expansions. We will build on those measures to streamline the process of approval, which should give popular and successful faith schools that want to expand the potential to do so. That is important in providing the diversity and choice for which I think all speakers in this debate have shown their support.
Community cohesion is an issue that often arises in discussions about denominational schools. As hon. Members have said, segregation is a challenge in our society that is caused by a broad range of factors. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin): in many of the communities covered in the Cantle report, the key issue is housing policy, although sometimes it is discrimination or patterns of employment. It would be entirely wrong to regard faith schools as bearing the main responsibility in that regard. As a number of hon. Members have said, in many urban areas there are schools that have a preponderance of pupils from a particular ethnic background but are not faith schools and simply reflect the patterns of local housing.
I agree that faith schools can make an important contribution to community cohesion, by promoting inclusion and developing partnership with schools of other faiths, and non-faith schools. The Government want faith and other schools to work together to break down barriers and bring together children of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, in order to promote understanding between different sections of our society. Since June 2003, promoters of new schools, whether faith or non-faith, have been required to show how their proposals will help to promote community cohesion. School organisation committees are required to take
24WH
that into account when they consider proposals for new schools. All maintained schools are expected to promote good relations among different racial groups and, of course, to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination.
The code of practice on schools admissions allows faith schools to admit pupils based on religious affiliation, but as a number of hon. Members have said, many faith schools admit pupils who are not of their faith. The Church of England has a tradition of providing schools not only for Anglicans but for the community as a whole, particularly in rural areas. The Archbishop of Canterbury has committed all Church of England schools to give priority, for at least some of their places, to children of other faiths or none. My hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North and for Selby mentioned the Leeds diocese. Many non-Catholics attend Catholic schools, particularly in inner-city areas. We do not want faith schools to keep places empty when there are insufficient applicants for those places from pupils of their own faith or denomination. We took action to prevent that in the Education Act 2002, with the support of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires admission authorities for schools to review their policies in order to ensure that they eliminate racial discrimination, promote racial equality and encourage good race relations. That includes assessing admissions policies to ensure that pupils from particular racial groups are not unlawfully discriminated against, and monitoring the admissions process to ensure that it is administered consistently and fairly to children from all racial groups. We encourage faith schools to be more inclusive in the ways that I have set out.
Some faith schools achieve greater inclusiveness by designating some of their places as faith places and some as open places, with non-denominational criteria. That is not a specific requirement and is still a matter for the schools' admissions authorities to decide for themselves. We would not wish artificial quotas to take precedence over parental preference. That would cause greater dissatisfaction among parents from all sectors of the community and could still result in places remaining unfilled.
We have had an excellent debate, in which many of the benefits of denominational schools have been well set out by hon. Members of all parties. I am sure that this debate will continue. Faith schools contribute very much to the excellence of our education service.

Community Sentencing (Youth Offending)
11 am
Mr. Graham Allen: Like most Members of Parliament, I believe that I work very hard: I have a surgery most weeks, I phone 30 or so people in my constituency most nights, and I have my "meet the MP for a cup of tea" sessions. After distilling all that experience and connection with my local communities, I come up with one key question that my constituents want answered, and that we should seek to answer: how do we restore faith in the criminal justice system? In tough areas and outer estates such as mine, that faith is often absent. People's experience of courts, probation, prosecution and the police is poor or—it is probably fairer to say—based on poor perceptions. All those who work in the criminal justice system work extremely hard, and I commend their work. However, they often appear to be working reactively rather than proactively when cases come before them, when paperwork has to be processed and when offenders come into contact with the various institutions.
So far, almost all the Government's—welcome—efforts in this field have been about internal processes. They ask how fast we can get offenders through the system and where the pinch points in the procedures are? All of that effort is valuable and of course procedures should be tackled. However, of equal importance, but largely ignored so far, is the need for a proactive role for criminal justice. Above all, we are talking about the new county criminal justice boards, as well as the individual constituent services themselves.
In the context of my constituency, that means encouraging the use of special payments by the chief constable to keep the beat bobby infrastructure staffed, up to strength and motivated. It means returning some of our probation services from being HQ-based to the estates where staff know the offenders, families, acquaintances and problems. It means Crown prosecutors seeing their job not only as being in local police stations, which has been a very welcome development in my city, but as systematically engaging with our communities. It means all those connected with the courts learning to interact with and support law-abiding citizens as much as they interact with those who are accused. That in itself is a massive culture change for those connected with the courts, who tend to look inwards to their procedures rather than outwards to the community that they serve.
I welcome the letter that I received from the Minister this morning, which indicated that magistrates may make recommendations about the type of work that offenders can usefully do under a community punishment order. How many magistrates know that? Of those who do, how many attempt consistently to link offenders back to doing good works in their own neighbourhoods? The incredible assistance from the ministerial team has been very helpful; the breakdown sometimes seems to occur among local practitioners, who may not know the motivation behind certain proposals and who often lack the guidance, clarity and direction needed to make the proposals work.
Criminal justice professionals have now begun talking to each other, which is real progress that I welcome. Certainly in Nottinghamshire, that process
26WH
was evident when I met the criminal justice board on Friday. However, that in itself is not enough. The criminal justice system has to be reunited with its public. That is the next step. Having got members of the criminal justice system talking to each other about their own processes, we need to take that a stage further and get the system as a whole and all its constituent parts to look outwards to the people whom it is meant to serve.
This morning, I want to give one example of how the Government and MPs can help the criminal justice system do that. It deals with the work of young offenders doing community hours. That work needs to connect far more directly and immediately with local communities, so that those communities will see that the criminal justice system is working for them at their request. That will increase the likelihood of the community working with the criminal justice system—giving evidence, helping victims, building neighbourhood watch, and reporting crime. It is about building trust and reaching out to communities, and getting the payback from the community as faith is restored, making a virtuous circle.
Much excellent work is done in allocating offenders to useful work in our communities, such as removing fly posting, litter picking and erasing graffiti. It is exactly the sort of work that a blighted outer-city estate needs to tackle the environmental degradation brought about by antisocial behaviour. Some of it is done at the behest of the community, but—with the greatest respect to those who work immensely hard with young offenders—it usually happens in a roundabout, somewhat leisurely and occasionally bureaucratic way, which dislocates the work from the neighbourhoods in which it is taking place. The aim is to get the connections cleaner, tighter, faster and more timely. When people see something happening in their community at their request, it will give a tremendous boost to the restoration of faith in the criminal justice system.
We need to build on what we have and to establish something that is far sharper arid more direct. The community, represented by Members of Parliament, local councillors and, above all, by tenants or residents associations and neighbourhood watches, should be able to ring a highly publicised hotline number staffed by a named person to nominate suitable work to be done in the neighbourhood, and offenders in orange jackets should appear within a week to do it. That is the aim that I hope that the Minister wants to set local authorities and criminal justice institutions up and down the land. We must be clear about our ambition and our targets, so that work is done because somebody in the community has recognised a need for it, and that person can then see people in the street doing it.
I must put on record the tremendous efforts of local people in Nottingham, as it might serve as an example of best practice that the Minister could help us with, or it could be used to help people in other towns and cities. There is to be a dedicated post based in street scene, which is part of one of the departments of the council. That will be the link point for both the community and the work. That officer will be the contact point for tenants associations and others who want to suggest activities or identify problems; the officer will also be proactive in reaching out to those institutions to ensure that they are aware of the possibilities open to them to have work done in the area. The officer will then ask the youth offending team to identify young people available

27WH
to do the work, and to organize sessional workers for the placements. The problem with having that officer located within the youth offending team is that such a person might not know enough about the nature of the tasks to judge whether particular jobs are within the capacity of young people or whether they are suitable in health and safety terms. The effect should be the same for community groups: they will have one point of contact, and the same person will be able to make the judgment about suitability of the tasks, and to liaise with the YOT. A pilot scheme will run during the coming school holidays—hopefully in the area known as Bulwell in my constituency—to test the links and communications and to ensure that teething problems are dealt with. The aim is to roll it out across the city over the rest of the year.
We have worked through some of the barriers that we encountered locally, such as health and safety issues, potential trade union concerns that needed to be allayed and child protection concerns. The work should be about putting something back, but it is also positive for the offenders, as can be seen in the comments of some of the youths involved in clearing fly posting. They said, "This job is the most useful because it is really helping the community," "We had someone come up to us and say that what we were doing was really good," "I reckon it will stop me reoffending," and "I might consider it as a job." One youth's mother said, "He feels like he's doing something worth while. His whole attitude has changed." Such comments, I hope, are evidence that such work is useful and may lead to other employment, and gives a sense of putting something back into the community.
If we can identify the tasks that mean something to local communities, we will complete the circle in which young offenders are doing something valuable to make amends, in which they see a purpose, and which will help them to gain the skills and confidence that will steer them towards work and enhance their life chances. That process will also build confidence within communities that the criminal justice system is aware of and responding to their experience of crime, and is not some fusty thing that goes on somewhere in the courts, where there are lot of bureaucrats who are not very welcoming or friendly. Instead of, "It is a frightening experience that we do not want to be involved with," people will think, "The criminal justice system came to us and fulfilled a need to make our estate better." An immediate link will be established, which will be vital to rebuilding faith in the long term. Most importantly, the "putting it right officer", if I can use that expression, would be charged with notifying the community that work was going on at their request.
Currently—I have broached this issue with the Minister privately—we have to ensure that residents and tenants do not know when such activities are to take place, so that the identity of the young offenders is not disclosed. I do not propose the naming and shaming of offenders, as I do not think that that is the way forward, but if the scheme that I propose is to be effective, the community must be informed about where work is going to take place, so that they can see it happening—so that they can see a timely response to their requests. I would like the Minister to consider that at his leisure—
28WH
although I know he has no leisure—and to think about how we can take it forward. There has to be a balance: the community should be able to witness the work taking place without it being a punitive sanction where people take photographs of young offenders, or where other problems might ensue. The matter requires some further thought, because that immediate link must be retained.
I have another, smaller, plea to the Minister: that we do not baffle the community and simple-minded Members of Parliament with too much jargon. We can surely do better than titles such as the "probations enhanced community punishment scheme" in trying to get over to our constituents the opportunities that lie behind that mouthful.
Those who suffer antisocial behaviour do not draw any distinction between young offenders and adult offenders, yet I have found that everything needs to be negotiated twice—once with the young offenders team and once with the probation service. Will the Minister consider whether that distinction might be done away with, at least in this instance, or whether we could simplify in some other way to make a reality of the practice that we all seek?
I have raised this issue with the Minister almost since the day he was appointed, and I have always had a positive and encouraging response from him. I have also raised it locally, but have occasionally felt that I was being deflected and managed by those who feel that they, rather than the community, have proprietorial rights over the criminal justice system. We need to rediscover the fact that justice is a public service, just as health and education are. It is the property not of local professionals, but of the community whom we are meant to serve. I sometimes think that we are not as outward-looking as we could be, but that is a minor caveat. That attitude is passing, certainly in Nottingham, and passing very quickly.
A massive injection of positive motivation has come from the grass roots. Bob Uden from the youth offending team and David Hodgson from the council's street cleaning team are getting on with the job—they are not waiting, they are doing it right now. Many others deserve recognition, including Ken Beaumont, Chris Bailey, the council leader Jon Collins, Val Matinson from the city's chief executive's department and many other hard-working and committed individuals who want this approach to work and who have been getting on and doing the job. I am proud that Nottingham is starting to show the way and that where problems are arising they are being tackled rather than taken as an excuse not to do anything.
The Government must not only attack antisocial behaviour, but promote social behaviour, and this is one way to do that. Local professionals, and MPs first and foremost, must not only react to cases but be proactive in reaching out to the communities they serve. Communities must not passively have services done to them, but should initiate and experience the benefits of a criminal justice system as a public service. Yesterday, the Prime Minister talked the talk about the law-abiding citizen being the boss and being at the centre of the criminal justice system. The Minister knows me quite well, and he knows that I will follow this specific practical example closely in order to judge how real the follow-through is to the Prime Minister's fine words.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on obtaining this debate and on the assiduous way in which he pursues these issues, not only in Westminster but in his constituency. His speech this morning and the information that he has shared with the Chamber are based on his daily experiences in his constituency. I endorse entirely the role of the Member of Parliament in making the connection between policy making at the centre and what happens in local communities. Unless we make those connections, we do not learn the lessons or make the improvements that we need.
Throughout his speech, my hon. Friend kept coming back to the need to restore faith and confidence in the criminal justice system. He mentioned the comments made by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about making sure that at the heart of the system is the ordinary law-abiding citizen, rather than the offender, as has happened too often in the past. The community should be at the heart and we should be doing everything that we can to restore confidence.
I join my hon. Friend in his generous thanks to the professionals in his constituency and city who deliver the service. However, he was right when he said at the outset that the public do not always perceive their work. Sometimes they do not see all the decisions that are made and the programmes that are carefully put together. We have to change that and make sure that they see what is happening and can make a connection with it.
My hon. Friend argued forcefully for a service that is proactive, not just reactive, and I agree entirely. It is important that young people who have committed crimes and offended against individuals or the wider community should be punished. It is also important that that punishment, wherever possible, should be a form of payback to the community where those offences were committed. I agree that we have to continue to develop our probation service as a neighbourhood service—not as something remote, but as something that is closely connected with, and deals with, offending behaviour problems in the communities.
All those things fit together. The five-year strategic plan announced yesterday by the Home Secretary, which puts an emphasis on neighbourhood policing, the new antisocial behaviour prosecutors whom we are developing at local level, and the extra 20,000 community support officers are all important ways of building up the capacity of the system. However, we have to join them all together in a way that makes a difference and connects with the lives of local people.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has received the letter that I sent to him at a late hour yesterday. I was certainly interested in the proposal that he made in his letter to the Home Secretary. I can confirm that there is no reason why a bench that is in full possession of information about what is available in the community should not recommend the type of work that the offender should do. Clearly, we could not allow an order to depend on a particular type of work, because that would be difficult to organise and enforce. A fully informed bench would, however, reflect the connectivity for which my hon.
30WH
Friend argued. The magistrates would know what was going on and, on behalf of the community, could impose penalties that really meant something to the offender and the wider community.
Mr. Allen: Do magistrates currently know of that possibility? If not, would it be possible to send them a copy of the letter or a guidance note? I suspect that they are not fully aware of the possibilities in their hands, not least because of the pressures of work.
Paul Goggins: I am happy to look into that. I suspect that their training will confirm that magistrates can make use of such possibilities, although that relies on their knowing what is available on the ground and being well informed by those who prepare court reports. However, I will take a close look at the issue.
My hon. Friend argued cogently for us all to make connections between policies, the agencies that deliver them and the local community. He captured the mood very accurately in one telling phrase when he talked about the need for the criminal justice system to be "reunited with its public". We should all share that aspiration and work to achieve it. What better way could there be of dealing with young offenders than enabling them to put something back into the community, make good the damage that they have done and improve their community's environment through practical enhancements while changing their own behaviour and attitudes so that they can be more successfully integrated into their community?
My hon. Friend suggested that members of the community or a community association could have access to a readily known local phone number so that they could put in a request for work that needed doing and get a response. That is a sensible and practical idea, and I hope that it can be developed in his area. I recently visited Cardiff and saw how the probation service had developed a graffiti-busting project. With funding from the crime reduction partnership, it had bought the equipment required to remove graffiti. Community groups need now only make a phone call, and the team can get out there and make a difference, with offenders putting something back. We need probation services to be fully integrated with crime reduction partnerships and other local partnerships so that people have the information and confidence to make contact. My hon. Friend outlined arrangements in his area, which I fully endorse, and I hope that they can be deepened.
I was interested in my hon. Friend's comments about the pilot project in his area. Indeed, I am sure that people throughout his city of Nottingham will be interested in it. He said that it would be rolled out in due course. I will certainly be interested to find out how it goes and I am sure that he will keep me informed, as he frequently does. If we can learn from the project nationally, we should do so.
My hon. Friend listed a number of people who are making a real difference in his city. I am aware of the leadership of Councillor Jon Collins and of his work in tackling the difficult issues that sometimes get in the way—the health and safety issues that my hon. Friend mentioned and the reservations that trade unionists in the city may have. Councillor Collins likes to cut through such things and try to provide a practical solution. With my hon. Friend, he can make a real difference.

31WH
My hon. Friend quoted the views of local young people whose lives and attitudes have been changed by the work that they have done. What could be better than putting something back, learning a new skill, perhaps gaining in confidence and seeing new opportunities and horizons opening up? Amends are made for the wrong that has been done, and new opportunities arise for the young offender. The youth offending team in my hon. Friend's constituency wants to co-operate closely with him in putting schemes together. I commend the team for that and him for the work that he has done.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting question about how the local community can be better informed about work that is being done. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that people are aware of such work and ensuring that the young offenders involved are not demeaned or exposed to ridicule, because that could subvert the positive work that we are trying to do to change their lives and attitudes. I am not an advocate of yellow jackets, which my hon. Friend mentioned, but it is important to brand the work that young offenders do. The local community should know if litter has been picked up or a piece of land restored by offenders and should be able to celebrate the fact that amends have been made and something has been put back.
My hon. Friend made a plea for limiting jargon and bureaucracy, and I endorse what he said. All this is best summed up by the term "payback", because everyone knows what it means. We should focus on simple words such as that to ensure that people understand that this is about restoring our communities and putting something back.
Mr. Allen: By accident, I headed some of my e-mails "Putting it right". That phrase seems to have caught the imagination of many people locally and they are using it. Whether we talk about "putting it right" or "payback", we must use words that the community understands, rather than talk about the community liaison strategic partnership review community offender operations programme sub-officer. "Putting it right" is probably a snappier phrase than some we have been used to in the past.
Paul Goggins: Indeed. It may well be my hon. Friend's experience—it certainly is mine—that local communities are intolerant of young people when they are committing offences, but as well as punishment they want a real effort to be made to turn offenders' attitudes
32WH
and behaviour around. Payback really resonates with them. If local communities see people putting something back to make amends for what they have done, they are happy that justice has been done and there is a chance for the young offenders to make progress and move beyond their offending behaviour.
I have been happy to respond directly to the questions that my hon. Friend has raised. Of course, all this must be seen within the wider environment of policy, the development of the Youth Justice Board and our whole approach nationally and locally to all these questions. That approach has been transformed in recent years. We have put the prevention of offending at the heart of the system and sentencing policy. It is important to consider other issues to do with welfare and, as we have emphasised, restoration and reparation are important, but the prevention of offending should be at the heart of everything that we are trying to do.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. On the assumption that he is not promoted to the Cabinet by the end of the week, as many of us would like him to be, and he continues in the same job, will he consider coming to Nottingham some time before the end of the year to see whether we have been able to make this system work and whether there are lessons that he could transfer to elsewhere in the UK?
Paul Goggins: It is kind of my hon. Friend to talk about promotion, but I hope to be able to take up his offer of a visit. When I come to Nottingham, I will be able to meet members of the youth offending team. I know that 90 staff now operate in the team, including social workers, probation officers and police as well as specialist staff such as mental health staff, substance misuse workers and victim liaison workers. They all work together at local level to try to make a difference.
We have developed a range of court disposals, such as the reparation order and the action plan order. The referral order is a new and effective initiative used when offenders are in court for the first time and admit the offence. Again, we are involving the community in referral orders: 5,000 volunteers nationally serve on referral order panels. I understand that, in Nottingham, 64 local people serve on the panels and work out appropriate interventions for young people who have been in trouble. Again, that is about trying to change young offenders' lives.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Public Corporations
2 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: Accountability and openness are two of the key responsibilities of holders of public office. They form two of the six principles of public conduct, so I am delighted that we are joined this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. One of the means by which accountability and openness are facilitated is through objective accounting and statistical standards. They are what underlie this debate.
What is a public corporation? Is it different from a nationalized industry? How should Ministers monitor public corporations? Fortunately, I do not have to invent the answers to those questions; they are set out in the Treasury document, "Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2004". That document defines a public corporation as
"a term from national accounts—the European System of Accounts. So it is the Office for National Statistics that determines which bodies are public corporations. The characteristics of public corporations are: they are mainly trading bodies, largely recovering their costs from fees charged to customers…they are owned or controlled by central government, local authorities or other public corporations; and they have substantial day to day operating independence so that they should be seen as institutional units separate from their parent departments."
In terms of public finances, a nationalised industry and a public corporation are no longer treated differently. The PESA document goes on to set out the controls in place over public corporations, and I draw hon. Members' attention to the following paragraph:
"Monitoring plays an important role in controlling public corporations' performance in the interests of the taxpayer and the consumer. Sponsor Ministers"
and
"departments… continuously monitor bodies' performance against all aspects of the controls described."
It is up to Departments to set individual financial targets for public corporations and any dividend or interest payments required. It is significant that where public corporations compete in the same market as a private company, there can be an issue of fair competition.
That sets out some of the background behind the subject, but does any of it make any difference in practice? It certainly does. There was a headline report in newspapers earlier this year about the change in the definition of Network Rail. On 27 February 2004, the ONS announced that Network Rail would be regarded as a public corporation until 31 March 2003. As a result, £9 billion—a lot of money in anyone's language—has to be put on the balance sheet in the national accounts to reflect that ruling. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire intends to say more about the conundrum presented by that decision. I find it amazing that it took a newspaper editor digging behind what appeared to be an innocuous statement by the ONS about the classification of Network Rail to highlight the issue. When one examined the statement and the attached document closely, one saw that it was not so much a statement about classification as a change in classification with the implications that I described. I use that as an example of how significant a decision on whether an organisation is a public corporation can be.
34WH
Whether enterprises are in the private or the state sector is relevant to the definition of capital business investment. Are state-controlled enterprises crowding out the private sector? Is business investment as a share of gross domestic product rising or falling? Recent statistics reveal that business investment by public corporations is rising compared with capital expenditure by private companies, especially in the manufacturing sector. I hope that I have shown that we are able to have proper accountability by having a robust and accurate definition of public corporations.
One may ask, "What has been happening?" I shall illustrate my argument using trust ports. On 26 October 2000, the ONS decided to classify certain major trust ports as public bodies whose financial transactions were to be included in the public sector borrowing requirement. The background was set out in reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a written question of mine. She enclosed a copy of a letter from John Pullinger, the national statistician. In explanation of the decision taken on 26 October 2000, John Pullinger stated:
"Classification decisions are made by applying international standards for National Accounts … The classification of corporations to either the public or the private sector is determined by control. The public sector has control over the major trust ports, usually through both appointment rights and powers contained in the Ports Act 1991."
I asked which major trust ports had been reclassified as public corporations, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), replied:
"In discussion with the Office of National Statistics, we have identified 21 trust ports in England and Wales that might fall within the classification as public corporations at the present time. These are:

Bridlington

Caernarfon

Chichester

Dover

Falmouth

Flamborough (North Sea Landing)

Harwich

Hope Cove

Langstone

Littlehampton

Milford Haven

Newlyn

Orford

Poole

Port Isaac

Port of London

Port of Tyne

Sandwich

Sandersfoot

Shoreham

Teignmouth."

I asked what the financial reporting arrangements were for the trust ports that had been reclassified as public corporations. The Under-Secretary stated:
"As we are still working to assess what the impact of this classification might be, there have been no changes to the financial reporting arrangements at this time."

35WH
That was in March 2003, although the classification change had been made in 2000. I asked what progress had been made on discussions with the ONS. The Under-Secretary stated:
"We have now identified with the Office of National Statistics which trust ports might fall within the classification as public corporations, and my officials are currently working to identify the financial and resource implications of this classification for those ports and the Department."
I asked
"why there is no reference to the trust ports classified as public corporations in the Resource Accounts … of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions".
The Under-Secretary's answer was that, at the time of preparing the resource accounts,
"we were still discussing the proposed classification with ONS, including trying to identify which ports would fall within that classification. Therefore we were unable to include any reference to the trust ports in those accounts."—[Official Report, 5 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 1025–1026W.]
I hope the Financial Secretary shares my concern that the Department for Transport resource accounts for 2002–03, which were published on 29 January this year, make no reference whatsoever to any of the trust ports being defined as public corporations. Indeed, the only public corporations referred to—on page 55, note 26—are the Air Travel Trust and the Civil Aviation Authority. Why do the resource accounts for the following year make no reference to the classification of the trust ports as public corporations and to all the things that flow from that, including returns on capital and so on? I have not had an answer to that question, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give me one today.
We are not talking about insignificant organisations. In answer to my question, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said:
"The latest published accounts we have received from the major ports defined as public corporations show on the balance sheets that the net worth of each port is as follows:

Port

£million net worth

Port of London (at 31 December 2003)

48.3

Dover (at 31 December 2003)

124.8

Milford Haven (at 31 December 2002)

31.9

Poole (at 31 March 2003)

11.8

Tyne (at 31 December 2002)

47.6

Harwich Haven (at 31 December 2003)

33/".

—[Official Report, 13 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1016W.]
Only those six ports are listed as major ports that are defined as public corporations, but at least for the first time there is an implicit admission by the Department for Transport that they are public corporations rather than potential public corporations. This is not merely an academic or semantic dispute; it is serious and important, because a significant part of the ports industry is in limbo as a result of doubts about whether major ports are classified as public corporations. If they are, why is the Department for Transport not requiring a rate of return or monitoring them, as required by Government convention?
36WH
The confusion still exists, certainly in Dover, the largest of the trust ports. On 16 June 2003, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the borrowing authorisation of £50.4 million to Dover Harbour Board is included in the Government's public sector borrowing requirement. The response from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated:
"Dover Harbour Board is classified to the public corporation sector in the national accounts. Thus spending and borrowing of Dover Harbour Board is public sector spending and borrowing, in particular its borrowing from the private sector is included in Public Sector Net Borrowing. While facilities to borrow do not themselves impact on PSNB the draw down of that facility to finance expenditure would."—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 37W.]
Yet the annual report and accounts of the Dover Harbour Board for 2002 contain no reference to the fact that it may be a public corporation. Picking up on the answer in June 2003 from the Chief Secretary, Mr. C. Madderson, managing director of George Hammond plc, a user of the port of Dover, wrote to Dover Harbour Board about the situation, asking whether it affected the board's ability to borrow or whether a return on capital was needed. About a month later, he received an interesting reply from Mr. Bob Goldfield, chief executive of Dover Harbour Board, who said:
"With reference to your letter of 17 September regarding Trust Port status, I apologise for the delay in replying but I was checking the latest position with Ports Division"—
that is a reference to the Department for Transport—
"and they were slow!
It is true that there is a proposal from the National Audit Office"—
I think that should have been the Office for National Statistics—
"to have the major trust ports redesignated as public corporations. This proposal is based upon the fact that, for those ports, the Secretary of State appoints the majority of the Board. However, the Department for Transport are vigorously rejecting the proposal and they have stated publicly that they will withdraw from appointing Board members, thereby removing the rationale for redesignation, should the proposal receive serious consideration.
We therefore see no prospect in the immediate future of any change to the status of Dover Harbour Board as a Trust Port."
That extraordinary response from Dover Harbour Board was sent, it seems, on the advice of officials at the Department for Transport.
What is going on? I asked the Department for Transport whether it had it mind to change the board membership of Dover Harbour Board. On 28 October 2003, I received this answer from the Under-Secretary:
"Seven board members, including the Chairman, are appointed by the Secretary of State to the Dover Harbour Board … Government appointments to the DHB are made in strict accord with its policy on the appointment of all non-executive directors and board members of public bodies and we abide by guidelines set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments … We have no current plans to alter this policy."—[Official Report, 28 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 154W.]
Any suggestion that the Department would try to alter its control over the board to change the classification of Dover Harbour Board as a public corporation seems to be without foundation.

37WH
In March, I had the privilege of attending the annual lunch of the British Ports Association. If I say that at that lunch before the Under-Secretary spoke there was an air of expectancy, I understate the position. Everybody at that lunch was expecting an announcement on the status of ports as public corporations and the implications that flowed from that. The Minister made no such announcement, and in correspondence that I have had with him since all he has said is that the issue is still under consideration and discussion. How, almost four years after a ruling by the Office for National Statistics, can the Department be saying that the issue is not clear? As a result, it is defying the conventions and, indeed, the rules.
Can the Minister confirm that the major trust ports have been public corporations since 2000, and still are? As her Department, the Treasury, has responsibility for the ONS, can she confirm that neither the Department for Transport nor any other Department should be acting in defiance of an ONS ruling? What sanctions are available, and what will her Department do about the action of the Department for Transport in not complying with that ruling?
The implications for public expenditure are relevant, because the Minister's Department provides money to the Department for Transport, and it is clear that that Department, by not demanding a rate of return on capital employed by the public corporations under its control, is depriving itself of important income. One wonders why, particularly as just today we have had another statement from the Secretary of State saying that he is strapped for cash and there is a lot he would like to do but he has not the resources with which to do it. That seems to be an area in which some saving could be made immediately—a subject on which Members on this side of the Chamber are expert.
If the Minister cannot respond in substance to my concerns, what else can one do? I could take the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General and ask for it to be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, but do I really need to go that far in the light of the clearest possible guidance to Ministers under the rules for people in public positions? Why can we not just get a Department to comply with the rules that are already laid down? That is the burden of my concern.
If the Department for Transport is defying the Government on this issue, that puts a question mark over what is happening in respect of Network Rail. We know—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire will refer to this in more detail—that the ONS found out exactly what was going on with Network Rail only when it came across an item on another website. The information was not given to it fairly and squarely to enable it to determine whether Network Rail was a public corporation or a private company.
One is particularly suspicious at the moment about what is happening in the Government. We know from the Macpherson report that racism in the Metropolitan police was institutional: people did not realise that they were being racist because it was so much part of the arrangements and the culture. I fear that we are getting into a situation in which deception by Departments is almost institutional. Departments do not deliberately deceive, but they encourage attitudes and a culture that
38WH
are designed to minimise the information available to Members of Parliament and the scope for proper public accounting and accountability.
On the day when the Butler report is to be debated in the main Chamber, I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to assure us that, in this relatively small field of activity, her Department is on the case and will ensure that the rulings of the Office for National Statistics carry weight and are implemented by the Departments that are given the responsibility for individual public corporations.
2.21 pm
Sir George Young: I should like to add a brief footnote to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I begin by commending him on his choice of subject. He might not get the coverage that he deserves in tomorrow's press because of rival attractions—indeed, we might be asked what we were doing when the House was debating Iraq, and the answer will be that we were debating definitions of public expenditure.
However, as my hon. Friend said, the topic is important because the Government have set themselves standards of probity in fiscal and monetary policy. They have set themselves many rules, and it is important to know whether and how they are being adhered to. If the public, the City and financial commentators suspect that the rules are being kept through some accounting sleight of hand—I have a quotation to support that notion—the whole purpose of having rules, which is to maintain confidence in financial prudence and integrity, begins to disappear. Yes, the Government might be keeping their rules, but they might be doing so in such a way that their behaviour and borrowing are put in a very favourable light, and the totality of the commitments into which they are entering on behalf of the taxpayer of the future is not revealed.
I shall focus on Network Rail and whether it is a private or a public sector company. There have been two views on that question. I go back to 21 June 2002 and quote from the Financial Times:
"But in a move that shocked financial experts, the Office of National Statistics acceded to Treasury requests that the big liability would not be included in the government's accounts. The row concerns the Strategic Rail Authority's role in underwriting the debts of Network Rail."
We were then talking about some £9 billion. The ONS view, as stated in its press release of 5 July 2002, was that Network Rail's borrowing would be classified as private sector borrowing in the national accounts. That decision was taken after advice from the head of accountancy profession at the Department for Transport, whose view was that that support was considered a contingent liability of Government and so was unlikely to be called on. It goes without saying that had that decision gone the other way, the finances of the Department for Transport would have been in serious difficulty, because it would have had to find £9 billion from the rest of its budget.
The reasons for that decision were amplified in the statement "Setting the record straight on Network Rail" on 11 July 2002. In it, the ONS said:
"In national accounts, the guiding principle for classifying institutions as public or private is who exerts control over general corporate policy, including the appointment of directors."

39WH
I shall return to that in a moment. However, the National Audit Office took a different view. The Financial Times said on 5 December 2002:
"Sir John Bourn told the Commons Treasury sub-Committee that Gordon Brown should make it clear that the Government might have to raise an enormous sum of money, over and above its published estimates for debt, in certain circumstances."
Sir John said:
"If this had been in the private sector, and I had been auditing this, I would have said that this is essentially a subsidiary company and I would have expected it to be put on the balance sheet."
He continued:
"The government is providing security through the SRA to the providers of debt and it is acting as a lender of last resort to Network Rail so it is assumed that there are liabilities that could accrue."
The NAO went on to classify Network Rail's debts as public sector borrowing, taking a different view from the ONS. I wonder who would have lent any money at all to Network Rail without the Government standing behind it, particularly after the Railtrack debacle. The NAO also determined that Network Rail would be on the balance sheet of the SRA—indeed it now features on the SRA's consolidated Companies Acts-style accounts, because of the degree of influence that the SRA could exercise over Network Rail.
The disagreement between two professional accountants caused some concern to the Treasury Committee, on which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) then sat. A rather unsatisfactory truce was agreed after the intervention of the Statistics Commission and a joint statement was issued in October 2002, in which they agreed to disagree because they came to the issue with different perspectives.
Last Thursday, the Secretary of State made a statement on Network Rail. I want to deal first with the balance sheet issue. The Secretary of State announced:
"It follows, therefore, that the Strategic Rail Authority will be wound up, and that the majority of its functions, including all its financial obligations, will be transferred to the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, 15 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1547.]
One might therefore assume that, if the SRA's liabilities were absorbed into the Department for Transport, Network Rail would end up on the balance sheet of the Department, which is of course part of the Government. In that case, it would be on the Government's balance sheet. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is what will happen. On control, the position has fundamentally changed. Whatever it may have been in the past, the Secretary of State's announcement last Thursday fundamentally changed the position of Network Rail, and the ONS should now review its earlier decision. The White Paper that was published last week, "The Future of Rail", states:
"Under this new structure: Government will have clear control of the strategy for the railways".
Chapter 3 states:
"The Secretary of State … will take responsibility for setting the national-level strategic outputs for the railway industry, in terms of capacity and performance."
Elsewhere the White Paper states:
"This means that the Government will be responsible for deciding the overall size and shape of the network; the key timetable outputs; policy on regulated fares; minimum performance targets; enhancement priorities; and policy on information provision and accessibility."
40WH
Later, we read that
"The Government will specify the very largest projects, such as the construction or upgrades of major lines, and will determine the overall approach and by whom they are delivered".
Any notion that Network Rail is an ordinary private sector company is strictly for the birds. It is a company that does what the Government ask it to do. It is not a company that is controlled by its directors or members, which is the key definition used by the ONS. The question asked by ONS is: who is exerting control over general corporate policy? There is only one body doing that, and it is the Department for Transport. One of the reasons for the Secretary of State's statement last week was that the Government felt that they did not have enough control over Network Rail. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the time has come to end the fiction that Network Rail is a private sector company? Will she give an undertaking that the borrowings will in future score as Government debt?
2.29 pm
Mr. David Laws: Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on raising this particularly important topic. He began his speech by saying that the subject was important because of principles of objective accounting and transparency, which are important in their own right, but he went on to describe how the way in which we classify public corporations and other entities on the dividing line between the public and private sectors has real effects in terms of public borrowing and public expenditure. He has extended the list of areas in which there are concerns about Government policy from the traditional ones of foundation hospitals and Network Rail to trust ports. He has set out clearly some of the issues, to which I hope the Financial Secretary will respond later.
The definition of a public corporation is set out clearly in the public expenditure statistical analysis. I shall not read that into the record because it is relatively lengthy and hon. Members can look it up for themselves. In the Government's definition, and in statements made by Treasury Ministers and advisers, there is a sense that the classification of public and private sector bodies is fairly clear and straightforward.
When the subject of foundation hospitals was at the centre of public and political debate about a year ago, the Secretary of State for Health wanted to put them outside the public sector so that they could borrow more easily, and the Treasury resisted because those bodies would be outside the Government's control over borrowing. The then chief economic adviser to the Treasury—Mr. Balls—described the distinction between public and private sector entities in very clear terms. On 27 February 2003, in the evidence that he gave to the Treasury Committee's inquiry into the euro, he said:
"if you are running a sound fiscal policy and, therefore, you are looking at all borrowing by public bodies, then there are only really two categories, either institutions in the public sector or there for the purposes of the public accounts in the private sector. If bodies are in the public sector, whether that is central government, local government or hospitals, then they count as public borrowing, and if they are in the private sector, they count as private borrowing."

41WH
He went on to make it absolutely plain that the only way in which bodies could not be in the public sector was if they were in the private sector, and that they would have to be in the public sector if they were not in the private sector. It could not really be any clearer than that. On that basis, the Treasury managed to resist foundation hospitals sneaking out of the public sector and borrowing willy-nilly as if they were private sector bodies outside the Chancellor's control.
Unfortunately, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out, when we are dealing with Ministers who are in the Chancellor's favour—such as the Transport Secretary—or when the Government are particularly keen to keep public borrowing out of public accounts because it has been inherited from some other entity, it seems that the Government are willing to stretch definitions that ought to be clear in order to achieve their own priorities. The hon. Member for Christchurch cited the Treasury Committee's report on Network Rail, and the disputes and controversy at the time. We ended up with the extraordinary position of the ONS classifying Network Rail as a private sector entity based on the fact that the directors were private sector directors, even though the body that appointed them was selected by the Secretary of State for Transport, while at the same time the Comptroller and Auditor General was insisting that, on the basis of the substance rather than the form of the transaction, Network Rail should be in the public sector.
Briefly, I remind hon. Members of the forceful words used by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his evidence to the Treasury Committee on 4 December 2002. He said:
"In essence, my point was this: if Network Rail goes down, we are not going to have no railways in this country—the Government will provide them—and it is stacked up to the extent of £21 billion in the last analysis to do it. For those reasons I thought that, since that liability could accrue to the Government, it was right to make it clear and, indeed, there is a financial reporting standard, and I do my work in accordance with the financial reporting standards in the United Kingdom, that urges the principle of substance over form: that the auditor should, as it were, tell it how it is in his own judgment but should not seek to find mechanisms to, as it were, produce surprising results."
It was quite clear what the surprising results were. The Government had created a structure that led to the appointment of supposedly independent private sector directors, whose presence on the steering group of Network Rail allowed the ONS to insist that that body was a private sector body even though the risks that it was taking would fall to the public sector balance sheet if Network Rail came a cropper.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has underlined how the Government have got themselves into an even deeper hole as a consequence of removing the Strategic Rail Authority from the equation and giving the Secretary of State for Transport direct control. The Strategic Rail Authority already had a long list of direct responsibilities for Network Rail, which included not only appointment of non-executive members of the board but the right to remove the chairman and chief executive of Network Rail in certain serious circumstances, receipt of information from
42WH
Network Rail, provision of grant support payments, and provision of credit facilities. Now, as the right hon. Gentleman said, those responsibilities have been transferred to the Secretary of State for Transport, making it even more difficult for the Government to argue that Network Rail is a private sector rather than a public sector entity.
All those examples—trust boards, foundation hospitals and Network Rail—demonstrate the importance of having objective accounting standards and transparency, not least because the way in which those standards are applied has a real effect on the way in which public borrowing and public expenditure consequences appear on the public balance sheet. It is incumbent on the Financial Secretary to explain to us today how the Government's existing rules give priority to substance over form rather than form over substance, which seems to have been the case with Network Rail and, to some extent, foundation hospitals. I hope that the Financial Secretary will respond to that, not least in the context of trust ports, which the hon. Member for Christchurch raised today.
2.37 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: This has been an excellent debate, ably opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It is a debate about accountability and openness, and many of the important issues that have been raised lie on the public record. We look forward to the Financial Secretary answering some of the questions that have been asked today.
My hon. Friend referred to the relationship between public corporations and nationalised industries, their relationship with their Department and the need for a robust definition of public corporations. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is a distinguished former Transport Minister, spoke about the absolute requirement for transparency in public accounts. He drew our attention to Network Rail, as did the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and the difference between classification by the ONS, which said that borrowing would be classified as private sector borrowing, and the different view taken by the National Audit Office. In passing, I draw the Chamber's attention to an article on other work done by the ONS, which appeared in the Financial Times last week and which made it clear that the ONS has massively overestimated the amount of pension savings in the economy: the organisation is clearly under some pressure at the moment. My right hon. Friend also made a point about transparency in public accounts. It is clear that, as he said, since last Thursday Network Rail is no longer a private company.
I want to dwell briefly on the important issue of trust ports, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Although trust ports play a relatively minor role in the industry, handling only 13 per cent. of UK trade and accounting for less than one third of commercial facilities, they are, nevertheless, an extremely important part of an important industry—UK ports. Just one trust port features in the top 10 UK ports, which together handle 67 per cent. of UK freight tonnage. However, those mainly small and medium-sized ports have considerable regional and local

43WH
significance and are considerable economic players. They provide particular benefit to their areas because they are free to reinvest their profits for the benefit of all port users and wider regional and local interests.
As a result of the Government retaining appointment rights and the nature of the Ports Act 1991, which allows the Government to compel the conversion of trust ports to private companies, the ONS has classified major trust ports with a turnover of £6.6 million or more as public corporations. In 2003, the Government identified 21 trust ports in England and Wales that might fall into the classification of public corporations at that time. My hon. Friend identified a number of them. Together they have a total annual net worth of almost £300 million. That classification, however, has been confined to the national accounts and, as my hon. Friend explained, the Department for Transport has as yet neither tackled the issue, nor given any guidance to trust ports on the implications of reclassification. As I am sure the Financial Secretary will acknowledge, that uncertainty is damaging.
Ports have been advised by the Government to continue to operate as normal, but they are uncertain about the future and about the possible consequences of classification. There is, I believe, no good reason for that continued delay after nearly four years. The Financial Secretary has been asked a number of important questions both on trust ports and on Network Rail and the most appropriate thing that I can do is sit down and let her answer those points.
2.41 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): We have had an excellent debate. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) not only for securing it, but for introducing it in a fairly reasonable fashion. However, while listening to him I sometimes felt that a Transport Minister should have been present to respond to some of the issues he raised. I am the Minister responsible for the Office for National Statistics, although I emphasise that the ONS is independent of Government.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the ONS classification of bodies in the national accounts and what that means for trust ports. Before tackling the precise points that he made, it may be useful if I provide him and other Members with a little background about how public corporations are defined. I will not go through the detail of how they are defined, because he covered that in his opening remarks.
The decision on whether a particular body should be classified as a public corporation or a private one is taken by the ONS. As in all other matters, it makes its decision free from any political interference, as is only right and proper—I am sure the hon. Member for Christchurch agrees—and uses internationally recognised standards. The classification of bodies and their transactions and the production of those statistics is, therefore, a matter solely for the ONS. In new, novel or contentious cases, ONS may refer to EUROSTAT,
44WH
the EU body responsible for the compilation of EU economic statistics. As such, it would not be right or proper of the Treasury to attempt to influence or put pressure on the ONS on issues pertaining to the national accounts.
I emphasise that statistics are used for different purposes. The ONS classifies public corporations as being in either the public sector or the private sector according to a national accounts definition on international best practice. It refers to EUROSTAT work where necessary. The National Audit Office has a different remit. It classifies organisations for a different purpose. After the debate that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) referred to, that issue was raised in the context of Network Rail. Len Cook from the ONS and Sir John Bourn issued a joint statement saying that they were considering the same issues but had different purposes when classifying the organisation, so it was entirely appropriate that they came to different conclusions.
As all hon. Members know, the activity of all public corporations is included in the Government's key fiscal indicators and impacts on the fiscal rules. That gives a full picture of Her Majesty's Government's transactions, assets and liabilities, measured to include all public sector bodies, and ensures that the UK public sector's fiscal position is fully reported. So it is essential that we ensure that the activities of public corporations are properly reflected in our controlling and reporting of public expenditure.
The hon. Member for Christchurch raised particular issues about the classification of trust ports. That issue has been debated between the ONS and the Department for Transport—since 2001, I believe, rather than since 2000. He rightly points out that the question is complex. The answer depends on exactly how those corporations are controlled. The ONS was in discussions with the Department for Transport for a long period—until spring this year—about the appropriate classification. Initially, it thought that all 100 trust ports ought to be in the public sector. Once the Department for Transport had gathered and presented evidence from the ports, the ONS agreed that only 18 ports fell within the definition of a public corporation.
The matter has taken a long time to sort out, but now, I understand, the Department for Transport is completely content with the ONS decision. It is right that the ONS takes the decision, and that the Department abides by it.
Mr. Chope: The Financial Secretary has already given more information than I have been able to gather from Transport Ministers, for which I am grateful. She referred to the fact that 18 ports come within the classification. Can she say which of the 21 to which I referred have been excluded from the 18?
Ruth Kelly: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman here and now, but I will write to him with the classification agreed by the ONS. How the Department for Transport accounts in its resource accounts is an entirely different question, does not relate to the national accounts definition of a public corporation and is a matter for the Department and its auditors.

45WH
The Department for Transport is working closely with trust ports to identify why those 18 have been classified as public corporations and whether that is the appropriate structure for them. However, it is completely content with the ONS interpretation and classification. There is nothing further that I can add as Minister, except to say that the Department is now working closely with the trust ports. I am sure that any issues that the trust ports have with their classification will be dealt with directly by the Department for Transport.
2.47 pm
Sitting suspended.

Non-Vocational Education (Hampshire)
3.30 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the chance to raise this subject, because I have been inundated with letters from constituents who are angry about funding being slashed for courses that they are attending. In approaching the debate, I originally intended to amass lots of evidence of the benefits of non-vocational adult education to make my case. However, the evidence that I came across very much echoed my constituents' sentiments, so I decided to let my constituents speak for themselves. That will be the main thrust of my speech.
I know that some of my constituents have written to the Prime Minister on this matter, because many of the letters that I have received are copies of letters to him. Often, they point out that the mantra of "Education, education, education" has a hollow ring to it. The gist is that education is not the preserve of the young and that it should be available in all forms to all ages. Clearly, the title Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education is something of a misnomer, and we should perhaps refer to the "Minister for All Sorts of Learning—As Long as We Approve of it and Think You're Young Enough to Enjoy it".
Let me quote from one of the letters to the Prime Minister, which sums up the situation and the concerns of many:
"I attend a day time Art Class in Romsey, Hampshire and have been advised that the charges are being increased significantly next term as the Learning and Skills Council is withdrawing funding from such courses. I understand this is because of your Government's policy that funding should be redirected to education for 16 to 19 year olds and be concentrated on courses that lead to a qualification. The result of this increase will reduce the number of people able to participate in Adult education, as many are living on fixed income so they will no longer be able to afford the fees."
That is a commonly held sentiment.
"For someone who constantly reiterated that education was an essential part of your government's plans, this policy change can only be regarded as a U-turn. If your definition of education includes only courses which result in a paper qualification then the country is in a sorry state".
How will be people be affected financially? I received a letter from a lady called Janet Hoskins, who happens to be heavily involved with the Romsey Disability Forum:
"For fifteen years I have attended Yoga lessons at Romsey community school which I am positive has been of immeasurable benefit in keeping me active and mobile. As a disabled person on a basic pension I have been paying a concessionary price of £7.95 per term but from September 2004 I will have to pay £52.50 for 10 weeks of lessons—or £157.50 a year which would entirely wipe out my pension increase for this year".
She goes on to talk about other things that will wipe out that increase, but I will not hold the Minister responsible for them; I will stick to the point.
Clearly, that course was subsidised, and the loss of such subsidies will be felt hard by many of my constituents. I acknowledge that many people are not subsidised and have been happy to find the fees from their own pockets. That said, the old non-subsidised rate for such classes was £32 a term, so there will be a 64 per cent. increase in fees, which many people have told me they can ill afford.

47WH
As I said, the courses that will be affected this year are non-academic adult education classes, and they include subjects such as yoga, art, flower arranging, dance, meditation, antiques, garden design, woodwork, textiles, cookery and exercise. As I said, the fee increases are swingeing. I readily admit that some constituents can afford the fees and will pay them, but they too may be deprived of the opportunity to take such courses, which will simply not be run if there are insufficient subscribers. It seems that everybody is a loser.
Although finance is the motivating force behind many of the letters that I have received, I have been struck by people's reasons for being so upset about not being able to access their courses. I have had a lot of letters from people who took up yoga; I do not know whether they got together to write to me, but I was struck by the frequency with which the theme arose. One of the letters stated:
"We think that this is a very short sighted move, especially as applied to fitness activities such as yoga which we are urged to take up and must reduce the burden on the already hard pressed NHS. I speak from experience on this latter point because yoga has cured a back problem which had troubled me for years."
Another said:
"Not only does yoga provide exercise, it also teaches techniques for coping with the stresses of modern living so avoiding the need to visit our GPs for tranquilising drugs."
Yoga classes are not the only classes that are being hit; all exercises classes are being similarly affected. That seems most peculiar at a time when the Government are supposedly concerned about the levels of obesity in the country. Their early mantra was "joined-up government," so I am particularly disappointed by their withdrawal of funds from exercise classes, which will have an effect elsewhere and will be detrimental to other Government policies. As one constituent put it:
"I hope that the County Council"—
I might return to county councils in a moment—
"will be able to find some way forward to meet the needs of all students and not just those who are financially advantaged, otherwise the number of obese couch potatoes in Hampshire is likely to increase."
A 72-year-old said:
"I need gentle exercise—as do many other pensioners. Please get the people who have thought this up to give it more thought as it will damage the elderly and people who could never pay these costs."
Another constituent said that
"people who attend them are mentally and physically stimulated and enjoy life more. I believe that some local doctors are already voicing their concern."
Many of the people who wrote to me to complain about the changes were elderly, but that was not exclusively the case. Courses are often accessed by people with young families, and can provide all-important "time for me" as well as an opportunity to learn a new skill that might lead to other things. I would go so far as to say that some young people might have missed the 14 to 19 boat and not made the most of the opportunities available to them at school. Such courses often provide an unchallenging environment in which the individual does not have to pass or fail. That is a very important factor for anyone who believes that they failed at school.
48WH
My local adult education partnership knows of several occasions when a non-vocational course has led to something more formal. By threatening the viability of these courses, the Government have cut off a possible lifeline to some people who might now never take that first small step towards another qualification. As one constituent put it:
"it has always been that those whose years of compulsory education were unsatisfactory or curtailed in any way, had the opportunity in later life to rectify shortcomings if they were prepared to sacrifice their free time. Soon, that opportunity will be available only to those with sufficient finance."
That constituent was talking more broadly, but he was referring to the fact that some people introduce themselves to something that does not have an examination associated with it.
I was also told that some people have used courses such as flower arranging as a starter into a business opportunity. I know of a lady from Angie's fruit and vegetable shop, which provides very nice bouquets. She learned her skills on a so-called non-vocational course and used them to add value to a business that was not doing as well as it might. Others have developed catering and cake decorating businesses or have gone on to teach classes of their own. Some have even taken art degrees. Particularly inspiring is a woman who teaches textile arts. At the weekend, I visited an exhibition that showed some of the students' work. I was very impressed. She started with a leisure course on her one free day a week while caring for a disabled husband. She gained confidence and went on to take a City and Guilds qualification. She took an adult teaching qualification after her husband's death, and now teaches to very high levels. She is in great demand. People ask her to work more than she feels she can.
Another person studied several languages, starting with a beginners' conversation class and moving on to more formal qualifications once confidence was gained. Language classes are safe for this year, but I gather that the plan for next year is to withdraw funding from "non-qualification courses", such as computer and language courses, which currently contribute to the skills strategy. This is a seriously retrograde step, as courses such as the local course on creating websites will be affected. On that course, four people from local IT companies came along in their own time to find out more about an aspect of IT that they were thinking of branching into independently. As one constituent put it:
"Was it not an aim of the Government that we should all become computer literate, and are we to continue to be the laughing stock of the world by our inability to cope with other languages."
I received an e-mail this morning from someone who has studied a number of languages in an adult education setting and has just sat the GCSE Spanish exam. I quote:
"I asked the Head of Department about the next level, and said that having got the Institute of Linguists Advanced Level Certificate in French back in 1996 I would now like to proceed to do the same thing in Spanish. She said that Eastleigh college had decided against putting on any examination based courses for adults, on the grounds that adults such as me only learn for fun and don't want to take exams: It's only 'Holiday Spanish' or

49WH
'Holiday French' I suppose. This ignores the fact that running a course leading to an exam gives the likes of me the opportunity to take it; and those who don't want to sit it can just do the course and opt out of doing the exam."
Either way, the skills base has been improved.
However, the vast majority of people who have written to me on this subject are the elderly—the pensioners. Their words say it all and I shall quote from some of their letters:
"These courses are a lifeline to many older people who not only enjoy the challenge of learning but the opportunity to make new friends."
"Why are older people (who are generally the ones who do day time adult education) given less priority than youngsters?…Is this another example of ageism that the Government is always arguing it wants to stop?"
"The Government wants pensioners to remain active both physically and mentally (use it don't lose it) to reduce the costs of the NHS and elderly care services. They do not want a lot of people vegetating and so becoming infirm and unable to cope."
"One of the benefits of the adult education scheme is that it gives people an interest and something they enjoy doing. This has the benefit of keeping brains active, making them go out and keeps bodies healthier, and providing an enjoyable hobby and companionship keeps people happy and less likely to sink into depression. Is this not a benefit to the NHS? I understood that it was preferable to keep the elderly members of the country fit, well and healthy—rather than having them atrophy in their armchairs."
"People who attend adult classes are often full time carers."—
I was surprised by the frequency with which that was mentioned; it had not occurred to me—
"The class is one of the few times that they are able to do something for themselves and forget the daily grind of looking after a loved one."
Another person says:
"I was widowed in June 2001, and retired in Dec 2001. I sincerely believe that attending these so called recreational adult classes has kept my mind sane, and my body fit, during the most difficult period of my life. Like many others of my generation I left school at 15 and these classes also give access to areas of learning that were simply not available to us when we were younger."
We sometimes forget that a whole generation left school at 15 or 16. Many people from that generation, because of their class background, did not have many opportunities. I am glad that the situation is not the same today, but it seems a shame for those people to miss out indefinitely.
Another person said:
"Such action, and the resulting increase in fees, will particularly affect pensioners, carers and many on income support and will be detrimental to the physical and mental health and well-being of many people."
I tabled some parliamentary questions on the subject. Initially, the rhetoric was positive, which I thought might be a good sign. I quote from the response to my question from one of the Minister's colleagues:
"The results from both areas of work confirm the positive impact of adult learning e.g. on health and civic participation and on the individual's confidence and motivation to undertake further learning. That is why we remain committed to safeguarding a varied range of learning opportunities for personal fulfilment, community development and active citizenship."—[Official Report, 8 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 291W.]
50WH
However, when I asked a more specific question about withdrawing funding from adult learning courses, the response was more defensive:
"Where there is a need for more vocational provision to meet the needs of learners and employers I would expect local LSCs and learning providers to re-direct resources to meet those priorities."—[Official Report, 15 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 907W.]
Although I fully acknowledge the needs of the young, I must point out that Hampshire is an area of relatively low unemployment. There is a skills gap but, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, it is a retrograde step to withdraw funding from adult education courses. There are many benefits to those classes. My constituents have spoken for themselves: the benefits are health, mental stimulation and social inclusion, as well as a less formal way of obtaining access to continuing education.
I hope that it is not too late to retrieve the situation. I urge the Minister either to obtain funding so that courses can go ahead, or give the Learning and Skills Council the clear message that the courses are important and should not be sacrificed because of the requirements of 14 to 19-year-old education.
3.45 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing the debate, giving me an opportunity to speak about the Government's commitment to maintaining appropriate provision for adult learners, not just in Hampshire but across the country. Our starting point must be our White Paper, "21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential", which was published last July and was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, the trade union movement, employers and almost everyone involved in post-16 education.
We undertook in the White Paper to safeguard adult learning provision that does not lead directly to a qualification—the courses that the hon. Lady mentioned. We are committed to ensuring that people of all ages continue to have the opportunity to benefit from courses that will improve their lives and help them to sustain active roles in their communities. We know that participation in high-quality learning leads to positive social outcomes such as better health, reduction of child poverty, lessening of crime and a stronger sense of citizenship and personal security, especially for those living alone.
There is nothing between us on this; we also need to support and develop learning that leads to skills— including literacy, numeracy and use of information technology—that are relevant to the modern workplace and will help individuals who return to learning to take the all-important first step on the learning ladder. We also recognise the importance of giving people the chance to learn for its own sake, for personal fulfilment and, indeed, for fun. There must always be a place in every community for that kind of learning.
That is why we have agreed with the Learning and Skills Council a budget of £207 million from within the funding allocations for 2004–05 to safeguard non-qualification-bearing provision provided through local education authorities and family and neighbourhood learning. That compares, incidentally, with £206 million in 2003–04 and represents an increase of 43 per cent. on the £145 million that was provided at the turn of the century.

51WH
About 1 million adults attend such courses every year. The total funding for Hampshire local education authority for 2003–04 was £2,040,878. Despite other pressures Hampshire LEA's funding has risen to £2,074, 495 in 2004–05. I am assured by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Learning and Skills Council that there is no intention to withdraw funding from non-vocational learning in Hampshire. However, it is rightly working to ensure that funds are distributed fairly and effectively across the county, according to national priorities and local needs.
Sandra Gidley: I am pleased that the Minister has received that reassurance, because when I spoke to the Learning and Skills Council it was made very clear that the total moneys that it had been given meant that it needed to prioritise; it was working with the county council to do so. Clearly, something has gone wrong somewhere. The money does not seem to be getting forward to the courses. Will there be a catch-up?
Alan Johnson: If the hon. Lady listens to my entire speech, I think that all will be explained. The view is sometimes projected—although this is not what she argued—that we are to withdraw all funding from non-vocational adult learning and direct everything towards education for the 14 to 19 age group. That is not true; it is not even true that the 14 to 19-year-old group is our particular priority.
We are still putting an incredible amount of funding into the provision—far more than three years ago and more than last year; there is a 45 per cent. increase. It is important to realise that we cannot fund everything, but we set out some priorities in the White Paper on the 21st century skills strategy, which I shall deal with in a moment.
According to the local education authority, of the 26,000 learners attending courses in 2003–04, some 20,000 followed traditional courses of non-vocational learning—leisure learning—with the remainder taking up family learning and other provisions. Hampshire and Isle of Wight are now re-assessing priorities, and some of the funding received from the LSC will not be used to support leisure learning but will instead be directed to provision for learners in line with the LSC's aim of widening participation in learning, and supporting the level 2 entitlement.
The 21st-century skills White Paper says yes to funding adult learning and non-vocational learning—it is an important part of our policy—but our priority must be to tackle the almost 7 million adults mentioned by the hon. Lady who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and me, may have left school without qualifications and find themselves in the workplace without the equivalent of five good GCSEs.
That group has been passed over by various strategies. People have spoken wise words, not to mention a few platitudes. The point about the skills strategy, which has been developed with the social partners—the CBI, the TUC, the educational establishment and others—is that it will tackle the issue once and for all. From next year, therefore, any adult who does not have at least an NVQ level 2 qualification
52WH
will be entitled to training. They are not 16 to 19-year-olds; they are adults. Their training will be provided free of charge, and they will receive financial support. That is the big priority.
The LEA will continue to support learners in traditional leisure learning provision using its own resources, although there will be some increases in fee levels and some provision may not be offered in future. It is a fact of life that resources will always be finite and that, along with new commitments to investment, hard choices sometimes have to be made between competing priorities.
We have never said that no one will pay more for their learning, nor that the future of individual courses can be guaranteed. It is inevitable that some learners will pay a higher contribution to the cost of their learning, but not those who cannot afford it. Indeed, the priority for the LEA and the LSC is to protect those people mentioned by the hon. Lady who cannot afford to pay. However, as she pointed out, many can afford it. If we are serious about the skills strategy, those hard choices have to be made.
It is inevitable that some LEAs will need to refocus their provisions in order to address those new priorities. As set out in the skills strategy White Paper, we intend to achieve a new and fair balance of responsibilities for funding between Government, employers and learners. That is underlined in our recently announced five-year strategy, which places adult skills high on the agenda. Colleges are central to achieving our goals, and we want the sector to be better attuned to the needs of business and of learners. The strategy means that we shall have to review the national funding framework. Although we need to protect those in greatest need, the new framework will encourage and incentivise colleges to increase and diversify their income, with contributions being made by employers and those learners who gain most and who can afford it.
Later this summer, the Learning and Skills Council intends to consult widely on proposals for the reform and planning of non-vocational education for adults. That will include learning for personal fulfilment as well as opportunities for those who want to take a first step on the learning ladder or who want to try out learning before committing themselves. The aim is to establish a more consistent, more coherent and more equitable distribution of funding, which will iron out discrepancies—for example, between LEAs—and protect the provider base.
We are also working with the LSC to determine more accurately and in more detail the nature and scale of non-vocational learning. That will assist the LSC, its local offices and their partners in determining future priorities, including the balance between learning for personal fulfilment, and first steps and return to learn opportunities.
The spending review is a good settlement for education and skills. The total funding for colleges is planned to rise to £5.6 billion in 2005–06, which is an increase of £1.2 billion compared with the beginning of the spending review period and a totally unprecedented 19 per cent. real-terms increase. The settlement goes along with a 60 per cent. increase in capital and is a real vote of confidence in the FE sector.

53WH
Through the LSC, we are investing more than ever in learning and skills. Its learning participation budget has risen to £6.3 billion this year, but we must get the resource allocations right in order to redistribute and rebalance the contributions of the state, the learner and the employer and to recognise our shared responsibility.
The Government and the LSC will have to make decisions that are based on accurate and effective planning and monitoring. I am sure that they will be the right decisions, but we cannot promise that they will always be popular with everybody. Although we recognise that the benefits of learning reach beyond the economic agenda, we must prioritise public funding in areas where we believe it will have the most impact, and many of them involve developing the skills of our workers and potential workers.
Sandra Gidley: I am interested in the skills argument, but many people have raised health arguments. Has the Minister considered consulting Health Ministers about a portion of health funding going towards at least some of the exercise courses for older people—a sort of course on prescription, which would help the Department for Education and Skills?
Alan Johnson: The skills strategy was actually signed by four Departments. It was unique, as it was signed by the Treasury, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department of Health was not one of those four, but the hon. Lady makes an important point.
54WH
We do not know what we are unleashing. There is the potential for 7 million adults to return to learning and obtain a level 2 qualification. Many of them need entry to employment—a pipeline—before they even get to level 2. We estimate that 1.5 million people will enter the system in the first year, but the point is that we are trialling the level 2 entitlement in two regions, precisely to examine how it impacts on the issues that the hon. Lady mentions. One region is the south-east; the other is the north-east. One could not get two more different regions, geographically and socially. The trial will have an important effect on how we tackle issues.
The White Paper set out our plans for the introduction of a new entitlement to free learning for all those seeking to achieve their first level 2 qualification and some free learning for those in level 3 where there are real skills shortages. Level 2 is the foundation qualification for skills and employability and it will be supported by the introduction of an adult learning grant.
The latest data from the labour force survey states that 71.3 per cent. of adults in the work force are qualified to at least level 2, which is an increase from 70.6 per cent. at the same time last year and from 68 per cent. just over five years ago. However, as I have said, almost 7 million adults remain unqualified to that level, and, as the hon. Lady said, 400,000—the highest level—of those are in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight area. Some 235,560 people have a low level of basic skills, and we must attract those people back to learning and education. The trials will be crucial to getting the balance right, but I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that if we have a priority, we must pursue it, and that means hard choices.

International Court of Justice Ruling (Israel)
4 pm
Mr. Mark Hendrick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the recent ICJ ruling on the Israeli security barrier. On 9 July, the ICJ ruled by 14 votes to one:
"The construction of the wall being built by Israel … in the occupied territories"
is
"contrary to international law".
The ruling is important for the jurisprudence of the ICJ. It provides the international community with a clear and unifying judgment and, importantly, it judges that the wall is illegal.
I welcome Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan and hope that the Quartet's road map succeeds. However, intentions and hopes do not justify ignoring the illegal status of the Israeli wall now. I want to use this debate to ascertain the Government's position on a number of key points. First, can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the British Government accept the legal legitimacy of the ruling? The wall not only cuts inside the green line, confiscating Palestinian land, but snakes back on itself to form 11 completely separate enclaves, which in effect imprison the Palestinian residents, whose only access is governed by the use of gates opened at set times at the will of the Israeli defence forces. The building of the wall continues to destroy and annex de facto Palestinian land and to separate communities from their lands, hospitals, schools and family members.
The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs report entitled "Preliminary Analysis of the Humanitarian Implications of the latest Barrier Projections", dated 8 July 2004, refers on page 4 to the "Humanitarian consequences". It states:
"The Barrier … fragments communities and isolates residents from social support networks."
In effect, the Israeli wall is destroying civil society, causing a humanitarian catastrophe, and it acts as a de facto catalyst for the extremists of Hamas.
More widely, the conflict is severe and escalating. Since September 2000, 15,000 people have been made homeless in Rafah. After the wave of incursions in May in revenge for the blowing up of 13 IDF soldiers in Gaza, more than 30 Palestinians were killed, including children, and about 1,400 people were made homeless by demolitions. Since September 2000, more than 670 children have been killed, of whom 573 were Palestinian and 105 Israeli. Almost 2,000 Palestinian children have been arrested, interrogated, detained or imprisoned. Currently, 337 Palestinian children are in Israeli prisons.
The building of the wall simply exacerbates the conflict. According to the ICJ, Israel's actions constitute a
"threat to international peace and security".
In such circumstances, the UN Security Council must act. However, the Court said that the Security Council had been prevented from acting by American vetoes. The United States has vetoed 79 Security Council resolutions, and almost half the vetoes were cast on Israel's behalf.
56WH
Will the Minister assure me that Her Majesty's Government will put as much pressure as possible on the United States to try to ensure that it does not veto any future Security Council vote on the ICJ's decision? The ICJ ruled:
"The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall."
What action will the Government take to end the construction of the wall and what representation will they make?
The ICJ's ruling goes on to say that all nations
"are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation arising from the construction of the wall, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation."
Does the Minister support that ruling and the Select Committee on International Development's second report of Session 2003–04, which argues that Israel's preferential terms of trade with the EU should be suspended until Israel lifts the movement restrictions placed on Palestinian trade?
The formalism that underpins the court's ruling advances jurisprudence in a key international area. It is, therefore, an important ruling that, with the support of the international community, can further the development of an international jurisprudence based on the affirmation of normative values fundamental to the equality of universal and individual human rights and a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The advisory opinion represents a triumph for Israelis and Palestinians alike. By rejecting Israel's construction of the wall, the court emphasises the humanity of both peoples. Israel may build a wall, but only on its own territory, within the confines of international law. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to make strong representations to Israel to acknowledge the ICJ ruling, to cease the construction of the wall and to seek a solution to the conflict in the occupied territories.
On 28 January this year, the Prime Minister responded to my question in the House of Commons, saying:
"we do not agree with the building of the wall on Palestinian land and we have urged the Israeli Government to reroute the fence away from Palestinian land."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 308.]
The Prime Minister has repeatedly called for the international community to work together against threats to international peace and security. Will my hon. Friend now confirm the Government's support for the ICJ's ruling, given the Prime Minister's clear and unwavering support for the unity of the international community against threats to international peace and security?
The United Kingdom's written statement, submitted to the United Nations in January 2004, opposed the hearing of the case in the ICJ. The objections were based on three points, the first two of which I wish the Minister to clarify. The UK statement reads as follows:
"An opinion is not necessary to assist the General Assembly in the exercise of its functions, and would be as likely to prove detrimental to the work of the UN as a whole".
Why is that the Government's position? Why would it be detrimental to the work of the UN, when the UN itself is proposing it?

57WH
Secondly, the written statement asserted that
"The present case concerns a bilateral dispute".
How does my hon. Friend define a bilateral dispute? A range of resolutions has been passed by the UN on the issue. Bilateral dispute or not, the ICJ is an appropriate body to make such a judgment. Will my hon. Friend explain why a clarification of the law is unhelpful to negotiations? Paragraph 3.25 of the road map, which the Government support, says:
"The emphasis is upon future action, rather than responsibility for what has happened in the past."
The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said:
"We have underlined that the wall not only results in confiscation of Palestinian land and causes untold humanitarian and economic hardship, but also could prejudge future negotiations and hinder a just political solution to the conflict."
Is not the request for an advisory opinion concerned with the consequences of the ongoing construction of the wall, and does it not, therefore, look to the future rather than to the past? How does my hon. Friend the Minister rationalise the Government's support for the Quartet road map and their simultaneous opposition to the ICJ's hearing the case? The written statements submitted to the court by other members of the Quartet do not contain evidence that giving an advisory opinion will be detrimental to the work of the UN. Indeed, the United States' written statement did not oppose the jurisdiction of the ICJ in this case as that of the UK Government did. Paragraph 4.2 of its submission provides a route for the court to give an advisory opinion. It states:
"Should the Court decide to provide an advisory opinion, the United States would urge the Court to keep in mind two key aspects of the peace process".
Clearly, the United States accepts that an advisory opinion can go ahead and the court can decide.
Our Government argue in point 2 of their written statement that the case concerns a bilateral dispute. The term bilateral dispute presupposes that the dispute is between two sovereign states. Israel is both a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations, and is recognised as such by Her Majesty's Government. However, Palestine is not recognised as a sovereign state by Her Majesty's Government. Can my hon. Friend the Minister explain why the Government objected to the ICJ's hearing the case, given that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, so the conflict cannot be defined as a bilateral dispute?
Do not Her Majesty's Government have an obligation under article 1 of the fourth Geneva convention 1949
"to respect and ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances"?
Is not this one of those circumstances?
Last July, I visited Palestine and saw for myself at first hand the grotesque sight of the concrete wall, barbed wire, electrified fence, patrolled roads and watchtowers, all of which have been built illegally on Palestinian land. The Israeli Government ignore the international community's opinion. It is essential that the peace process should succeed, but the continued building of the wall by Israel must be dealt with as a current issue. Future hopes of peace and the so-called peace process
58WH
cannot be used as a justification to ignore the illegality of the wall and not to take action. If the International Court of Justice had agreed with the UK Government's written statement and not ruled on the Israeli wall, it would have been in breach of article 1 of the fourth Geneva convention. The court would have risked its own integrity by ruling against the weight of international law. Will my hon. Friend the Minister advise me of the Government's position on that point?
The ICJ ruling advances normative jurisprudence, which the Government should welcome, as it is underpinned by the ethics of equality and further entrenches human rights values.
The wall and fence, now termed a security barrier, are an affront to humanity. For the United States and the United Kingdom to wring their hands and talk about a peace process while people are losing their lives and livelihoods is an outrage and will fuel deeper resentment in the middle east and in the Muslim world as a whole, breeding new terrorism.
If the wall is allowed to be completed on Palestinian land, it will have annexed land that was agreed by both sides to belong to the Palestinians according to the 1967 borders. I call upon the UK Government to use all their influence with the United States to bring pressure to bear on the state of Israel and to use their important role in the European Union to do the same. In this so-called dispute, we are nearing the point of no return and I ask the Government to use all available means to stop us reaching that point.
4.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on securing a debate on a subject of enormous concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as is attested by the number of parliamentary questions and debates that are initiated on it. There is genuine and enduring cross-party concern about the issue.
I shall try to respond to some of the points that have been made and to set out the Government's position in our response to the ICJ ruling. Although we understand Israel's need to take steps to protect itself from terrorist attack, over a long time we have made it clear that it must do so within the confines of international law. Bluntly, it is our clear view that building the barrier—wall or fence—on occupied land is illegal; there is no other way of putting it.
The European Union and the United Nations General Assembly said the same thing; therefore, it is no surprise that the ICJ advisory opinion of 9 July reached the same conclusion. Within that context, the Government continue to call on the Government of Israel to reroute the barrier so that it does not run through occupied land. There is no equivocation whatever on the issue.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way. His statement that the barrier is illegal is welcome. In that context, what advice would

59WH
he give to any British contractors or suppliers who might be involved in the construction of what is clearly an illegal wall?
Mr. Rammell: I have made our view clear; the wall is illegal if it is built on occupied land and I would hope that contractors would take account of that view.
Let me make it clear that not only does the barrier on its current route contravene international law, it also inflicts terrible humanitarian hardship upon thousands of Palestinian families. The confiscation of Palestinian land associated with the construction of the barrier and the impact on Palestinian freedom of movement within the west bank have taken a dreadful toll on the daily lives of ordinary Palestinians. Even taking into account Israel's genuine security concerns, the way in which the wall is being constructed and its route are extremely counter-productive from a political point of view. It simply inflames Palestinian public opinion and harms genuine prospects for peace.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. The illegality of the route of the wall is unquestionable, but the genuine security concerns of the Israeli population are equally unquestionable, as is the suffering and hardship of the Palestinians. What weight does the Minister give to the recent Israeli High Court ruling, and to the likely influence of a Shimon Peres coalition on the future route of the wall? We have not seen the end of the wall—or fence or barrier—and it has a long way to run. Where does he think that it will go following the ruling?
Mr. Rammell: I will come to the ruling later. The Israeli Government, however they are constituted, need to move forward on their commitments under the road map, as do the Palestinian authorities, as it is the only viable way towards resolving this issue. The continued settlement and road building and construction of the barrier are in danger of carving the west bank into isolated cantons, so that a negotiated settlement involving a viable and contiguous Palestinian state looks ever harder to achieve. That has to be an element of what we seek to secure with the overall peace settlement in the middle east.
In the UK's written statement to the ICJ of 30 January—this comes to the nub of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston—we said that it should decline to give an advisory opinion. The written statement expressed our view that it was inappropriate for the ICJ to resolve a bilateral dispute between parties when one of those parties has not consented to the jurisdiction of the court. That is a point about the ICJ's role and how it works, not about the barrier.
Mr. Hendrick: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct to say that one party did not consent to the ICJ hearing but, in terms of the rules and operation of the ICJ, in cases of doubt as to whether it has jurisdiction, it is the court itself that should decide whether it should give a ruling.
Mr. Rammell: That is absolutely right but, if we have a view about the modus operandi, terms of ruling and
60WH
remit of the ICJ in a particular case, it is right that we should make our view clear when we give our submission to the court, and that is what we did.
Richard Burden: I may disagree with my hon. Friend on that last point, but the fact is that the Court did rule. It has given its opinion, after which Kofi Annan said:
"I think the decision of the court is clear … While we accept that the government of Israel has a responsibility and duty to protect its citizens, any action it takes has to be in conformity with international law and has to respect the interests of the Palestinians."
Given that my hon. Friend said that the British Government's position is that the wall is illegal whether the court has ruled it so or not, and given that Israel has said that it will take no notice of the ICJ ruling or of international opinion, what do the British Government feel that we should do?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. That was a rather long intervention.
Mr. Rammell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall come to that issue. I am making the Government's position abundantly clear, and I will go on to articulate what I think should happen.
Let me make it clear that, notwithstanding the procedural point that we made about the ICJ, we also made clear our view that the barrier along its current route contravenes international law. We have closely studied the ICJ's advisory opinion on the legality of the barrier, which was published on 9 July. In response to the key questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston raised, overall, the ICJ conclusions in law are broadly in line with our own, but we do not agree with all the legal analysis. We were also disappointed that the advisory opinion made so little reference either to the real security threat that Israel faces or to Israel's absolute right in international law to defend itself against terrorism. Indeed, no mention is made of Palestinian responsibility to act where possible against terrorism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston also asked whether there was a need for the clarification of the law, through the ICJ. I do not believe that that is necessary, since the Government and the EU have made clear their positions on the legality, and the UN General Assembly has already concluded that the barrier is illegal.
Notwithstanding that, the Palestinians have put a draft resolution to the General Assembly, which was looked at yesterday and will be deliberated on later today. The Government and our EU partners have looked at the resolution closely, as we should, and have suggested some amendments, primarily to ensure that there is no ambiguity about the status of the ICJ advisory opinion and to introduce a recognition that the Palestinian Authority, as well as the Israeli Government, should act according to international law. If our amendments are accepted, we will support that resolution, which I would hope would reassure hon. Members present at this debate.
It is also true that Israel faces a deadly terrorist threat. That fact should not be lost sight of in this debate. Israel's citizens live in fear of indiscriminate attacks on

61WH
civilian targets anywhere in the country. The Israeli Government have the right to do all that they can within international law to protect their citizens. We should not ignore the decision by the Israeli High Court to rule in favour of Palestinian petitioners who brought a case against confiscation orders issued by the Israel defence forces for a 30 km stretch of land to be used for construction of the barrier around Jerusalem. It is encouraging that the Israeli Government have accepted that ruling and are reconsidering the route of the barrier in that stretch of land.
I hope that Israel will pay equal attention to the impact of the barrier elsewhere in the west bank. According to recent UN figures, the total projected barrier, of around 700 km, which would run down the south of the west bank, would result in approximately 16.6 per cent. of the entire west bank being de facto annexed. The number of Palestinians living between the barrier and the green line would total about 237,000, of whom 220,000 would be in East Jerusalem and 17,000 would be in the west bank, and another 160,000 Palestinians would live in enclaves. Israel's military order of 2 October 2003, which declares land between the barrier and the green line a closed zone and requires those Palestinians who live on or farm it to apply for a permit to access their land, is a particular issue of concern.
Let me be clear: destruction of property in the construction of the barrier in occupied territory is not justified by absolute military necessity and is therefore unlawful under the terms of the fourth Geneva convention.
Israel points out that in recent months there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of suicide bombings and attacks by terrorist organisations. I do not dispute that a security barrier might prevent attacks. It is indeed likely that the barrier has prevented some attacks or made it easier for the Israeli authorities to intercept them. However, it is the route that Israel has chosen for the barrier—in large part through occupied territories— that the UK remains opposed to. That is a view that we strongly hold. We will press it in all forums, as strongly as we can, and also through the Quartet.
Where the barrier separates Palestinians from Palestinians, rather than Palestinians from Israelis, it does not appear to have taken a route decided solely on grounds of security, and the impact on the daily lives of Palestinian people has been dreadful. Palestinian farmers are being separated from their fields, children from their schools and the sick from hospitals. The Government believe that building a barrier on occupied land is illegal, that the humanitarian impact is unacceptable and that routing the barrier through Palestinian land is not necessary to protect Israeli security.
We continue to recognise Israel's right to defend itself, but reiterate the need for Israel to act in accordance with international law. We call on Israel to reroute the barrier, away from the occupied territories. We also call on the Palestinian Authority to meet its security responsibilities. The Palestinian Authority must continue with the reforms—especially security reforms—and demonstrate 100 per cent. effort to act against violence and root out terrorism. Attacks against civilians, including suicide bombings, are utterly unjustifiable and we rightly condemn them.
62WH
The UK has worked with the Palestinian Authority to improve its security capacity. We recognise the security successes where we have seen them, but the picture is not yet one of 100 per cent. consistent effort; we urge further efforts in that direction.
Richard Burden: My hon. Friend is aware of the desperate situation inside Gaza. What are the British Government and the international community doing to try to bring some stability to Gaza?
Mr. Rammell: We continue to have genuine concerns, and we are in contact with all sides to press those concerns and ensure that those issues are acted on. We also call on the Palestinian Authority to deliver in full on its security commitments under the road map. In the past few days, we have seen some changes in the structure of the Palestinian security services and a number of new appointments. It is not yet clear what will be the practical outcome of those changes, but we have made it clear that if the changes lead to an improved Palestinian security effort, we will welcome them.
The picture on the ground remains appalling. As I said earlier, although I do understand genuine Israeli security concerns, it is nevertheless a fact that both sides continue to suffer. In the past two weeks, three Israelis and in excess of 50 Palestinians have been killed. The latter figure may well include some terrorists, but it also includes six children, one mentally handicapped person and one elderly disabled man, which should be a cause of concern to us all.
Among the Palestinian community, poverty remains at unprecedented levels. Some 60 per cent. of Palestinians now live on less than $2.10 a day. Families have sold their assets, borrowed from friends and neighbours and cut their intake of food. The people are running out of coping mechanisms. The UK rightly responds to that humanitarian need. This financial year's planning figures for the UK aid programme are £28.5 million. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor after the United States, and we also contribute nearly 20 per cent. of European Community support to the Palestinians. Emergency donor budget support has helped to prevent economic collapse, but longer-term economic recovery is dependent on the lifting of the closures and the free movement of goods and people.
The EU trade agreement was raised. That issue has consistently come forward, and the Government genuinely do not believe that sanctions would help both parties to reach a solution. We need movement on the road map from both sides, and intervening in such a financial way at the moment would not help that process.
The real objective for us all is a comprehensive negotiated settlement. The Government continue to work to remove the obstacles to the resumption of a political process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. From the Prime Minister down, we continue our close engagement on the middle east peace process through extensive contacts with the parties, the quartet and other international players, working to push forward the road map process.
We believe that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's proposals to withdraw from Gaza settlements, and from some settlements in the west bank, should provide an

63WH
opportunity to break the deadlock. Withdrawal must not be a first and a last step, but the first part of a process leading back to true progress on the peace process, and that means progress on the road map. If the road map did not exist, a similar mechanism would have to be established. We continue to press both sides to honour their commitments.
The international focus on the prospect of withdrawal from Gaza in no way negates the need for Israel and the Palestinians to meet their road map commitments in full, nor does Gaza withdrawal affect the position on the final status issues. All final status issues, including
64WH
borders and refugees, must be agreed in negotiations between the two parties. The international community needs to continue to press to make Gaza withdrawal a success and to make sure it leads to further withdrawals and a proper political process. The Quartet plans that were set out for the way ahead after the meeting in New York on 4 May are an important step forward. The UK will continue to work alongside the US, the EU, the UN and regional players to help the Israelis and Palestinians to break the vicious cycle of violence and resume negotiations. I genuinely do not believe that there is an alternative way forward—
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Job Losses (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Leader of the House how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Office announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisers. [185467]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave today.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Climate Change
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the terms of reference are for the review of the Government's climate change strategy; what procedures she has established for the conduct of the review; and when she expects to publish the final report. [183680]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government remain committed to reviewing the UK climate change programme this year. We will be making an announcement shortly on our plans for the review.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has commissioned on the implications of Common Agricultural Policy reform; and when she next plans to meet her European Union counterparts to discuss Common Agricultural Policy reform. [184007]

  Alun Michael
  Defra commissioned several analyses of the likely impacts of the reform proposals before they were agreed, to help inform the Government's negotiating position. In addition analysis of the redistribution of subsidy and other effects arising from implementation of the Single Payment Scheme in England was carried out in-house. These studies are all published on Defra's website. A programme to monitor and evaluate the CAP reforms is also being put in place. This will include a CAP Environmental Observatory to monitor the environmental impacts of changing farm practices and production levels, and a project to analyse the economic linkages of the agricultural industry, including the Single Payment Scheme, with the wider rural economy.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, met her European counterparts at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 19 July, where she set out the UK's views on reform of the CAP sugar regime and on
  124W
  proposals to review the EU's Rural Development Regulation—an increasingly important element of the CAP.

  Health and Pesticide Exposure
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the report of the survey of Health and Pesticide Exposure, undertaken by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to be published; and if she will make a statement. [184612]

  Alun Michael
  The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine sent a preliminary report to Defra on the afternoon of Tuesday 13 July 2004.

  This is a preliminary draft that has not yet been subject to peer review, as is usual prior to the publication of any scientific report. We are currently seeking independent experts to carry out such a review. We will send their comments to the researcher at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, inviting him to address them in his final report. This may necessitate redrafting the report. We hope that this process will be completed by the end of October.

  Defra is also continuing to seek the contractor's co-operation with an independent phase of the study. This was described in my answer to the hon. Member's previous question given on 26 May 2004. It is hoped that this will be completed by late autumn this year.

  Landfill Gas
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many megawatts of renewable energy were generated from landfill gas in each year since 1998; and what projections she has made of how much renewable energy will be generated from landfill gas in each year from 2005 to 2010. [181223]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  Electricity generation from landfill gas in the UK in each year since 1998 is as follows:

  MWh

  1998

  1,185,000

  1999

  1,703,000

  2000

  2,188,000

  2001

  2,507,000

  2002

  2,679,000

  2003

  3,276,000

  source

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2004

  Forecasts of renewables are not giving for individual technologies because the Renewables Obligation is market led and therefore the precise make up in the future will be decided by the market.

  Milk
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many litres
  125W
  of liquid milk were imported into the UK from EU countries in each of the last five years, broken down by country of origin. [172935]

  Alun Michael
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 May 2004, c. 1110W]: My answer referred to a table showing UK imports of liquid milk from the EU 15 member states in

  UK imports of liquid milk from EU15 countries, 1999–2003

  Thousand litres

  Country

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Grand total

  Irish Republic

  60,342

  60,199

  54,835

  26,233

  19,494

  221,103

  Denmark

  30,334

  25,166

  9,421

  795

  425

  66,140

  Germany

  17,078

  19,531

  11,196

  5,629

  3,888

  57,323

  France

  13,288

  8,514

  9,667

  10,299

  8,600

  50,368

  Belgium

  6,786

  6,922

  3,811

  2,345

  3,759

  23,624

  Netherlands

  3,620

  462

  919

  2,198

  1,027

  8,227

  Austria

  2,844

  1,355

  —

  —

  —

  4,200

  Italy

  114

  214

  91

  101

  70

  590

  Portugal

  —

  0

  —

  —

  40

  40

  Spain

  23

  14

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Sweden

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  EU 15 total

  134,431

  122,378

  89,940

  47,6011

  37,303

  Single Farm Payments
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions she has reached about the future prospects for(a) tenant farmers, (b) livestock farmers, (c) arable farmers, (d) horticulture producers, (e) moorland farmers, (f) non-moorland, severely disadvantaged area farmers, (g) traditional family farms and (h) all other farms following her Department's published assessment of the likely impact of her plans for the future disbursement of single farm payments. [184759]

  Alun Michael
  By decoupling subsidy and implementing the Single Payment Scheme in England, as announced on 22 April, the Government are providing a policy framework conducive to encouraging enterprise and market orientation in line with the Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming. Future prospects for agriculture depend on various factors but the Government are optimistic that farmers and growers will rise to the challenges and opportunities that present themselves.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire representing the House of Commons Commission if he will review the workings of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 in the light of progress with the implementation of the Braithwaite Report on the structures and procedures of the House, with particular reference to the recommendation contained in it that there should be a further review in about five years from July 1999. [184408]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Almost all the recommendations of the 1999 Braithwaite Report have been implemented by the House of Commons Commission. There has been continuing follow-up, including review of estates and 126W
  each of the last five years to 2003, broken down by country of despatch and a footnote made clear that the figures were provisional and subject to amendment. It has since been established that a figure under the 2003 entry for the Irish Republic was incorrect. The figure should have read 19,494 thousand litres. The rest of the answer remains correct and the amended table is as follows:

  works, and reporting services. The Commission frequently discusses House governance issues; most recently, at its June and July meetings, considering the recommendations of a major review of IS/IT governance, which will be taken forward in consultation with the Information Committee and the authorities of the House, of Lords. In the circumstances, I see no current need for a broader review.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to tackle the problem of AIDS worldwide. [184317]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement made by the Secretary of State to the House earlier today and to the Government's new Strategy 'Taking Action: The UK's Strategy for Tackling HIV/AIDS in the Developing World' copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Empty Houses
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for how many empty houses his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [182143]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is not responsible for any empty houses.

  Haiti
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he is taking to address the long-term causes of environmental vulnerability of poor communities in Haiti and the
  127W
  Dominican Republic following the recent flooding and landslides in the border region between the two countries. [184328]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID responded swiftly to the recent floods in Hispaniola providing £0.5 million of immediate humanitarian support to the relief operation in Haiti through the United Nations and non-governmental organisations. £259,400 of this money will go in support of emergency programmes to relaunch agricultural production and help provide food security, water and sanitation, distribution of non-food items and interventions in emergency education.

  The longer-term reconstruction and development needs of Haiti have recently been assessed, costed and set out in a two-year Interim Co-operation Framework covering the period July 2004 to September 2006. One of its specific priority sectors is environmental protection and rehabilitation. An International Donor Conference will take place on 19–20 July in Washington DC at which donors will pledge financial support to Haiti. The UK will participate in this Conference. DFID's financial contribution will be through the EU and shareholdings in the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank.

  In the Dominican Republic, DFID provides support through a small grants scheme. which assists non-government organisations to target poverty reduction.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to measure the criterion the Department set itself in its current Regional Assistance Plan for the Caribbean of improved understanding of Haiti's situation and options for recovery. [184329]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID undertook a fact-finding mission to Haiti in June 2003, in order to become familiar with the situation on the ground. In 2004 DFID sent two missions to Haiti to assess the humanitarian situation, following the political violence and instability in the first quarter of 2004, and the floods in May.

  DFID works closely with an international network of bilateral and multilateral institutions working to support Haiti, including the Haiti Contact Group co-ordinated by the World Bank. The UK will be represented at the upcoming International Donors Conference on Haiti, to be held in Washington on July 19 and 20, which will focus on securing donor support for the Interim Co-operation Framework.

  DFID also maintains contact with civil society organisations in order to get their perspective on the situation in Haiti. DFID officials met with UK NGOs working in Haiti in May 2004 and DFID receives regular information from civil society organisations through various channels, including the Haiti Support Group.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how he will work with the EU to ensure that EU aid to the interim Haitian Government is conditional on ensuring that the aid is directed towards those most in need. [184331]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The provision of EU aid to Haiti under the European Development Fund (EOF) has been subject to constraints applied by member states 128W
  within the Common Position since January 2001. EOF 8 funds have only been available for civil society projects and electoral support. On 16 July, the appropriate measures put in place by the EU in relation to Haiti under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement were amended and the European Commission will notify the interim Haitian Government of the funds available under EOF 9.

  EU development assistance can be provided only after free and fair elections have been held. Once funds start to flow, DFID will monitor how these are spent as part of our continuing watching brief on Haiti. DFID will be particularly keen to ensure that poverty reduction is the principal focus of this assistance.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking for immediate release of funds for Haiti under the European Development Fund (EDF 9). [184332]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  ¢27 million from EDF 8 will continue to support programmes of direct benefit to the population of Haiti through civil society organisation and the electoral process.

  On 16 July, the European Council agreed that the appropriate measures, which had been in place by the EU in relation to Haiti under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, should be amended. This decision means that the European Commission will now notify the interim Haitian Government of the level of funding under EOF 9 which is available to Haiti, and will proceed to draft the new Country Strategy Paper.

  Under EOF 9, ¢95 million is available to Haiti. Of this ¢72 million cannot be disbursed until the Country Strategy Paper is developed, and free and fair elections have been held. At this point the National Indicative Programme will be prepared which sets out how the detail of these funds will be used. The other ¢23 million, under EOF 9, can be released prior to the signing of the National Indicative Programme.

  Kenya
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government on assistance on their current budget deficits; and if he will make a statement. [185020]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is in regular contact with the Kenyan Government on this issue. DFID's Kenya Country Assistance Plan recognises that budget support is Kenya's preferred form of aid. It also makes clear that the level of British aid to Kenya, and whether or not DFID will provide bilateral poverty reduction budget support, will depend on the pace with which the Kenyan Government implements its Economic Recovery Strategy, especially in tackling corruption, preparing and implementing budgets that benefit the poor, and strengthening public financial management.

  Progress is not yet sufficient to enable us to provide such support. DFID is particularly concerned about recent reports of corruption allegedly involving senior members of the Kenyan Government and we have urged President Kibaki to ensure that appropriate and firm action is taken to investigate these reports, make the

  129W
  results public and take action against all those found to have acted corruptly. However, DFID will continue to use sectoral support and project aid where we believe that it can have a sustainable impact on poverty reduction and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in Kenya.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Services (Southampton)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding rail routes from Southampton to the midlands; and if he will make a statement. [184919]

  Dr. Howells
  Ministers and officials in my Department meet regularly with the Strategic Rail Authority about a wide range of issues.

  The Government have set out their long-term proposals for passenger and freight services in the "Future of Rail" White Paper.

  West Coast Main Line
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on improvements to the west coast main line. [184928]

  Dr. Howells
  The West Coast Upgrade is being delivered in line with the Strategy published by the Strategic Rail Authority in June 2003. New tilting trains have entered service, and a new timetable will be introduced in September this year with enhanced service frequencies and reduced journey times. Further improvements will follow in 2005 and 2008.

  Community Transport
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport support he has given to community transport in South Derbyshire. [184929]

  Mr. McNulty
  Most of the capital funding for local transport provided by the Department is allocated through Local Transport Plans, and so it is for the Local Transport Authorities to determine how these resources are best used to serve local priorities. This year we have, however, made £465,750 available through the Rural Bus Challenge Programme to support the Southern Derbyshire Rural Access Initiative

  National Railcard
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed introduction of a national railcard. [184930]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend has asked the Strategic Rail Authority and the industry to work up proposals for a national railcard. The SRA is currently taking this forward and I expect to receive advice later this year.

  Road Safety
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crashes involving vehicles on the hard shoulder of motorways occurred in the last year for which figures are available. [184931]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of personal injury accidents that occurred on hard shoulders of English trunk motorways in 2002, the latest year for which validated data is available, was 104.

  The provisional number of personal injury accidents that occurred on these motorway hard shoulders in 2003 was 73.

  No records are kept of non-injury accidents.

  Seafaring Ratings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects to make a decision on whether to introduce an employment and training link for UK seafaring ratings and officers as part of the tonnage tax regime. [184932]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The tonnage tax regime is under review and representations have been invited by the end of September. The possibility of an employment link is one of the issues that has already been raised. We will announce our conclusions when all of the representations have been carefully considered.

  Airport Noise
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent representations he has received about the need for noise controls near regional airports. [184933]

  Mr. McNulty
  Although from time to time the Department receives representations about noise control measures at various regional airports, recent representations have mostly been about Nottingham East Midlands Airport. The Government's conclusions on proposals to tackle operational aircraft noise from civil aircraft were published in December 2003.

  Camera Safety Partnerships
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to publicise his Department's guidelines for the operation of camera safety partnerships. [184613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current handbook of rules and guidelines for the operation of the safety camera cost recovery programme was placed in the Library of the House on 5 December 2003. The handbook is currently being updated for 2005–6. The new handbook will be placed in the House Library and published on the DfT website.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring processes are in place to ensure that his Department's guidelines for the operation of camera safety partnerships are observed. [184614]

  Dr. Howells
  The programme rules require the safety camera partnerships' accounts to be audited annually by the audit commission. Partnerships must also provide regular data to the Department on numbers of
  131W
  collisions and casualties. An independent report on the first three years of the operation of the safety camera programme by University College London and PA Consulting Group was published on 15 June, confirming the major reduction in collisions, deaths and casualties achieved at camera sites.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of public awareness of the guidelines that are in force for the operation of camera safety partnerships. [184615]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The criteria for the deployment of safety camera and the rules on camera conspicuity and visibility rules have been placed on the DfT website. The University College London and PA Consulting Group report on the first three years of the safety camera programme, published on 15 June, includes a description of the programme and the key rules and guidelines, and this is also available on the DfT website.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was received by central Government in 2003 in fines paid by motorists who were prosecuted for speeding as a result of the evidence of fixed cameras. [179818]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: During the financial year 2002–3, the latest year for which figures are available, the amount of conditional offer fixed penalty fines relating to speed and red light safety cameras within the safety camera programme was £68,872,320. From this amount. £54,256,502 was returned to the Safety Camera Partnerships to cover their costs. We do not hold information centrally for camera operations other than those operated within the Safety Camera Partnerships. Neither is information held centrally on the amount of fines raised as a result of court proceedings.

  Figures for fixed cameras alone are not separately available.

  Commercial Vehicles (Safety)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Highways Agency to publish its report on safety of commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [184301]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency intends to publish a report on its Study of Trunk Road Accidents Involving Goods Vehicles early in 2005.

  The Highways Agency is currently undertaking research into accidents involving Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). The work is not yet complete but the initial findings suggest that there are a number of complex and interrelated issues involved with HGV accidents.

  Diesel Deposits (Prosecutions)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years as a direct result of a vehicle depositing diesel on the road. [185552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not collected by my Department in this format.
  132W
  In 2002–03 the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency tested 466,000 heavy goods vehicles, 4,673 of which failed due to faults with the fuel system and also with oil leaks. During the same period 2,031 HGVs were given a prohibition for faults to the fuel system or for oil leaks at the roadside.

  Harwich
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding has been spent in the Harwich constituency from the Local Transport Plan. [184998]

  Mr. McNulty
  The constituency of Harwich falls within the Essex Local Transport Plan area. Essex has been allocated £109 million of local transport plan funding since 2000.

  Decisions on how much of this funding is spent in Harwich are a matter for the authorities concerned.

  Infrastructure/Services (Storm Damage)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned on preventative measures to restrict damage to transport(a) infrastructure and (b) services caused by adverse weather conditions. [184037]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has commissioned a number of projects addressing the impact of adverse weather conditions on transport infrastructure and services. This includes the following recent projects:

  (a) Infrastructure

  Investigation of the value for money of winter maintenance

  Prevention and removal of snow and ice on roads

  De-icing of modern surfaces

  Salt spread rates for thin surfacings

  Low humidity salting

  New de-icers for Midland Links

  Review of flooding incidents on the (HA) network

  Slope stability and establishment of vegetation

  Revision of wind data for BS5400

  The Changing Climate: Impact on the DfT

  (b) Services

  Performance of variable message signs in adverse weather conditions

  High Speed Craft Wind Heeling Moment Methodology

  Integrated Safety Guards and Spray Suppression for Heavy Goods Vehicles

  The majority of the projects are funded by the Highways Agency and further information can be obtained from their website www.highways.gov.uk. The remaining projects are funded by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and DfT(C) with further information available at www.mcga.gov.uk and www.dft.gov.uk respectively.

  MOT Certificates
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether cars registered in England, but whose MOT vehicle test certificate expires during their stay in Northern Ireland, will be exempt from prosecution(a) while in Northern Ireland and (b) immediately on their return to England where the

  133W
  vehicle owner can demonstrate that the reason for not having their vehicle examined was due to the industrial action of Northern Ireland civil servants; and if he will make a statement. [184763]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: The industrial action in Northern Ireland would have no impact on cars registered in Great Britain as such vehicles can only be MOT tested here. If the MOT certificate expires during a stay in Northern Ireland, the driver of the vehicle could face prosecution in the Province. On returning to GB, the vehicle would be exempt from the requirement to hold a MOT certificate provided it was driven directly to a pre-arranged MOT test.

  Motorways (Traffic Officers)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many traffic officers have been deployed on motorways in England; and where they have been deployed. [184791]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are currently 92 traffic officers, both on the road and in the control room, responsible for motorway patrols in the West Midlands. This will increase to 180 by the end of the year.

  Nottingham East Midlands Airport
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether an assessment has been made of the environmental impact of the proposed new noise preference routing(a) pole and (b) Trent 2 over southern and western Nottinghamshire for aircraft using Nottingham East Midlands Airport; [183978]

  (2) whether the proposed flight path (a) pole and (b) Trent 2 over southern and western Nottinghamshire for aircraft using Nottingham East Midlands Airport has been agreed; [183979]

  (3) whether he will impose time restrictions on using the flight path (a) pole and (b) Trent 2 over south west Nottinghamshire for aircraft using Nottingham East Midlands Airport to ban night flights between 11 pm and 6 am. [183980]

  Dr. Howells
  These proposed airspace changes have been the subject of an environmental assessment by Nottingham East Midlands Airport (NEMA). After careful examination of the proposals, the Department is satisfied that they provide a safe and effective solution for all airspace users in the East Midlands, while mitigating the environmental impact to the greatest extent possible. Officials have conveyed this response to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). It will then be for the CAA to agree the changes with NEMA.

  In order to mitigate the environmental impact of the new POLE Standard Instrument Departure route and following consultation, NEMA have given an undertaking that the route will not be used between the

  Project

  Company

  Length of Road (km)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  M1-A1

  Yorkshire Link Ltd.

  30

  —

  640

  676

  716

  743

  769

  A69

  Road Link (A69) Ltd.

  84

  489

  494

  488

  505

  526

  537

  A19

  Autolink Concessionaires (A19)

  118

  —

  1565

  1611

  1637

  1698

  1753

  134W
  hours of 2200 and 0600. The Northwest bound Trent route has been realigned to avoid over-flight of Derby, which would represent a significant net environmental benefit.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made to him from councils in Nottinghamshire about the proposed new flight paths over southern and western Nottinghamshire for aircraft using Nottingham East Midlands Airport. [183981]

  Dr. Howells
  None directly, though I am aware of representations made to the Civil Aviation Authority and Nottingham East Midlands Airport (NEMA) by various local authorities in this connection.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what methods of tackling road congestion between Manchester and Birmingham he has considered since 10 December 2002 in addition to widening the M6 motorway between junctions 11 and 20. [181667]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The document "Managing our Roads" published in July 2003 set out the Government's approach to tackling congestion and the various approaches which are being considered in addition to widening motorways However, the Secretary of State for Transport has published a consultation paper "M6: giving motorists a choice", which invites views on a new Birmingham and Manchester as an alternative to widening the existing M6.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of road congestion in Essex in each of the last 10 years. [183599]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not make estimates of the costs of road congestion in Essex. Detailed information on traffic flows on all roads in the county would be needed for such an estimate. The cost of its collection to the highway authorities in the county would exceed the value of the information to decision-makers.

  Road Contractors
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles used each of the roads built using the design, build, finance and operate contracting method, in each month of operation; who the contractor was in each case; how much was paid under each contract; and if he will make a statement. [180846]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the traffic figure (in vehicle kilometres) for each financial year for each of my Department's Design Build Finance and Operate projects since these were opened to traffic. Providing figures for each month would be disproportionately expensive.
  135W

  Project

  Company

  Length of Road (km)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Ltd.

  A50

  Connect (A50)Ltd.

  57

  —

  675

  731

  793

  856

  864

  M40

  UK Highways M40 Ltd.

  122

  —

  3844

  3859

  3932

  3944

  3944

  A1(M)

  Road Management Services (Peterborough) Ltd.

  21

  —

  405

  416

  429

  439

  449

  A417/A419

  Road Management Services (Gloucester) Ltd.

  52

  544

  574

  582

  604

  617

  641

  A30/A35

  Connect (A30/A35) Ltd.

  102

  —

  —

  591

  634

  649

  695

  Figures are given in millions of vehicle Kilometres.

  The following table shows the total payments made under my Department's Design Build Finance and Operate Contracts.

  Financial year

  £ million

  1998–99

  105

  1999–2000

  119

  2000–01

  142

  2001–02

  130

  2002–03

  128

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Services
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the improvement of public service delivery across Government. [184911]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Delivery and Reform Team, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, brings together those Heads of Units from the Cabinet Office, HM Treasury and No. 10 that are concerned with the delivery of better public services and civil service reform. The Delivery and Reform Team ensures co-ordination from the centre of the overall strategy and key strands of the Government's agenda.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Analogue Radio
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has made for switching off analogue radio signals; what the likely timescale is; what criteria will be applied; what target she has set for the proportion of households with access to digital technology before the analogue signal is switched off; and if she will make a statement; [184127]

  (2) what representations she has received regarding the switching off of analogue radio signals; and if she will make a statement. [184131]

  Estelle Morris
  Section 67 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 requires the Secretary of State to keep under review the development of digital radio for the purposes of considering how long it would be appropriate for sound broadcasting services to be provided in analogue form.

  In particular, the Act requires her, on or before the fourth anniversary on which the first national digital multiplex is granted, to ask Ofcom and the BBC to report on the current position and future prospects for the provision of radio multiplex services; the availability
  136W
  of digital sound programme services and existing analogue services in digital form; and the ownership or possession of equipment capable of receiving digital sound services. These reports are to be submitted to the Secretary of State by 31 October. A number of other industry bodies have also been asked to submit any comments they wish to make. All contributions will be considered alongside the BBC and Ofcom reports, and the Government will publish their response.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2003–04. [185113]

  Estelle Morris
  Since my appointment as Green Minister for DCMS in July 2003, the Department has published its comprehensive Sustainable Development Strategy and a copy is in the Library of the House. I have encouraged collaboration at ministerial and official level with the Department for Education and Skills in connection with education for sustainable development. I have also had a bilateral meeting with the Minister of State for the Environment.

  Publicly Owned Collections
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 28 June 2004, what initiatives the Government have introduced to improve public access to items in publicly owned collections of museums, galleries and other civic buildings that are permanently in storage; and if she will make a statement. [185657]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS encourages each of its sponsored museums and galleries to improve both intellectual and physical access to those collection items not on open display. Examples include the Natural History Museum Darwin Phase 1 Project which contains the Museum's remarkable collection of 22 million zoological items collected over the last 200 years and the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester's Collection Centre which opened up 70 per cent. of the Museum's collection to the public when it opened in 2001. The National Museum of Science and Industry will be opening a new branch of the National Railway Museum (Locomotion) at Shildon in September of this year. It will enable visitors to view up to 60 vehicles that they might not have been able to see previously. In each case the Department has contributed funding to these developments. We also encourage the development of virtual access. A recent example of this is 'Ingenious', the new website of the National Museum
  137W
  of Science and Industry which allows access to 30,000 images from its collections, which might not otherwise be seen.

  Wembley Stadium
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received on progress on the new Wembley Stadium development: and what the latest estimated date is for completion. [183595]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the period since 1 April 2004 we have received no representations asking about progress towards completion of the Wembley Stadium development.

  A key milestone for Wembley National Stadium Ltd. was the successful raising of the Stadium arch in June 2004. The Stadium remains on target for completion in January 2006 and to be built within budget.

  We continue to work with all those involved in the development to ensure that public contributions are protected and used in the most efficient and effective ways possible.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received on the costs of the new Wembley Stadium development. [183596]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since 1 April 2004 we have received letters from the right hon. Sir George Young and from Mr. Stuart Sutherland of Dornoch, Scotland, about the cost of the Wembley Stadium development.

  The stadium remains on target for completion in January 2006 and to be built within budget.

  We continue to work with all those involved in the Wembley National Stadium development to ensure that public contributions are protected and used in the most efficient and effective ways possible.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Access to Universities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills regarding(a) the opportunities available for older women to attend universities and (b) how to increase opportunities for women to attend universities. [183712]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: We have regular bilaterals on the cross-Government skills agenda. These bilaterals cover a host of skills related items including, where relevant, issues relating to gender and age in industry and academia. Women returners will be helped by reforms in the Government's Skills Strategy, including the new learner entitlement for those without qualifications, better learner support, and better Information Advice and Guidance. Steps have already been taken to improve services for adults such as the University for Industry (Ufi)/learndirect national advice service. DTI is also taking forward a strategy to improve women's representation in science, engineering and technology, including a resource centre with a specific women returners project.
  138W
  The Government are keen to ensure that everybody can access learning and qualifications and this is why the Access to Learning funds prioritise groups of students, like mature students who may have existing financial commitments, when allocating the funding. Other forms of financial support available are Career Development Loans, Parents Learning Allowance and the Adult Dependents Grant, which support students who have a financially dependent adult family member.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Apprenticeships
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what policies are followed by his Department to encourage young people to enter apprenticeship schemes within the construction industry. [185339]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Changes to the Apprenticeship programme recently announced will benefit all sectors including construction. We want to put in place a coherent ladder of high quality vocational opportunities responsive to the needs of young people, older workers and business. We intend to build a family of apprenticeship programmes to suit a variety of needs from aged 14 upwards. These will include: Young Apprenticeships for 14 to 16-year-olds, a pre-apprenticeship route within the existing Entry to Employment programme, Apprenticeships at NVQ Level 2, Advanced Apprenticeships at NVQ Level 3 and a strengthened progression route into higher education, including vocational Foundation Degrees.

  In addition we have set up a new network of employer-led Sector Skills Councils to work with government to meet the skill needs of their sectors. Construction Skills—the SSC for construction—was licensed in September 2003. A key role for SSCs is to encourage take up of apprenticeship places by young people and others.

  The number of new entrants to the sector rose by 4 per cent. between 2001/02 and 2002/03 and the construction sector is the second most popular Apprenticeship framework with over 23,000 young people in training. Construction was also the most popular sector for both young people and employers responding to the recent Apprenticeship marketing campaign.

  Family Support
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 12, on child poverty, if he will list for each year since 1997 for which data is available the resources that the Government has put into counselling and encouraging people to resolve their relationship difficulties in the interests of their children. [184445]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are a number of ways in which the Government encourage people to resolve relationship difficulties in the interests of the child. The Marriage and Relationship Support (MARS) grant funds activities aimed at helping people establish, maintain and develop successful relationships with their partners. This includes encouraging people to resolve
  139W
  relationship difficulties in the interests of their children and meeting the needs of socially and commonly excluded groups.

  The MARS programme (since 1997) provided grants as follows: 1997–98: £3.4 million; 1998–99: £3.0 million; 1999–2000: £3.2 million. Following Sir Graham Hart's recommendations in his report to the Lord Chancellor on Marriage Support Funding (published in November 1999), the allocation was increased as follows: 2000–01:£4 million; 2001–02: £4.5 million; 2002–03 and 2003–04: £5 million.

  Additionally, Sure Start local programmes and Children's Centres provide a range of family support and counselling services and opportunities for couples to discuss relationship issues. Similarly, a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) officer might be involved at court directions hearings in providing assistance to children and their families to help them reach agreement on arrangements for their children, primarily in respect of contact and residence.

  Children's Centres
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the running costs of each children's centre have been since each was established, broken down by region. [185155]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: The Sure Start Unit does not hold details on the running costs for individual children's centres—this is a matter for local authorities.

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with HM Customs and Excise concerning the ability of local authorities acting as Connexions partnership lead bodies to reclaim VAT charged on services subcontracted to private providers; and if he will make a statement. [185070]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: Guidance on the ability of local authorities acting as Connexions Partnership lead bodies to reclaim VAT on services subcontracted to private providers was given at a workshop for Connexions Partnerships provided jointly with HM Customs and Excise on 20 April. Written guidance was issued to Partnerships on 12 May. We continue to work with HM Customs and Excise to consider, and advise on, individual Partnership proposals.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what programmes are being implemented by the Connexions Service to engage young people during the summer holiday period. [185357]

  Margaret Hodge
  The majority of Connexions Partnerships (40 out of 47) are the Lead Delivery Agents for the Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) programme. This provides diversionary and developmental activities for 8 to 19 year olds in school holiday periods. In addition 17 partnerships are involved with the delivery of the Big Lottery Fund's Uproject. This offers a similar range of activities and is 140W
  aimed at 16 year olds who have no firm plans for their future. The Connexions Service is also responsible for signposting young people to a range of other activities provided by partner organisations.

  The programmes comprise quality arts, sports and cultural activities which include an element of learning and self development.

  Nursery Education (St. Helens)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many nursery places there were in St. Helens in each year from 1997 to 2004. [184624]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four-year-olds in St. Helens local education authority area are shown in the table.

  Number of free nursery education places1, 2 taken up by three and four-year-old children in St. Helens local education authority area
  1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  Number

  1997

  3,300

  1998

  3,200

  1999

  3,200

  2000

  3,600

  2001

  3,700

  2002

  3,900

  2003

  3,900

  1Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four-year-old children.

  2 A free nursery education place comprises five two and a half hour sessions of early years education per week, for 33 weeks of the year, usually three terms of 11 weeks.

  The latest figures on provision for three and four year olds in England were published in a Statistical Bulletin Provision for children under five years of age in England—January 2003' which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many St. Helens families have been involved in Sure Start schemes. [184625]

  Margaret Hodge
  Around 2,100 families were seen by the five Sure Start local programmes in the St. Helens local authority area in 2003–04. We expect around 600 families to use the nine neighbourhood nurseries in the area. They offer 370 child care places and we are expecting some 900 children to use these.

  Finance and Analytical Services Directorate
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding was made available to, and how many full-time equivalent staff were employed by, the Finance and Analytical Services Directorate in 2004–05. [182601]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 1 April 2004, 472 staff worked in the Finance and Analytical Services Directorate. The administrative costs allocated to the Directorate for 2004–05 were £19.268 million.
  141W
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding was made available to, and how many full-time equivalent staff were employed by, the(a) Analytical Services Directorate, (b) Secondary Education Group and (c) Standards and Effectiveness Unit in 2004–05, broken down by their constituent parts. [182602]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 1 April 2004, 293 staff worked in Analytical Services Directorate (ASD), 179 staff worked in the Secondary Education Group (SEG), and 143 staff worked in the Standards and Effectiveness Unit (SEU). However, as part of the Department's intention to create a stronger strategic capacity, ASD has recently restructured so that around 50 per cent. of analysts are based in the Department's Schools, Children Young People and Families, Lifelong Learning and Higher Education Directorates.

  The administrative costs allocated for 2004–05 were:

  ASD, £11.444 million (of which £5.984 million has been transferred to other Directorates);

  SEG, £7.38 million and

  SEU, £3.62 million.

  Learning and Skills Council (London East)
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether all people in the London East Learning and Skills Council region who wish to study for a basic skills qualification in a further education college in the academic year 2004–05 are guaranteed a place; and if he will make a statement. [184293]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with business representatives on levels of literacy and numeracy skills of school-leavers. [185214]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have many discussions with a range of business leaders about skills needs at all levels, including regular meetings with the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) and the Sector Skills Councils. I visit bursaries of all subjects on a regular basis.

  At the Skills Strategy One Year on Conference on the 7 July, I welcomed the shared statement by the CBI, TUC (Trades Union Congress) and Small Business Council which emphasised the importance of ensuring employers, unions, employees, Government and training providers support the development of skills at basic level and Level 2 to improve employability.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the rate of unauthorised absence from pupil referral units. [184434]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not collect absence data from pupil referral units.

  Youth Services
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the Green Paper on the reform of services for young people; which specific services he is seeking to reform; and what recommendations for reform will be included. [185069]

  Margaret Hodge?
  [holding answer 19 July 2004.]: We plan to work across Government to develop and publish a Green Paper for young people in autumn 2004. The types of service and issues it will address are set out in the Department for Education and Skills: Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners. It is too early to say what recommendations for reform will be included.

  Students (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of full-time students resident in the London borough of Wandsworth stayed in education after the age of(a) 16 and (b) 18 years in each of the last three years. [184118]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  For Inner London, participation in education and training is only shown as a total because participation estimates for individual Inner London LEAs cannot be estimated reliably. This is due to considerable numbers of pupils who attend independent schools in an LEA other than the one in which they reside and residence information for independent school pupils is not available. The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education in Inner London at end 2001 (the latest available year) was 73 per cent.

  There are also figures published for local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) areas, which cover Inner London. These will be affected by the cross-boundary movement, though to a lesser ex tent due to their larger size. The London Central LSC area includes Wandsworth LEA. The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education in London Central LSC area at end 2001 (the latest available year) was 74 per cent.

  These figures are taken from the Statistical Bulletin 01/2004 and have been produced using post-Census population estimates. Historic population estimates are not currently available on a comparable basis; and therefore, comparable participation rates for earlier years prior to 2001 cannot be produced.

  The percentages of 18-year-olds participating in full-time undergraduate courses in Wandsworth LEA for the last three years are given in Table 1. The higher education (HE) figures show the proportion of students who gain places in HE courses at age 18, and so will not include those who enter at 19 or over.

  Table 1: Proportion of English domiciled students aged 18 accepted through UCAS to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK, by LEA of domicile

  As at autumn

  Percentage

  2001

  23.9

  2002

  23.6

  2003

  23.4

  Sure Start
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to support disadvantaged children and families who do not live in wards covered by the Sure Start programme. [184996]

  Margaret Hodge
  Children's centres are the focus of the Government's plans to expand high quality integrated service provision to young children and families. By 2008 we will have developed up to 2,500 children's centres. In areas not currently covered by Sure Start programmes, centres will develop from a wide range of settings in the maintained, private and voluntary sectors. In the long term the Government aim to develop a children's centre in every community.

  Vending Machines
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment his Department has made of the distribution cost of installing vending machines in schools selling only water, fresh milk, juice and fruit; and if he will make a statement; [184541]

  (2) whether his Department has conducted research into installing healthy vending machines in schools; and if he will study the example of the Green Machine when conducting work in this area; [184542]

  (3) what correspondence his Department has had from (a) the National Association of Head Teachers and (b) the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers on vending machines in schools; and if he will make a statement. [184543]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The provision of vending machines in schools is determined by individual school governing bodies.

  The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has not carried out any assessment of the distribution cost of installing vending machines which offer healthy food and drink, nor conducted research into installing healthy vending machines in schools. However, DfES and Department of Health are jointly funding the `Food in Schools' (FiS) initiative, which includes an investigation of how healthy food and drink can be offered in vending machines in schools.

  In addition, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) recently investigated the economic viability of healthier drinks vending provision in schools, and their findings are published in "A Feasibility Study into Healthier Drinks Vending in Schools" which can be found on the FSA's website: www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/ newsarchive/2004/apr/vending

  Information about the Green Machine has been forwarded to officials in DoH and FSA who lead on vending machine projects.

  We have not received correspondence about vending machines from the National Association of Head Teachers or the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Students (Means-tested Benefits)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was paid to students on means-tested benefits in the last year for which figures are available. [184877]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  Appointees
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants have an appointee to act on the claimant's behalf in respect of benefit claims and payments; and in how many cases the appointee is(a) a family member or friend, (b) a member of staff of a public body, (c) an independent care home owner or manager and (d) another person acting in their professional capacity. [182728]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested as details on appointees are not collected centrally.

  At the end of February 2004 there were 174,700 pensions credit claims where there was an appointee and 118,200 in respect of income support claims.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many representations have been received about appointeeship in connection with the proposed mental capacity legislation; and from whom. [182729]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department received correspondence from the Making Decisions Alliance after the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill.

  In addition, a number of organisations, including the Making Decisions Alliance, referred to the Department's appointee procedures when giving evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what changes are planned on the information for(a) staff undertaking assessments of capacity and (b) appointees following the implementation of the mental capacity legislation; [182730]

  (2) whether there will be a requirement for staff of his Department undertaking assessments of claimant's capacity to manage his or her affairs to have regard to the Code of Practice under the mental capacity legislation. [182731]

  Maria Eagle>
  We are currently looking at the potential impact of this Bill on our appointee arrangements. We will finalise the review in the event that the Bill receives Royal Assent and the Code of Practice is completed.

  Benefit Fraud
  Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the weekly multiplier is that is used to estimate the average amount of housing and council tax benefit fraud run-on in cases where a fraudulent claim has been detected. [183161]
  145W
  Mr. Pond
  For local authorities, the Weekly Benefit Saving (WBS) scheme was replaced by the Security Against Fraud and Error (SAFE) scheme on 1 April 2002. Unlike WBS, where a 32 week multiplier was used when calculating savings from anti fraud activity, no such multiplier is used for SAFE.

  Under SAFE, local authorities earn a fixed monetary reward based on the amount of reduction in benefit for each overpayment which they detect that is a result of fraud or claimant error. In addition, local authorities are partly compensated for the costs incurred in bringing forward sanctions and prosecutions.

  Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his written answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, column 731W, on benefit fraud, what the average (a) weekly incorrect benefit reward and (b) security against fraud and error subsidy was as a proportion of expenditure. [183261]

  Mr. Pond
  Local authorities earn Weekly Incorrect Benefit (WIB) rewards for overpayments they recover which have arisen as a result of fraud and claimant error. The average total WIB reward across all local authorities as a proportion of expenditure was 0.2 per

  Number

  Outcome

  Value

  1

  Officer prosecuted and sentenced to a 12 month conditional discharge and £75 costs. The officer continues in post pending a decision about his employment status

  £979

  2

  Officer prosecuted for offences committed in 2000 and sentenced to 11 months imprisonment.

  £38,938

  3

  Officer prosecuted and sentenced to two months imprisonment. The officer was initially suspended on full pay, which changed to suspension without pay from the date formal charges were made. They have since been dismissed.

  £4,180 plus an additional potential overpayment of £2,013

  4

  Officer prosecuted and sentenced to an 18 month Community Rehabilitation Order and ordered to pay £1,510, the amount to be repaid in full by 18 December 2004. The officer was initially suspended from duty and subsequently resigned.

  £410

  5

  Officer found guilty of benefit fraud and will be sentenced on 16 July 2004. The officer was suspended from duty and subsequently dismissed.

  £1,327 plus an additional potential overpayment of £2,600

  6

  Officer sentenced to a 200 hour community service order and has been dismissed

  £3,112

  7

  Officer prosecuted and fined £120 costs and ordered to pay £628. The overpayment has been repaid in full

  £2,599

  8

  Officer Dismissed

  £5,280

  9

  Officer Dismissed. Prosecution pending.

  £660

  10

  Officer Dismissed

  —

  In addition to the cases listed in the table four officers resigned prior to a penalty being imposed.

  Details of staff suspensions are not routinely captured. Where appropriate, staff are suspended from duty pending the outcome of any action.

  Benefits (Electronic Claims Facility)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the benefits that can be claimed using an electronic claims facility. [185057]

  Mr. Pond
  At present, only Carers Allowance can be claimed using an electronic claims facility; however, we are working to extend this provision to other benefits as soon as it is practical to do so. In addition, electronic
  146W
  cent. in 2002–03. The average total Security Against Fraud and Error subsidy across all local authorities as a proportion of expenditure was 0.3 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department have been(a) investigated, (b) suspended, (c) dismissed, (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for involvement in benefit fraud in each of the last six months; and what amounts were involved in each case. [184688]

  Mr. Pond
  Information is not available in the exact format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the table and accompanying text.

  32 cases of staff suspected of involvement in benefit fraud have been investigated during the period 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2004. These cases include both fraudulent personal claims to benefit and assisting third parties to commit benefit fraud.

  In the same period, 10 members of staff were given either a disciplinary penalty and/or were prosecuted and convicted of an offence. Some of these will have resulted from investigations in earlier periods. Details, including the amount of benefit involved in each case, are shown in the following table. Where an amount is not shown in the table, either it has not been possible to determine a value or the overpayment is still being calculated.

  claim forms are available on the internet for many of our benefits; these can be completed before being printed off, signed and forwarded to the appropriate office.

  Child Support Agency
  Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions resulting from the criminal offence of non-co-operation with the Child Support Agency there have been since January 2001. [184670]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
  147W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Webb dated 20 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many prosecutions resulting from the criminal offence of non-co-operations with the Child Support Agency there have been since January 2001. As at 30 June 2004, 319 people have been prosecuted under the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 for failing to provide information to the Child Support Agency. Of these, 317 have been found guilty.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Child Support Agency has been owed in outstanding maintenance payments in each of the last seven years. [184671]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Webb, dated 20 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much the CSA has been owed in outstanding maintenance payments in each of the last 7 years.

  The annual accounts of the Agency indicate that the recoverable balance outstanding on full maintenance assessments, as at 31 March each year, is as follows:

  £million

  31 March 1998

  412

  31 March 1999

  512

  31 March 2000

  521

  31 March 2001

  528

  31 March 2002

  509

  31 March 2003

  664

  The accounts to 31 March 2004 will be published shortly.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-resident parents have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. [184673]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Webb, dated 20 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many non-resident parents have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

  Disqualification from driving (and committal to prison) is only considered after all other enforcement options have been attempted or discounted. Since the power to withdraw driving licences was brought into effect on 2 April 2001–20 licences have been suspended and 2 licences have been removed.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time equivalent employees of his Department there were in the East Midlands in each year since 1997. [185495]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on staff numbers by Government Office Region was not collected prior to September 2001. Information at that date and each year thereafter is in the table.

  DWP staff numbers in East Midlands Government Office Region

  Staff numbers

  30 September 2001

  5,730

  30 September 2002

  6,126

  30 September 2003

  6,245

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are Whole Time Equivalent (rounded to the nearest whole number).

  2. Numbers are consistent with Cabinet Office definitions other than the inclusion of staff on paid maternity leave.

  3. Numbers are point in time at the dates shown.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what co-ordination is taking place across agencies and sections of his Department to minimise the loss of experienced staff in offices subject to plans for closure. [185148]

  Maria Eagle
  Following the Budget and Spending Review announcements detailed business and staffing plans are currently being developed across the Department in order to manage the reduction of 30,000 posts by March 2008.

  This planning activity is being undertaken through co-ordinated activity across all agencies and sections of the Department. In taking the programme of change forward staff deployment will be managed to ensure the Department retains and utilises the skills and experience of staff in each of its businesses.

  Havering (Employment)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help those seeking employment in Havering. [184254]

  Jane Kennedy
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Rosindell dated 20 July 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question about the help available to those seeking employment in Havering. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

  There are two Jobcentre Plus offices delivering services to the people of Havering.

  1. Romford Jobcentre Plus, 30 Main Road, Romford. Opened on 7 June 2004.

  2. Hornchurch Jobcentre Plus, North Street, Hornchurch. Opened on 24 March 2004.

  149W
  Both offices provide a range of services to customers seeking employment, including:
  access to a personal adviser to assist finding suitable employment;
  access to touch screen Jobpoints or the internet;
  entry to the New Deal programme;
  work trials, for customers to show employers what they can do or to try out a job.

  Depending on personal circumstances there is other help available to help customers find employment. For example, lone parents may be able to get help with childcare costs. People with disabilities can get help from specialist Disability Employment Advisers or join New Deal for Disabled People. A range of training programmes is also available to provide extra support and help in getting, and keeping, a job. Further details on the services available are contained in leaflet PFL 2, available in Jobcentre Plus offices, or by visiting www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk.

  Although these services are common to Jobcentre Plus offices, there are a range of local initiatives, specific to Havering, to help local people into work.

  The Oldchurch Recruitment Centre, for example, opened in May 2004 and initially targeted the construction workers for the first phase of the development of the new Oldchurch Hospital. This positive partnership working with local employers has resulted in over 30 customers gaining employment at the site. To expand this scheme we are developing working agreements with the local Health trusts and have begun to match Jobcentre Plus customers with vacancies as they arise in local Hospitals.

  Another initiative is with the new Asda supermarket, due to open in Romford in the autumn of 2005. Work is to begin on clearing the site in the autumn 2004 and we are in discussion to use our services to recruit people for the demolition and construction phases of the new store. Furthermore, we aim to undertake the entire recruitment of staff for this new supermarket.

  We have also planned a number of events for the summer to specifically address the employment needs of customers in Havering. In partnership with the London Borough of Havering, Jobcentre Plus will be running a stand at the Havering Town Show on 29 and 30 August. This will promote the services of Jobcentre Plus and assist customers in finding employment. Furthermore there will be a seasonal vacancy promotion in the Romford area on 21 and 22 September 2004 designed to match customers to upcoming Christmas vacancies.

  Table A—legal services provided to the former Employment service and Jobcentre Plus by private sector law firm

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Number of cases

  Equal pay

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Sex discrimination

  6

  12

  9

  8

  6

  4

  4

  1

  Race discrimination

  5

  2

  8

  10

  5

  2

  3

  0

  Disability discrimination

  9

  14

  14

  27

  20

  22

  18

  7

  Unfair dismissal

  0

  0

  6

  10

  7

  13

  11

  8

  Number of cost awards

  Against respondent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  11

  14

  Against applicant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Costs

  Settling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  121,500.00

  43,580.00

  94,291.00

  96,277.95

  Contesting

  114,728.26

  219,312.39

  190,883.69

  284,339.38

  460,693. 75

  290,394.51

  334,085.94

  131,064.09

  150W
  The District Manager for North East London, has written to all local MPs offering to meet on a regular basis to discuss developments in the District.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in Havering in each year since 2000. [184249]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  People claiming Job Seekers Allowance in Havering local authority area

  Number of people claiming

  May 2000

  2,934

  May 2001

  2,241

  May 2002

  2,346

  May 2003

  2,593

  May 2004

  2,444

  Notes:

  1. Information related to all Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants, and will include both those receiving contribution-based JSA, income-based JSA, and claimants not receiving JSA but signing for national Insurance credits only.

  2. Information is based on a 100 per cent. count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits.

  Source:

  Count of unemployment related benefits, Jobcentre Plus computer systems.

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [181469]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the tables.
  151W

  Table B—legal services provided to DWP by Government Solicitors

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Number of cases

  Disability discrimination

  —

  —

  —

  42

  Race discrimination

  —

  —

  —

  26

  Sex discrimination

  —

  —

  —

  32

  Unfair dismissal

  —

  —

  —

  63

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  33

  Total number of cases

  109

  81

  104

  196

  Counsel fees

  162,315

  104,193

  267,303

  247,603

  Two sets of figures are provided above due to the merger in 2002 of the Employment Service with the Benefits Agency to form Jobcentre Plus, a business unit of the Department for Work and Pensions. Prior to the merger, legal services on employment law matters were provided to the Employment Service by a private firm of solicitors—who remain the legal service provider for Jobcentre Plus. These figures are provided in Table A.

  Table B represents the employment law statistics for cases conducted by departmental solicitors, who dealt with all employment litigation cases on behalf of the former BA, CSA, Pensions Service and DCS and other DWP agencies. Where the table is incomplete, information is not readily available and it would involve disproportionate cost to the Department to collate these figures. In particular, information on the costs of settling cases was not collected by the Department, nor was information collated, prior to 2003, on the specific types of case against the Department.

  Hospital Downrating Rules
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value in cash terms was of reducing each benefit affected by the hospital downrating rules in each of the last seven years. [184672]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the running costs, including staffing costs, of Jobcentre Plus centres were in each year since 1997; and how many people were employed in centres in each year. [182164]

  Jane Kennedy
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Simmonds, dated 20 July 2004:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to reply direct to your question concerning the running costs and staff costs of Jobcentre Plus centres each y ear since 1997, and how many people were employed in centres in each year. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

  The information you have asked for can be found in the table below.

  Year ended 31 March (for financial figures)

  Total staff at 30 April (WTE)

  Staff costs (£000)

  Other administration costs (£000)

  Total gross administration costs (£000)

  1997

  31,550

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  30,796

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  32,675

  —

  —

  —

  152W

  Year ended 31 March (for financial figures)

  Total staff at 30 April (WTE)

  Staff costs (£000)

  Other administration costs (£000)

  Total gross administration costs (£000)

  2000

  32,620

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  34,110

  —

  —

  —

  2002

  185,020

  —

  —

  —

  2003

  80,170

  1,712,111

  1,254,131

  2,996,242

  2004

  79,234

  1,669,766

  1,384,015

  3,023,303

  1Staff numbers increase from 2001 to 2002 due to the merger of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service

  Source:

  Cabinet Office Statistics website for Headcount.

  Latest draft of the 31 March 2004 accounts for financial figures.

  It may be helpful if I explain that Jobcentre Plus came into existence in April 2002, bringing together staff from the Employment Service and part of the Benefits Agency. It deals with both claims to, and payments of, all working age benefits as well as job-finding activities. Data on staff is collected by grade rather than job role and it is not possible to identify accurately the number of staff working in front facing customer service centres from this information. The financial figures shown are only available since the introduction of Jobcentre Plus.

  As these figures show, there has been a reduction in staff numbers from 2003 to 2004 and, as would be expected, the staff costs for 2004 have also decreased. However, the gross administration costs for the agency have increased. This is due to higher costs falling under the heading "Other Administration Costs". There are a number of different categories of expenditure that come under this section of the accounts, although the majority are not directly related to the number of staff employed. The main variances relate to the following:

  £ million

  Areas of expenditure impacted by Jobcentre Plus Implementation Project

  +71

  Increased accommodation costs

  +22

  Increased use of corporate IT services

  +22

  Reduced income from other agencies as less project/non-project work carried out on their behalf

  +59

  Expenditure relating to a contract for provision of IT services has been absorbed by DWP

  -40

  Total

  +134

  I hope this is helpful.

  Attendance Allowance
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 16 June 2004,Official Report, column 1018W, on attendance allowance, how many attendance allowance claims in Scotland have been subject to appeal since February 2002, broken down by (a) disability benefit centre and (b) month. [183264]

  Maria Eagle
  The information required is set out in the following tables Total number of attendance allowance cases in payment in Scotland at February 2004 and february 2004 are included ina subsequent table.
  153W

  Attendance allowance appeals in Scotland, for Glasgow Disability Benefit Centre and the period February 2002 to May 2004 by month

  Month

  Lodged1

  Received2

  Cleared at hearing

  Cleared at favour

  Cleared at against

  Cleared at upheld

  Cleared at others

  Adjourned

  Postponed

  2002

  February

  130

  135

  105

  50

  —

  45

  5

  35

  20

  March

  100

  100

  130

  60

  —

  65

  5

  35

  20

  April

  120

  85

  125

  75

  —

  50

  —

  20

  15

  May

  120

  90

  120

  70

  —

  45

  5

  30

  25

  June

  110

  95

  80

  45

  —

  35

  5

  25

  15

  July

  115

  100

  85

  45

  —

  35

  —

  20

  20

  August

  110

  110

  90

  55

  —

  30

  5

  25

  25

  September

  85

  125

  85

  50

  —

  30

  5

  20

  30

  October

  110

  140

  75

  45

  —

  30

  —

  30

  20

  November

  130

  85

  85

  50

  —

  35

  —

  25

  15

  December

  80

  115

  70

  40

  —

  30

  —

  20

  10

  2003

  January

  120

  95

  140

  75

  —

  60

  5

  35

  25

  February

  95

  95

  95

  50

  —

  45

  5

  20

  15

  March

  95

  90

  75

  40

  —

  35

  —

  20

  10

  April

  80

  65

  90

  45

  —

  40

  5

  30

  10

  May

  100

  120

  80

  35

  —

  40

  5

  20

  10

  June

  100

  100

  100

  40

  —

  55

  5

  30

  10

  July

  100

  95

  95

  45

  —

  50

  —

  20

  15

  August

  115

  80

  70

  35

  —

  30

  —

  25

  10

  September

  80

  115

  85

  45

  —

  40

  5

  25

  15

  October

  125

  120

  90

  50

  —

  35

  5

  25

  10

  November

  115

  85

  80

  35

  —

  40

  5

  15

  10

  December

  80

  75

  55

  20

  —

  30

  5

  20

  5

  2004

  January

  85

  115

  80

  40

  —

  35

  5

  25

  5

  February

  80

  115

  75

  35

  —

  40

  —

  25

  5

  March

  115

  125

  95

  50

  —

  45

  5

  25

  10

  April

  45

  110

  65

  25

  —

  40

  —

  25

  5

  May

  —

  55

  65

  20

  5

  40

  —

  35

  5

  Total

  2,740

  2,830

  2,490

  1,265

  5

  1,135

  90

  710

  390

  Attendance allowance appeals in Scotland, for Edinburgh Disability Benefit Centre and the period February 2002 to May 2004 by month

  Month

  Lodged1

  Received2

  Cleared at hearing

  Cleared in favour

  Cleared against

  Cleared upheld

  Cleared others

  Adjourned

  Postponed

  2002

  February

  40

  40

  50

  20

  —

  10

  —

  5

  5

  March

  60

  45

  55

  20

  —

  30

  5

  5

  5

  April

  40

  55

  35

  15

  —

  20

  —

  5

  5

  May

  55

  35

  55

  25

  —

  10

  —

  10

  June

  40

  50

  25

  10

  —

  15

  —

  5

  5

  July

  45

  55

  25

  15

  —

  10

  —

  5

  10

  August

  35

  45

  30

  15

  —

  5

  —

  5

  5

  September

  40

  40

  30

  10

  —

  20

  5

  5

  —

  October

  45

  55

  35

  15

  —

  15

  —

  5

  5

  November

  45

  30

  30

  15

  —

  10

  —

  5

  5

  December

  25

  25

  30

  15

  —

  I5

  —

  —

  5

  2003

  January

  30

  30

  30

  10

  —

  20

  —

  5

  5

  February

  45

  45

  20

  10

  —

  10

  —

  5

  5

  March

  30

  35

  30

  15

  —

  5

  —

  5

  10

  April

  40

  30

  20

  5

  —

  15

  —

  —

  May

  65

  25

  30

  10

  —

  20

  —

  5

  —

  June

  55

  60

  35

  15

  —

  15

  —

  5

  5

  July

  50

  40

  20

  10

  —

  10

  —

  5

  —

  August

  55

  55

  30

  15

  —

  15

  —

  September

  50

  40

  40

  20

  —

  20

  —

  10

  5

  October

  40

  60

  30

  15

  —

  15

  —

  5

  —

  November

  55

  55

  35

  10

  —

  25

  —

  15

  5

  December

  45

  45

  25

  15

  —

  10

  —

  5

  —

  2004

  January

  35

  45

  45

  20

  —

  25

  —

  5

  5

  February

  35

  35

  30

  10

  —

  20

  —

  5

  —

  154W 155W

  Attendance allowance appeals in Scotland, for Edinburgh Disability Benefit Centre and the period February 2002 to May 2004 by month

  Month

  Lodged1

  Received2

  Cleared at hearing

  Cleared in favour

  Cleared against

  Cleared upheld

  Cleared others

  Adjourned

  Postponed

  March

  30

  20

  40

  20

  —

  20

  —

  5

  10

  April

  25

  15

  30

  15

  —

  15

  —

  10

  5

  May

  75

  20

  5

  —

  15

  —

  10

  5

  Total

  1,150

  1,175

  905

  390

  —

  495

  20

  140

  120

  '—'denotes data equal to nil or negligible.

  1 An appeal is lodged with the first tier agency. This may bring about a reconsideration by the decision maker. When the first tier agency receives this application, this is called the lodgement date.

  2 When an appeal is sent to the Appeals Service for them to action, this is the received date.

  Appeals data notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  2. The whole of Scotland is covered by Glasgow and Edinburgh Disability Benefits Centres figures for the latest months may rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest five and may not sum.

  Attendance allowance in payment within Scotland, February 2002 and 2004

  Attendance allowance in payment

  February 2002

  129,200

  February 2004

  134,600

  Attendance allowance data notes:

  1. Cases where payment of benefit has been suspended are excluded.

  2. February 2002 figure taken from a 5 per cent. sample at 28 February 2004.

  February 2004 figure taken from a 5 per cent. sample at 29 February 2004.

  3. From November 2002, the methodology for producing these figures was changed to allow statistics to be published much sooner. This has resulted in a small increase in the reported case load. This is because some cases which have actually terminated but have not yet been updated on the computer system are now included.

  4. May 2004 are unavailable, as yet unreleased.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  Pension Protection Fund
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his proposed fund to offer financial assistance to workers who have lost their pension rights in private schemes will cover employees of foreign owned entities; and if he will make a statement. [184749]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The details of the financial assistance scheme, including the eligibility of employees of foreign owned entities, will be developed through consultation with stakeholders such as pension scheme trustees, trades unions and key business representatives. Until this work has been completed we will not be in a position to give any scheme members assurances that they will be covered. To do otherwise could be misleading.

  Pensioners (Domiciled Abroad)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements are in place for the payment of(a) state pension and (b) other benefits to UK senior citizens who retire to (i) another EU state, (ii) Norway, (iii) Switzerland, (iv) the USA and (v) Australia; what the current value is of a UK state pension paid to an individual who retired to each of these countries in (A) 1985, (B) 1995 and (C) 2000; and if he will estimate the cumulative difference in the total value of pensions such an individual would have received in each of the stated areas compared to an individual who retired in the UK. [184368]
  156W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Payment of a UK State Pension is not affected by a person's country of residence during retirement. However, where a pensioner lives outside the UK, the State Pension is not uprated unless he or she is living in a country in respect of which EC legislation or a reciprocal agreement provides for uprating.

  The European social security co-ordinating regulations contain rules which set out whether UK benefits are paid in another Member State (Regulation 1408/71). From June 2002 Switzerland is also covered by these regulations. UK pensioners who live in another Member State or Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland or Switzerland may receive UK benefits there. This will depend on whether the benefits are covered by the coordinating regulations, the nationality of the person and which state they are living in.

  The table shows the cumulative value, from 1 April 1985, 1995 and 2000 respectively to the end of the 2003/04 financial year, of upratings of a full basic State Pension (excluding age additions) which a person would have received if:

  a) he remained entitled to a full basic State Pension; and

  b) he was continuously resident in a country in respect of which either legislation or a reciprocal agreement provided for the uprating of State Pension.

  £

  Date

  Rate of full basic State Pension per week

  Cumulative value of year on basic State pension

  1 April 1985

  35.80

  20,467.95

  1 April 1995

  57.60

  4,626.35

  1 April 2000

  66.75

  1,360.10

  Polygamous Spouses
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the total value of benefits paid to polygamous spouses was in each of the last five years; [185671]

  (2) how many polygamous spouses are in receipt of benefits from his Department. [185672]
  157W
  Mr. Pond
  The information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether staff in the Department are permitted to dissuade benefit recipients from opening Post Office Card Accounts; [184628]

  (2) how many people who are not in receipt of benefits have opened a Post Office Card Account. [184629]

  Mr. Pond
  Staff in the Department for Work and Pensions do not in any way discourage customers from opening Post Office card accounts.

  All Department for Work and Pensions staff have been provided with information on all of the account options available to the customer. The role of our staff is to provide factual information on the features of the different account options available to the customer. The customer can then decide which type of account they choose to have their money paid into based on their individual needs and circumstances.

  Many customers are choosing the Post Office card account option, with 2.8 million having opened one so far.

  The Post Office card account is available only to those in receipt of benefits, state pensions and tax credits.

  However, it is important that customers are made aware that the Post Office card account is not the only account that can be used at post offices.

  Renewable Energy
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of electricity used by buildings in(a) his Department and (b) its agencies has come from renewable sources for each year from 1997 to date. [181394]

  Mr. Pond
  DWP was set up in June 2001. The proportion of electricity it has obtained from renewable sources has been 25 per cent. and 21.4 per cent. in 2001–02 and 2002–03 respectively.

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

  Information for 2003–04 will be reported in the next Sustainable Development in Government report in November 2004.

  The Department continues to exceed the target for sourcing 10 per cent. of its electricity from renewable sources, as set out in the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate". The framework can be found on the Sustainable Development in Government website.

  Referrals for Medical Advice (Claimants)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many referrals for medical advice were made by staff of his Department when assessing the capacity of a claimant to manage his/her financial affairs in 2002–03. [182700]
  158W
  Maria Eagle
  The Department does not normally require a report by a qualified medical officer before granting an appointeeship. A visiting officer will make an independent assessment of a customer's ability to manage his or her own affairs based on Department guidelines. In cases where there is some doubt the opinion of a suitably qualified professional may be sought, for example a social worker, community psychiatric nurse or general practitioner.

  Information is not available on of the number of interviews that are undertaken.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what training staff of his Department receive prior to undertaking assessments of a claimant's capacity to manage their own financial affairs; [182698]

  (2) what guidance is given to staff of his Department on appointeeship; when this guidance was last updated; and whether it is available to the public (a) through the Department's website and (b) from local offices. [182727]

  Maria Eagle
  A wide range of training is available to staff undertaking assessments of a person's capacity to manage their own affairs, including training on disability awareness, and working with vulnerable groups, which contains specific training regarding dealing with people with mental health problems. In addition new visiting officers will spend time accompanying more experienced members of staff as part of their training.

  All staff have access to guidance in the Agents, Attorneys, Appointees and Receivers Guide, which is currently being updated. While there is currently no specific training about undertaking an assessment of a person's capacity to manage their own financial affairs, a new training product is currently being developed which will help staff identify who may need an appointee.

  The Department's internal guidance is not available to members of the public.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average number of working days lost per person due to sickness absence in(a) his Department and (b) each of its business areas was in 2003–04. [184674]

  Maria Eagle
  The information required for 2003–04 is in the table.

  Average working days lost

  DWP

  12.6

  Jobcentre Plus

  12.7

  The Pension Service

  12.1

  Child Support Agency

  15.6

  Disability and Carers

  11.9

  The Appeals Services

  11.2

  Corporate centre

  10.2

  Civil Servants (Staffing Plans)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated civil service staff(a) reductions and (b) relocations within his Department and its business units in each of the next four years, as set out in the Spending Review. [185060]

  Maria Eagle
  Following the Spending Review announcement, detailed business and staffing plans continue to be developed across all parts of the Department in order to manage the seduction of 30,000 posts by March 2008, and the planned relocation of work from London and the south east. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a written statement to the House on 29 June outlining the first phase of this transformation. We will inform the House as further planning decisions are made.

  Unemployment Statistics (Over-50s)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of people between the age of 50 and state
  pension age who are not working are claiming benefit, broken down by gender;

  People aged 50 to State pension age claiming key benefits and estimated numbers not in work

  Men

  Women

  All

  People claiming key benefits other than Disability Living Allowance November 20031

  1,015,600

  545,500

  1,561,100

  As above but excluding cases identified as in work or Income Support cases in residential care

  1,002,100

  533,800

  1,535,900

  Estimated number of individuals in private households not in work autumn/winter 2003

  1,410,000

  1,231,000

  2,641,000

  1 Figures include people claiming Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance, Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Source:

  Number of people claiming benefits—5 per cent. sample of administrative data. Estimated numbers not in work—Labour Force Survey.

  Income Thresholds
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the income thresholds used in paragraph 7 of the reply by the Government to the Second Report of the Work and Pensions Committee of Session 2003–04, Cm 6200 are in weekly cash amounts of income(a) before housing cost s, (i) for the relative low income and (ii) for the absolute low income and (b) after housing costs (A) for the relative low income and (B) for the absolute low income. [183821]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the tables.

  Weekly cash values for the relative low income threshold by illustrative household type at 2002–03 prices

  Household type

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Couple with no children (equivalised income benchmark)

  194

  172

  Couple with two children aged 5 and 11

  283

  253

  Single with two children aged 5 and 11

  207

  175

  Couple with one child aged 5

  235

  208

  Single with one child aged 5

  159

  131

  160W
  how many of these rely on benefits to make up more than half of their income, broken down by gender; how much is being spent on benefits for this group; and if he will make a statement. [172532]

  Mr. Pond
  The estimated expenditure on incapacity related benefits, Jobseekers Allowance, other income-related benefits and disability or carer benefits for claimants aged 50 to state pension age is estimated to be £11.6 billion in 2003–04. Total expenditure on all claimants aged 50 to state pension age in 2003–04 is estimated to be £12.5 billion.

  In 2001–02, the latest year for which information is available, benefits made up over half of individual income for 82 per cent. of men and 89 per cent. of women, overall 84 per cent. of people, aged 50 to state pension age receiving any benefit other than those with just Child Benefit or Winter Fuel Payment' and not working.

  The available information on the number of people aged 50 to state pension age claiming benefits, and the number in this age group who are not in work is in the table.
  1 Individual incomes data 2001–02. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are not considered as benefit income or part of total income.

  Weekly cash values for the absolute low income threshold by illustrative household type at 2002–03 prices

  Household type

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Couple with no children (equivalised income benchmark)

  166

  140

  Couple with two children aged 5 and 11

  242

  206

  Single with two children aged 5 and 11

  178

  143

  Couple with one child aged 5

  201

  170

  Single with one child aged 5

  136

  107

  Notes:

  1. Estimates relate to the household's status at the time they were interviewed for the FRS.

  2. The threshold '60 per cent. of median' (equivalised weekly household income) is the most commonly used in reporting absolute and relative trends in low income.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error, and to remaining variability in non-response which is not corrected by the grossing regime.

  4. Equivalised incomes use the McClements equalisation scale.

  5. When reporting numbers of individuals in 'relative low income', we apply 60 per cent. of the median income for the year in question; therefore, this threshold changes from one year to the next.

  161W

  6. When reporting numbers of individuals in 'absolute low income', we take a single level of real equivalised income, which is set at 60 per cent. of the 1996–97 median income, which is £166 before housing costs and £140 after housing costs, at 2002–03 prices. Equivalised income adjusts household income for household size and composition. The corresponding cash values for this absolute threshold, for different family types are shown in the table.

  7. All figures are in pounds per week, in 2002–03 prices, rounded to the nearest pound, and are consistent with current National Statistics conventions.

  8. The figures relating to absolute and relative low income were derived from "Households Below Average Income—An analysis of the income distribution for 1994–95—2002–03" (HBAI). Copies are available in the Library.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  New Deal
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many young people have joined the Young New Deal scheme in each year since its inception. [184308]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table.

  New Deal for Young People

  Number

  1998

  212,930

  1999

  192,290

  2000

  174,770

  2001

  162,700

  Community nurses

  Allied health professions

  Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Central Cheshire Primary Care Trust

  Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  Central Cheshire Primary Care Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital National Health Service Trust

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  Herefordshire NHS Primary Care Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  Herefordshire NHS Primary Care Trust

  South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  West Kent and Social Care Trust

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust

  West Kent and Social Care Trust

  Care Packages
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have received care packages to enable them to stay in their homes in Greater London in each of the last five years. [179394]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the estimated number of clients who received a community based service following a community care assessment in Greater London for 2000–01 to 2002–03. Data for previous years are not available.

  Estimated number of clients receiving a community based service1 in Greater London2

  Rounded data

  Number of clients3

  2000–01

  179,000

  2001–02

  186,000

  2002–03

  182,000

  162W

  New Deal for Young People

  Number

  2002

  164,230

  2003

  171,900

  2004

  45,120

  Total

  1,123,930

  Notes:

  1. All figures are for January to December except 2004 which is January to March.

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

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate

HEALTH

  Agenda for Change
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Answer of 6 July 2004,Official Report, column 606W, on Agenda for Change, which of the early implementer-sites are testing the new system for (a) community nurses and (b) allied health professionals; and if he will make statement. [184205]

  Mr. Hutton
  Community nurses are employed in eight of the 12 early implementer sites. Allied health professions are employed in 10 sites.

  A list of the sites who are currently testing the system for these staff groups is shown in the table.

  1Community based services includes day care, meals, respite care, direct payments, professional support, transport and equipment as well as home care.

  2 Includes councils with social services responsibilities in inner and outer London.

  3 Care should be taken when comparing data across the years as recording practices, level of completion and quality may have changed.

  Chiropody Services (Access)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve access to chiropody services. [182821]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have taken action to increase numbers of chiropodists working in the national health service and entering training. Between 1997 and 2003, the number of qualified chiropodists employed in the NHS has increased by 16 per cent. and between 1999–2000 and 2003–04, the number of students entering training has increased by 33 per cent. Further increases in the NHS chiropody workforce are
  163W
  expected as a result of the "Delivering the NHS Plan" forecast for 30,000 more therapists and scientists by 2008 than there were in 2001.

  Consultancy Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by(a) his Department and (b) the NHS on consultancy services in each year since 1996. [182412]

  Mr. Hutton
  Expenditure by the Department and the national health service on external consultancy services in each year from 1996–97 to 2003–04, is shown in the table. However, it is not possible to separate the figures for consultancy and contract staffing for NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs).

  £ million

  Financial year

  Department

  Strategic health authority

  NHS trust

  Primary care trust

  1996–97

  14.699

  222.003

  2107.152

  4—

  1997–98

  12.694

  224.838

  210.722

  4—

  1998–99

  7.332

  228.537

  293.072

  4—

  1999–2000

  8.132

  235.056

  293.304

  4—

  2000–01

  6.531

  242.097

  2105.853

  20.948

  2001–02

  6.800

  266.855

  2125.948

  216.090

  2002–03

  7.266

  219.648

  2149.438

  259.154

  2003–04

  110.031

  3

  3

  3

  1 This is the latest figure included in the accounts, but the accounts have yet to be authorised.

  2 Figures for NHS trusts and PCTs include both contract staffing and consultancy services.

  3 Figures for strategic health authority, NHS trusts and PCTs not yet available for this year.

  4 PCTs were not in existence for these years.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data protection rules apply to the transmission of UK health records to health authorities abroad. [184342]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Data Protection Act 1998 regulates disclosures, including transfers abroad, of health information about identifiable living individuals. Subject to specified exemptions the Act requires data controllers, including national health service organisations, to comply with the eight 'data protection principles' set out in schedule 1, part 1 to the Act. The first and eighth principles are particularly relevant to transfers abroad. Where the foreign transfer is to a 'data processor', for example, any person or organisation processing data on behalf of the United Kingdom data controller, the seventh principle will also be important.

  Among other provisions, these three principles respectively provide that such transfers must be fair and lawful; ensure "an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data" and include "appropriate technical and organisational measures" to protect the information.

  Deafblind Awareness Week
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to be invoked in and mark the celebration of Deafblind Awareness Week. [178618]
  164W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Although I was invited to an event organised by Sense to mark Deafblind Awareness Week, I was unfortunately unable to attend. I recognise the contributions of Sense, Deafblind UK and other organisations in the voluntary sector in raising awareness of the needs of deafblind people.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have retired from dentistry in each year since 1997 for which figures are available. [180640]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The available information in the table is from the National Health Service Pensions Agency for the number of pensions awarded in England and Wales where a NHS pension has been claimed prior to the scheme's normal retirement age and at the scheme's normal retirement age. These will include pensions paid on the grounds of ill health, premature retirements following redundancy and voluntary early retirement before age 60 (introduced from 6 March 1995).

  All dentists' retirements

  Total dentist pension awards

  1997

  359

  1998

  333

  1999

  322

  2000

  314

  2001

  363

  2002

  375

  2003

  363

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many digital hearing aids were fitted in each of the past seven years in each region of England. [180034]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The national health service fitted very few, if any, digital hearing aids before September 2000. The modernising hearing aid services project began as a pilot project in September 2000, initially in only 20 sites. In the first 18 months of the project to April 2002, about 30,000 digital hearing aids were fitted. A further 42,000 aids were issued in the year to April 2003; and 80,000 were fitted in the year to April 2004. We are unable to give a breakdown of digital hearing aid provision by region.

  Free NHS Treatment (Eligibility)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether there are systematic checks on eligibility for free NHS treatment; [177792]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the level of abuse of the NHS by people who have no right to free treatment. [177793]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioner practices need to check details of an individual's residence or previous registration before deciding whether to accept the person as a registered patient, either on a permanent or temporary basis. This is set out in regulations and
  165W
  guidance. For hospital services, regulations require the National Health Service Trust providing treatment to make
  "such enquiries as it is satisfied are reasonable in all the circumstances, including the state of health of the overseas visitor"

  to determine a patient's chargeable status. Guidance makes clear that all patients should be asked baseline residency questions and to produce supporting basic evidence.

  Following the launch of the consultation on "Proposals to Exclude Overseas Visitors from Eligibility to Free NHS Primary Medical Services", a copy of which is available in the Library, we are undertaking an evidence gathering study that will seek to identify to what extent visitors to England are obtaining free NHS treatment inappropriately. We are proposing to publish the results of this in conjunction with the outcome of the consultation in autumn 2004. In addition, we have just started a study of 12 NHS trusts across the country, including monitoring impact of use by European Union accession countries.

  General Practitioners (Night Calls)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the national health service in payments for general practitioners for maintaining a night call out service for patients in each year from 1974 to 2003. [173636]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1974, £18.4 million is recorded has having been spent on payments to general medical service (QMS) general practitioners for out-of-hours responsibilities. In 2003, the total expenditure is recorded as £112.3 million. The full data is shown in the following tables.

  Payments for out-of-hours services by general medical practitioners1

  England 1973–74 to 2002–03

  Amount (£000)

  1973–74

  16,080

  1974–75

  18,432

  1975–76

  23,918

  1976–77

  26,043

  1977–78

  26,160

  1978–79

  30,599

  1979–80

  36,348

  1980–81

  49,464

  1981–82

  56,052

  1982–83

  62,500

  1983–84

  65,762

  1984–85

  75,138

  1985–86

  81,251

  1986–87

  84,010

  1987–88

  92,255

  1988–89

  103,645

  1989–90

  112,980

  1990–91

  56,106

  Amount (£)

  1991–92

  60,399,212

  1992–93

  59,714,582

  1993–94

  67,390,011

  1994–95

  63,081,368

  1995–96

  82,604,687

  1996–97

  128,292,714

  166W

  Amount (£)

  1997–98

  126,587,811

  1998–99

  127,312,395

  1999–2000

  129,849,905

  2000–01

  128,869,510

  2001–02

  118,638,953

  2002–03

  112,315,234

  Note:

  1Data for QMS only.

  Sources:

  1. Figures are taken from the relevant summarised accounts for 1973–74 to 1990–91.

  2. Annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 1991–92 to 1995–96.

  3. Annual financial returns of health authorities, 1996–97 to 2001–02.

  4. Annual financial returns of strategic health authorities, 2002–03.

  5. Annual financial returns of primary care trusts, 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  Health Care Related Infection
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in combating health care-related infection in England. [183039]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Infection control within the national health service is improving and there are some excellent examples of good practice in our hospitals. We are determined to bring everywhere up to the standards of the best and the wide range of work under way is set out in "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection".

  Islington Primary Care Trust
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available to the Islington Primary Care Trust for each year of its existence to date; and what the projected amounts are for future years. [184724]

  Mr. Hutton
  Revenue allocations to Islington Primary Care Trust (PCT) from 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 12 December 2002 as follows:

  Amount (£000)

  2003–04

  248,319

  2004–05

  272,794

  2005–06

  298,986

  This was the first time allocations were made from the Department direct to PCTs. Prior to this, allocations were made direct to health authorities.

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Trust
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for bed capacity in the Leeds Community and Mental Health Trust; at what level of bed capacity the Trust is operating; and if he will make a statement. [184139]
  167W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2002–03, Leeds Mental Health Teaching National Health Service Trust had 608 beds, with an occupancy rate of 79.2 per cent.Source:
  Form KH03, Department of Health.

  LIFT Projects
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy whenever possible to use local architects, builders and tradespeople in designing and building local investment finance trust (LIFT) projects in England; and if he will make a statement. [184291]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no size limit on firms participating in national health service local investment finance trust. It is a legal requirement to evaluate all competing bids in a transparent manner. Advertising through the Official Journal of the European Community means that competition is fair and open and non-discriminatory for all bidders. Contracts will be awarded to the bidders offering best value for money.

  Medical Data Exchange (Cuba)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are in place for exchange of medical data on UK citizens with Cuba. [184341]

  Mr. Hutton
  The exchange of medical data between the United Kingdom and Cuba must be in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the common law duty of confidentiality. When these legal requirements are met, local organisations may establish provisions for exchanging medical data where this is a locally determined business requirement.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of air travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain was for(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department in the last year for which figures are available. [184528]

  Ms Rosie Winterton>
  The cost of air travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is not readily identifiable and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  All ministerial and civil service travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, Travel by Ministers, and the Civil Service Management Code, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the implications are for current NHS practice of the World Health Organisation's re-classification of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome as a neurological disorder. [184514]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The World Health Organisation's international classification of diseases, ICD 10, provides a system of categories for international systematic recording. They are not diagnostic criteria and are not 168W
  used by clinicians as such. Patients benefit most from a holistic model of care and new services are being developed to provide this. Services have not been designed around the ICD 10 in the past, nor do we expect them to be in the future.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds there are in the national health service; and what plans he has to change the number. [184044]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2002–03 the average daily number of available national health service beds in England was 183,826. This includes acute, geriatric, mental illness, learning disability and maternity beds.

  The "NHS Improvement Plan" contains no targets for the total number of NHS beds. However, there is a major hospital building programme under way to deliver on commitments in the "NHS Plan" to improve NHS hospitals. The NHS is on course to exceed the two "NHS Plan" commitments of 100 new hospitals by 2010 and to reduce the age of hospitals such that over 40 per cent. of the NHS estate will be less than 15 years old by 2010.

  NHS Posts (E-advertising)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department conducted before deciding to introduce electronic recruitment of NHS job vacancies; and if he will place a copy of the conclusions in the Library. [183130]

  Mr. Hutton
  A copy of the strategic case prepared by the Department for the procurement of the national health service e-recruitment service has been placed in the Library.

  Non NICE-appraised Treatments
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the patient choice initiative will allow patients to be treated with non-National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraised treatments if it is their choice and their clinicians concur. [183987]

  Mr. Hutton
  From 2008, for planned hospital care, a patient will be able to choose any health care provider which meets the Government's standards for health care in England. The draft standards were published for consultation in the spring and will be published shortly.

  The new standards will require any health care organisations providing national health service treatment to conform to nationally agreed best practice or nationally agreed guidance, including National Institute for Clinical Excellence technology appraisals.

  Pain Management
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to patients who are in severe pain while awaiting NHS treatment. [184042]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not issue guidance to patients on clinical issues such as this. The patient's general practitioner or another health care professional
  169W
  should provide guidance and advice on appropriate treatments or measures for reducing pain while waiting for further treatment.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed in the pharmaceutical industry in the UK; and what proportion are employed in(a) sales promotion and (b) research and development. [183532]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2002, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) annual business inquiry showed that there were 83,000 people employed in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, medicinal chemicals, and botanic products. The ONS business enterprise research and development survey showed that 29,000 people, or 35 per cent., were employed in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. The Government do not have figures for the percentage of people employed in sales in this sector.

  Supporting People Report (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) social services and (b) NHS bodies in Gloucestershire on the recent Supporting People Report. [184231]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have not had any discussion specifically with Gloucestershire social services or national health service bodies, or with any other local social services or health bodies, about "Supporting People". But at the national level I remain in close contact with my ministerial colleagues in the Office of my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, who are in the lead on this important initiative. There is a considerable amount of work going on to take this initiative forward at both national and local levels and we will continue to involve stakeholders in this.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Balkans
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current security situation in(a) Kosovo and (b) the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [184241]

  Mr. MacShane
  The overall security situation in Kosovo is currently stable but tense. Since March, there continue to be isolated incidents of violence which have been contained by local law enforcement. As a means to enhance the exchange of information on security issues a Kosovo Security Advisory Group has been set up with representatives of all the Kosovo communities, UNMIK and KFOR.

  The security situation in Macedonia is stable, but fragile, particularly in the former crisis areas in the north west of the country. We judge that most violence is linked primarily to criminality. However, tensions could escalate as ongoing discussions on a number of issues, in particular the decentralisation process called for by the Ohrid Framework Agreement, come to a head.
  170W
  We continue to monitor the situation in both Kosovo and Macedonia carefully.

  Belarus
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of(a) the political situation in Belarus and (b) whether the forthcoming elections will be free and fair. [184774]

  Mr. MacShane
  The failure of the Belarussian Government to adhere to European standards in respect of human rights, freedom of expression and democracy in Belarus remains a matter of concern to the Government. It is too early to assess the likely conduct of the elections. We have made clear to the Belarussian Government that we expect the authorities in Minsk to ensure that the elections are free and fair and that international observers will be invited.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterpart in Cameroon concerning(a) the preparations of the electoral roll for this year's presidential elections and (b) the treatment by the security forces of members of the parliamentary opposition during the demonstration held in Yaounde on 6 July; and if he will make a statement. [183681]

  Mr. Mullin
  I emphasised the importance of a free, fair and transparent election with President Biya when he visited the UK in March 2004. The UK maintains a constant dialogue with the Government of Cameroon on preparations for the election, including preparation of the electoral roll. We are aware of the incident at the opposition coalition's demonstration in Yaounde on 6 July. We monitor such events carefully.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a reply will be sent to the hon. Member for Walsall, North's letter of 9 June concerning the entry clearance application at the British High Commission in New Delhi of Mr. Vijay Kumar. [185287]

  Mr. Mullin
  UK visas replied to my hon. Friend on 14 July. I apologise for the delay.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on de-mining operations in the buffer zone in Cyprus. [R] [185137]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government are supportive of efforts to address this important issue and in our contacts with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot authorities we have urged them to move forward.

  It should also be noted that the European Commission is funding a de-mining project in Cyprus. This project is drawing on UK expertise and is partly funded by a UK contribution.
  171W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the number of Turkish troops in Cyprus. [185156]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: We have no precise figures of our own. Current estimates are in the region of 25,000.

  The UN Secretary General's settlement plan provided for a phased withdrawal that would ultimately have allowed for the presence of 950 Greek troops in the south and 650 Turkish troops in the north. The rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriots means this will not now take place.

  Any steps taken now to reduce existing troop levels would be welcome.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Turkey concerning the extension of the Turkey/EU customs agreement to Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R] [185138]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government, through a combination of direct ministerial contact and exchanges between British and Turkish officials in London, Ankara and Brussels, maintains a close dialogue with the Turkish Government on a wide range of issues related to Cyprus. The extension of the EU-Turkey customs union to all those EU member states who joined the EU on 1 May is one such issue. Implementation of the customs union is important to the effective functioning of the single market.

  I am glad to say that Turkish Foreign Minister Gul wrote on 10 June to the European Commission saying Turkey would take all measures to ensure functioning of the customs union from 1 May

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Foreign Office spent on(a) advertising and (b) public relations consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [184502]

  Mr. Straw
  In FY 2002–03—the most recent year for which audited figures are available—separately identifiable expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on UK advertising totalled £743,783. Of this, £716234 related to media spend on advertising for recruitment purposes. The balance related to consular media advertisements which aimed to raise awareness among the British public of the importance of being properly prepared before travelling overseas and to advertising of the FCO's public open days. The total figure is based on the final accounts for FY 2002–03 and replaces the figure which I supplied to the right hon. Gentleman on 7 January 2004,Official Report, column 411W, which drew on provisional calculations. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the fact that this was not made clear in my previous answer.
  172W
  The FCO's central expenditure on public relations consultancy in FY 2002–03 totalled £291,971. Of this, £268,862 was paid to a single agency for work on the Consular awareness-raising campaign, 'Know Before You Go'.

  The FCO's overseas posts and its non-departmental public bodies also commission advertising and occasionally employ public relations consultants, but details are not recorded centrally. Information about the costs incurred by these activities could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Records of expenditure by the FCO's expenditure on advertising and public relations consultants in FY 1996–97 are not held centrally. Figures for that year could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of running Foreign Office canteen facilities in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [184507]

  Mr. Straw
  In 1996–97, the cost of providing catering to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was £160,258.31.pa In 2003–04, the latest year for which figures are available, the cost of providing catering to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was £184,201.59.

  The figures provided are based upon the subsidy paid to the catering contractor, in each of the years, for the provision of the service in London and Hanslope Park. During the period concerned, there have been changes to the nature of the service provided. In 1996–97, the service in London consisted of one restaurant, one shop and one snack bar. In the intervening years, the snack bar has become a cafeteria with a much wider variety of food on offer.

  Diego Garcia
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a representative of his Department last visited the US prison facilities on Diego Garcia. [184202]

  Mr. Rammell
  The only United States prison facilities on Diego Garcia are those established under United States Service law for the detention, as authorised by that law, of members of the United States armed forces and any accompanying civilian personnel and dependants. There is no record of any member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visiting those facilities. The US have made it clear that the British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner's Representative on Diego Garcia would be permitted to visit at any time.

  EU Presidency
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the main issues are which the Government intend to focus on during the UK's presidency of the European Union. [184260]

  Mr. MacShane
  The overall Council Agenda for 2004–06 is set out clearly in the Multi-Annual Strategic Programme (MASP), copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The agenda for the UK
  173W
  Presidency will be determined, to a large extent, by the agenda we inherit from preceding Presidencies and their progress on the dossiers identified in the MASP. The Government are in the process of detailed planning and discussion within and between Departments at ministerial and official level to identify detailed policy themes for the UK Presidency, within the context of that broader agenda.

  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held on 12 to 13 July; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [184432]

  Mr. MacShane
  The information is as follows:Outcome of the 12 July 2004 General Affairs and External Relations Council

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) in Brussels on 12 July.

  Conclusions were agreed on Afghanistan, Western Balkans, Sudan, Iraq and Asia-Europe.

  General Affairs Session

  Presidency Work Programme

  The Presidency presented its work programme for the second half of 2004. Five priorities are identified in the work programme:
  Making a success of enlargement;
  Strengthening the European economy and reducing the administrative burden;
  The area of freedom, security and justice;
  The Union's future financial and budgetary structure: Agenda 2007;
  The EU's role in the world: an effective, coherent and committed external policy.
  Constitutional Treaty

  The Council decided that signature of the EU's Constitutional Treaty will take place in Rome on 29 October.

  Progress of Work in Other Council Configurations

  The Council took note of a progress report from the Presidency on work under way in the Council's other configurations (the Justice and Home Affairs Council, the Trade Council, Economic and Financial Affairs Council, the Transport and Communications Council and the Agriculture and Fisheries Council.)

  Relations With Ukraine

  The Council took note of the Presidency's work plan regarding implementation of the EU's Common Strategy on Ukraine.

  The Commission is expected to submit a formal proposal for an action plan to the Council in September 2004. This should lead to a comprehensive plan, which at the same time identifies clearly a limited number of key priorities and offers real incentives for further reform.

  The current Common Strategy on Ukraine expires in December 2004.
  174W
  Visas—Russia

  The Council decided to authorise the Commission to begin negotiations with the Russian Federation on facilitation of the issuance of short-stay visas to EU and Russian citizens.

  United Nations

  The Council approved a paper on the European Union's priorities for the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly. The emphasis of these priorities is to uphold and develop international law, and to effective multilateralism.

  External Relations Session>

  WTO/DOHA Development Agenda

  The Council took note of the presentation made by Commissioner Lamy on the current state of the negotiations. The Council underlined the importance of reaching a satisfactory agreement at the WTO General Council at the end of July on the negotiating frameworks for agriculture, non-agricultural market access, the Singapore Issues, and development. The Council agreed to hold a special session of the Council in Brussels, which is foreseen for the 26 July 2004, with a view to establishing an EU position.

  Iraq

  The Council met the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mr. Zebari, who indicated the areas in which he hoped the EU would be able to make a visible contribution to the political, economic and social reconstruction of his country. The Council welcomed this opportunity to discuss the future of Iraq with Mr. Zebari, and looked forward to deepening political engagement with Iraq. The Council warmly welcomed the restoration of sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government that took place on 28 June. It reaffirmed its support for the people of Iraq and the fully sovereign Iraqi Interim Government. Conclusions were agreed.

  Middle East Peace Process

  The Council examined the situation in relation with the Middle East Peace Process following in particular the Advisory Opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice on 9 July concerning
  "Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory".

  Asia-Europe

  The Council discussed the way ahead on preparations for the ASEM Summit and adopted conclusions.

  Sudan

  The Council expressed grave concern at the situation in Darfur and continued to emphasise the importance of humanitarian access, human rights and security. The Council called upon member states and other actors of the international community to substantially increase their support to the humanitarian relief effort under way. The Council welcomed the active involvement of the international community. The Council welcomed the efforts to address. this issue at the UN Security Council. Conclusions were agreed.

  Western Balkans

  Serbia and Montenegro: The Council welcomed the outcome of the recent presidential elections in Serbia. It encouraged all democratic forces to work together in order to accelerate political and economic reforms, to fulfil all international obligations, including full cooperation with ICTY.
  175W
  Serbia and Montenegro/Kosovo: The Council confirmed that the new Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Kosovo, Mr. Soren JessenPetersen, will have the full support of the European Union.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina/ICTY: The Council strongly supported the measures announced on 30 June by EUSR and High Representative Paddy Ashdown to help ensure that Bosnia and Herzegovina co-operates fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: The Council expressed its gratitude to the outgoing EU Special Representative, Mr. Soren Jessen-Petersen, for his vital contribution to the consolidation of peace and stability in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It appointed ambassador Michael Sahlin as his successor, who will take up the position of EUSR on 1 August 2004.

  Conclusions were agreed.

  Afghanistan

  The Council welcomed the decision announced by the Joint Electoral Monitoring Body (JEMB) to hold presidential elections in Afghanistan on 9 October 2004. These elections are a key requirement under the Bonn Agreement of December 2001 and represent a new milestone in the process of constructing a democratic, stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Conclusions were agreed.

  European Security and Defence Policy

  EU military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

  The Council adopted a Joint Action on the European Union Military Operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This follows the decision by NATO to conclude its successful SFOR-operation and the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of Resolution 1551. Major General A. David Leakey (UK) was appointed EU Force Commander.

  European Union Special Representative in BiH

  The Council adopted a Joint Action revising the mandate of the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Paddy Ashdown.

  European Defence Agency

  The Council formally adopted a Joint Action establishing an Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments—to be known as the European Defence Agency.

  Honduras
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Government of Honduras on the murder in June this year of 29 Honduran children and young people. [184298]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have not made specific representations to the Honduran Government about the deaths of 29 children and young people in June as reported by Casa Alianza, the leading NGO in Central America dealing with child protection.
  176W
  We have a regular and on-going dialogue with the Government of Honduras and with NGOs on the issue of child protection. We are currently co-funding an investigation into the juvenile justice system in Honduras, run by the University of Essex's Children's Legal Centre. The study, for which our Ambassador has secured the full support of the Honduran Government, will make recommendations to improve juvenile justice and child protection in line with Honduras's commitments to international human rights norms.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 July 2004(Official Report, column 851W) which describes dialogue we have had with the Honduran Government bilaterally and with EU partners.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was informed that SIS had withdrawn reporting from the source who claimed that production of biological and chemical agents had been accelerated by the Iraqi regime, because the source of the reporting had subsequently been deemed unreliable. [185655]

  Mr. Straw
  I became aware of the withdrawal of this reporting when I agreed, in response to a request from SIS on 8 September 2003, that the reports in question should be disclosed to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisers. [185461]

  Mr. Straw
  None. There are only two Special Advisers in post.

  Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his statement in the debate on European Affairs of 16 June 2004,Official Report, columns 786–7, what steps he has taken personally to pursue the substance of the Bill on Marine Wildlife Conservation put forward by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall); and if he will make a statement. [184177]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has asked me to reply.

  As my hon. friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on this issue. We note, however, that the Private Members Bill on Marine Wildlife Conservation put forward by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has been tabled for second Reading on Friday 15 October.

  Regeneration Projects
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money the European Union has provided to regeneration projects in each member state in(a) 1990, (b) 1995, (c) 2000 and (d) 2004. [184263]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Commission does not produce specific figures for funds spent on regeneration projects. However, figures for the overall spends on structural and cohesion funds across EU member states in 1990, 1995 and 2000 are set out in the following table. The figures for 2004 have yet to be released. Figures for 1990 and 1995 are in ECU millions and for 2000 in ¢millions.

  Country

  1990

  1995

  2000

  Belgium

  154.903

  178.59

  1,829

  Denmark

  76.66

  104.40

  745

  Germany

  511.261

  3,039.76

  28,156

  Greece

  1,171.523

  2,714.68

  20,961

  Spain

  2,836.067

  6,076.89

  43,087

  France

  1,231.601

  1,663.61

  14,794

  Ireland

  730.087

  996.85

  3,088

  Italy

  1,624.853

  2,353.29

  28,484

  Luxembourg

  10.139

  11.75

  78

  Netherlands

  142.867

  241.16

  2,635

  Portugal

  1,067.048

  1,527.70

  19,029

  United

  Kingdom

  1,107.894

  1,637.10

  15,635

  Austria

  —

  343.97

  1,473

  Finland

  —

  353.34

  1,908

  Sweden

  —

  309.36

  1,836

  Security Wall (Israel)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the Israeli High Court ruling on human rights breaches since the construction of the security wall, in relation to the EUIsrael Association Agreement. [184296]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussions with his EU counterparts on the Israeli High Court ruling on human rights breaches since the construction of the security wall in relation to the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

  Spending Review
  Mr Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the oral statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Monday 12 July 2004,Official Report, columns 1129–39, on the spending review, what percentage of the 1.4 per cent. spending increase allocated to his Department will be given back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the form of departmental assets to be sold off under his £30 billion Government asset sale. [185004]

  Mr. Straw
  None. We have an agreed asset-recycling programme with Her Majesty's Treasury which allows the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reinvest estate sales receipts, primarily for the modernisation of the estate both overseas and in the UK.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations that Government has made to the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the break-in at the office of the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka on 3 July 2004. [184318]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not made representations to the Government of Sri Lanka regarding this specific incident. Our High Commission in Colombo continues to urge the Sri Lankan authorities to ensure that those responsible for attacks such as this are brought to justice, and that the rights of all religious minorities in Sri Lanka are respected.

  UK Foreign Direct Investment
  Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the UK's foreign direct investment has changed since the European Union enlargement. [184256]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is too early yet to draw any meaningful conclusions.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Vietnam; and what representations he has made with regard to the treatment of Christians, with particular reference to evangelicals. [184226]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have regular discussions with the Vietnamese Government on a range of issues, including religious freedom and other human rights issues. We are deeply concerned at the severe restrictions on some Protestant groups in Vietnam, especially ethnic minority Protestants in the Central Highlands region.

  We regularly raise our human rights concerns. I raised during my visit to Vietnam in March again the situation in the Central Highlands with the President of Vietnam during his official visit to the UK. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also raised our human rights concerns in Vietnam the same day with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister.

  With EU partners, we also participate in a regular human rights dialogue with Vietnam. The most recent EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue meeting took place on 22 June and was attended by our Ambassador in Hanoi. We raised freedom of religion and the situation of the Protestants in Vietnam.

  We will continue to raise our concerns at every suitable opportunity.

  Visas
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used by entry clearance officers overseas to assess the personal guarantee of an hon. Member that an applicant will abide by the terms of their visa and return to the country of origin. [183490]
  179W
  Mr. Mullin
  It is not our policy to ask hon. Members for personal guarantees as such personal guarantees are not enforceable in UK law. However, assurances given by an hon. Member reflecting close personal knowledge of a sponsor or applicant would be taken into account by the Entry Clearance Officer considering an application in conjunction with other available evidence.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what authority entry clearance officers offer to overturn a decision to refuse a visa in return for a personal guarantee from an hon. Member that the applicant will abide by the terms of the visa. [183491]

  Mr. Mullin
  Entry Clearance Officers have no authority to overturn a decision to refuse a visa in return for a personal guarantee from an hon. Member that the applicant will abide by the terms of the visa.

  However, an Entry Clearance Officer or Entry Clearance Manager reviewing a decision to refuse a visa would take into account subsequent representations made by an hon. Member. These might, in a borderline case, help to satisfy him or her that the relevant requirements of the Immigration Rules were met and he might therefore be prepared to overturn the refusal.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a reply will be sent to the hon. Member for Walsall North's letter of 3 June to the Department for Work and Pensions, which was transferred to her Department on 10 June. [185288]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North was sent a reply to his letter on 19 July 2004.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 23 April 2004,Official Report, column 684W, on Royal Mail, when she expects Royal Mail to reply to the hon. Member for Gordon; and if she will make a statement on the average time taken for Post Office Ltd. and Royal Mail to write to hon. Members when her Department redirects parliamentary questions to them. [185353]

  Mr. Timms
  Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. make every effort to issue replies to hon. Members within five working days of receiving our request for information.

  It would appear that due to an administrative error the hon. Member's inquiry of 22 April 2004 was not passed on to Mr. Crozier's office at Royal Mail for a direct reply. This has now been done and a response will be sent direct to the hon. Member within the next few days.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on(a) head-hunters and recruitment consultants and (b) management consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [185376]
  180W
  Ms Hewitt
  In 2002–03, £0.9 million was spent on head-hunters and recruitment consultants and £19.4 million was spent on General Business consultants. Similar information for 1996–97 is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost of running the Department's canteen facilities was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185378]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) In financial year 1996–97 the direct cost of running the Department's staff restaurant facilities in its main HQ buildings was about £325,000.

  (b)Since June 2000, the Department's staff restaurant facilities have operated on a zero (nil) cash subsidy basis.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 64W, on European Union Standard Funds, what actual expenditure was against those allocations for each year between 2000 and 2003. [185595]

  Jacqui Smith
  European Structural Fund expenditure under the 2000–06 programmes is monitored on an annual basis. Under current regulations, each year's allocation has to be spent by the end of the second year following the year of allocation.

  Due to the late start of the Objective 2 programmes, only the Objective 1 and 3 programmes were required to spend their 2000 allocations by the end of 2002. For the UK Objective 1 programmes a total of £622.3 million had to be spent and for Objective 3 the figure was £402.1 million. These overall targets were achieved. The targets for the end of 2003 included both the 2000 and 2001 allocations for the Objective 2 programmes. A total of £3,150 million had to be spent and this figure was surpassed by £308 million.

  MOX Shipments
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the time and person power of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security will be committed to overseeing the security of the British registered PNTL nuclear transport ships in their mission to transport plutonium-based MOX test assemblies from France to the United States. [185551]

  Mr. Timms
  Staff in the Office for Civil Nuclear Security will spend whatever proportion of their time is necessary to review the draft Transport Plan with a view to its approval and, if approved, to oversee its implementation. The resources required cannot be firmly estimated in advance but I would expect them to account for no more than a moderate proportion of total OCNS resources.

  Regional State Aid
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place the initial member state response to the EU Commission proposals on regional state aid in the Library. [185576]
  181W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's response to the Commission's proposals for reform of regional state aid is due to be issued imminently. We will be making our response public. It will be placed on the Department's website and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates have been made of the costs of concrete production for the purpose of wind power generation. [184106]

  Mr. Timms
  A number of studies have estimated the overall environmental cost of building wind power generation. For example, the British Wind Energy Association states that the average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within three to five months, and over its lifetime a wind turbine will produce over 30 times more energy than was used in its manufacture. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase the amount of renewable energy sources within London. [184285]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department and the Government Office for London are working closely with the GLA in taking forward the implementation of the Mayor of London's Energy Strategy, which the Government has welcomed.

  London will benefit from the range of measures the Government has put in place to deliver its target of 10 per cent. of electricity supply from renewable sources by 2010: including Renewables Obligation on suppliers, grant support and exemption from climate change levy.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the range of the capital grant support available for renewable energy projects in the areas of(a) biomass, (b) photovoltaics and (c) solar water heating. [185398]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) Biomass—DTI and the Big Lottery Fund have allocated 66 million through the Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme to encourage the efficient use of biomass, and particularly energy groups, for energy production by stimulating the early deployment of biomass fuelled heat and electricity generation projects.

  (b) Photovoltaics—The £25 million Photovoltaic Major Demonstration Programme offers grants to householders, public bodies, small to medium enterprises and larger bodies for the installation of PV panels. Householders can get a grant of up to £3,000 and £4,250, dependent on size and type of installation. For public bodies, small to medium enterprises and larger bodies grants between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. are available on a competitive basis, assessed independently at selection panels.

  (c) Solar Water Heating—Grants are available through the Clear Skies initiative; householders can get a grant of £400 towards the cost of an installation.
  182W
  Community and not-for-profit groups can get a grant of 50 per cent., up to a maximum of £100,000, towards the cost of installation. This is done through a competitive application process. at independent assessment panels, on a round by round basis. The £10 million Clear Skies initiative was launched in January 2003 in order to promote the uptake of a number of renewable technologies including solar heating panels. Further details of the initiative, including grant levels for all the technologies supported, can be found on the website at www.clear-skies. org.

  The Scottish Executive has its own parallel scheme, the £3.7 million Scottish Community and Household Renewables Initiative, which also offers grants for the installation of solar water heating panels. Householders can get a grant of 30 per cent. up to a maximum of £4,000 for a solar water heating installation. Community organisations can get a 100 per cent. grant up to a maximum of £100,000. Community applications are assessed on essential and desirable criteria and large-scale projects may also be subject to independent technical assessment.

  Further details can be found on the website www.est.co.uk/schri.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much money has been spent in the last year on supporting rural post offices; [185539]

  (2) what plans she has for the funding of the rural post office network after 2006. [185476]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have made available £450 million to maintain the rural network up in the first instance until April 2006.

  The Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) report on the future of the post office network recommended that the Postal Services Commission should advise the Government on the main options for the policy framework after 2006. The Government are currently considering that policy advice and will take decisions on the shape of the rural post office network after 2006 in good time to allow for a smooth transition from the current support arrangements.

  Scientific Research Funding
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is on funding for scientific research bodies. [184577]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department funds world-class research with the aim of making the UK one of the most competitive locations for science, research and development and for innovation in the world.

  The Government's policy is set out in more detail in the "Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–14", published as part of this year's Spending Review. Spending for the current period is set out in the "Science Budget 2003–04 to 2005–06" copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  South-West Regional Development Agency
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the South-West Regional Development Agency's budget has been spent on projects or programmes in Gloucestershire in the last three years. [181309]

  Jacqui Smith
  I understand that the South West of England Regional Development Agency incurred expenditure of £44 million for projects in Gloucestershire in the years 2001–04. This represents 13 per cent. of SWRDA's total programme budget for these years. This figure does not, of course, capture the total percentage of SWRDA's project and programme expenditure that benefits the county, as Gloucestershire also benefits substantially from a range of regional projects and programmes funded by SWRDA, where expenditure is not directly attributable to individual county areas.

  Tyres
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tyres were(a) purchased, (b) reused and (c) disposed of by (i) landfill, (ii) incineration, (iii) illegal fly-tipping and (iv) other means in each year since 2001. [184854]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI compiles figures on behalf of the Used Tyre Working Group on used tyre recovery and disposal.

  Statistics on replacement tyre sales are provided as follows by the British Rubber Manufacturers' Association and the Imported "Tyre Manufacturers' Association. The figures for 2003 are expected to be received shortly. While these sources represent the majority of activity in this sector, there are other, diverse, routes to market and for this reason the figures should be viewed as indicative, rather than absolute. A similar caution applies to the information relating to used tyre disposal and recovery.

  Replacement tyre sales

  2001

  2002

  Units

  24,870,298

  25,485,101

  Tonnes

  234,250

  240,000

  A figure for total used tyres arisings also needs to take account of various reuse tyres not included in the figures above, including retreads and part-worns, tyres on end of life vehicles and imports of used tyres.

  Used tyre arisings

  2001

  2002

  Units

  52,832,000

  47,169,500

  Tonnes

  481,500

  447,000

  Tonnes

  2001

  2002

  Reused

  117,650

  105,100

  Energy recovery1

  40,000

  48,000

  Other recovery

  132,850

  147,400

  Total

  290,500

  300,500

  1 Figures relate solely to the use of tyros as fuel in cement kilns.

  184W
  Not all industry returns have yet been received to enable presentation of the 2003 figures, but it is estimated that the use of tyres in cement kilns rose to almost 80,000 tonnes and other recovery approached 190,000 tonnes.

  Tyres disposed of to landfill arise from two principal channels. retail outlets and end of life vehicles (ELVs). In the former case, figures show a sharp drop from over 87,000 tonnes in 2001 to around 42,000 tonnes in 2002. The 2003 figures are expected to show a further significant diversion of tyres away from landfill disposal. Tyres are also disposed of to landfill as part of automotive shredder residue. The figures for 2001 and 2002 are similar at around 57,000 tonnes, although it should be noted that this total derives from an assumption that all ELV tyres not reused as part-worns or retreads are disposed of in this way.

  For both 2001 and 2002 this leaves around a 10 per cent. gap between estimated tyre arisings and stated recovery and disposal. The difference may be due to a number of factors including over-reporting of arisings and under-reporting of recovery and disposal, together with any tyres that are stored or are otherwise not consigned for immediate treatment.

  Tyre fly-tipping takes a number of forms, including that dealt with by landowners and local authorities as well as those tyres that are dumped on the forecourts of tyre retail premises. and there are, as yet, no overall figures quantifying this illegal activity. However, The Environment Agency (EA) estimates that £1.65 million is spent annually by local authorities on tyre related fly-tipping. In addition, a joint Defra/EA report estimated that 8,700 tonnes of tyres were fly-tipped on agricultural land in 2001, equating to a cost of £1.3 million. There are a range of other affected landowners including British Waterways, Railtrack and the National Trust. In addition, there is fly-tipping on tyre retail premises where the retailer will subsequently meet the costs of disposal. A third of respondees to a 2003 survey by the representative body for tyre retailers reported that they had been subject to tyre fly-tipping. Since April 2004, Flycapture, a web-based fly-tipping database for England and Wales managed by the EA on behalf of Defra, has been operational. The database, populated with information provided by both the EA and local authorities, provides a systematic basis for the collection of information relating to all fly-tipped wastes, including tyres.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Labour Members of the European Parliament about the Working Time Directive. [185541]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  >I have had several discussions on working time with Labour MEPs as well as those from the main parties both in person in Brussels and by telephone. I have also discussed working time with MEPs from other member states. My officials also have kept in contact with MEPs and provided written briefings on the Government's position.
  185W
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of British industry about the Working Time Directive. [185542]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government regularly meet representatives from British industry to discuss a wide range of issues, including employment law and the operation of the Working Time Directive.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much his Department spent on(a) mobile telephone costs, (b) hospitality and (c) taxi costs in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [185553]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) Total mobile telephone costs for the Department, which covers costs for the Court Service, the Public Guardianship Office and DCA Headquarters for 2003–04 is £295,742.

  (b) Total hospitality (entertainment) costs for the Department, which covers costs for the Court Service, the Public Guardianship Office and DCA Headquarters for 2003–04 is £79,050.

  Information on 1996–97 is not readily available.

  (c) It is not possible for the Department to provide the full detailed information requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The Department has published rules for official travel in its staff handbook and all travel complied with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total cost of printing departmental headed notepaper was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185554]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs also replies on behalf of its Associated Offices and the Court Service.

  The Department's expenditure on departmental headed notepaper in 2003–04 was £7,738.

  Expenditure on notepaper during 1996–97 is included in general stationery costs and cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much his Department spent on(a) head-hunters and recruitment consultants and (b) management consultants in
  (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [185556]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs also replies on behalf of its Associated Offices and the Court Service.
  186W
  (a) The term "head-hunters and recruitment consultants" is taken to refer to the use of specialist agencies in recruitment to key posts and public appointments.

  (i) In 2003–04 the Department's expenditure on recruitment consultants was £414,827. The majority of this concerned the establishment of the new agency (HM Courts Service) and lay members of the 42 new local Courts Boards.

  (ii) In 1996–97 information on the use of recruitment consultants was no collated centrally and could now be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) The Department's net expenditure with management consultants in the financial years 1996–97 and 2002–03 was £1.09 million and £5.75 million respectively. (Expenditure is only collected on an annual basis and the figure for 2003–04 is not yet available.)

  This increase in expenditure reflects the wide-ranging and fast-paced programme to modernise the Department's work, to increase efficiency, provide better customer service, and value for money for the taxpayer.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the costs of running his Department's canteen facilities were in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185557]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs also replies on behalf of its Associated Offices and the Court Service.

  "Canteen Facilities" is taken to mean facilities provided primarily for use by the Department's staff. This approach is consistent with the definition used in previous questions.

  (a) The Department operated several staff canteens at various locations during 1996–97 but the running cost of these facilities can only be separated out at disproportionate cost to the Department.

  (b) At present the Department operates only one staff canteen, in its London headquarters where there is a concentration staff.

  Visitors to the building also use the facility.

  Income from sales is used to offset the cost to the Department. However, there is a need for a subsidy, the cost of which was £94,791 in 2003–04.

  Departmental Staffing
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many staff are employed in the Department, broken down by work category. [185375]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not hold information broken down by work category. However, data on staffing levels in the civil service are collected from Departments and agencies twice-yearly, in April and October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2003 were published on 22 April 2004. A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is mailable on the World Wide Web at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/news/2004/040422_ latest_asp/ these documents are also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  187W
  More detailed information on the civil service is published annually in 'Civil Service Statistics', copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The last edition, based on April 2002 data, was published in July 2003. The next edition, based on April 2003 data, is due to be published at the end of July 2004.

  The Cabinet Office publishes information on non-departmental public bodies in its annual publication `Public Bodies'. The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. 'Public Bodies 2003' was published in 16 July 2003. Copies of 'Public Bodies' published each year since 1997 are available in the Libraries of both Houses. http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agenciespublicbodies.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the reasons are for changes in staff numbers in(a) the Department, (b) the National Archives and (c) the Northern Ireland Court Service between 1998–99 and 2003–04. [185373]

  Mr. Lammy
  The reasons for changes in staff numbers between 1998–99 and 2003–04 for the following are:

  (a) The Department for Constitutional Affairs

  During the period we recruited an extra 700 staff to support the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) and its work of processing asylum appeals.

  We have also seen an increase in the Court Service due to an increase in workload including sitting days.

  (b) The National Archives

  Changes in staff numbers in the National Archives are due to the increase in service provision to the public and Government Departments.

  (c) Northern Ireland Court Service

  Staff numbers in the Northern Ireland Court Service have changed between 1998–99 (628 stall) and 2003–04 (757 staff) as a direct response to delivering the Government's agenda to modernise the delivery of justice. This included responding to the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review which significantly reforms criminal justice in Northern Ireland. Other influencing factors include the Court Service's modernisation programme which will enhance the delivery of frontline services.

  Information Commissioner
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the costs of staff employed in the Office of the Information Commissioner were in the last year for which figures are available; and what the costs are of the new offices in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland in this financial year. [185372]

  Mr. Lammy
  Staff costs for the year ended 31 March 2004 were:

  £

  Amount

  Salaries

  3,804,953

  Social security costs

  278,965

  Other pension costs

  481,345

  Temporary agency staff

  114,241

  Total

  4,679,504

  188W
  Costs for the new offices in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland in 2004–05 are budgeted to be:

  £

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Staff cost

  65,005

  65,005

  65,005

  195,015

  Travel and subsistence

  20,500

  20,500

  20,500

  61,500

  Consultancy

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  15,000

  Library and subscriptions

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  4,500

  Stationery

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  3,000

  Accommodation

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  60,000

TREASURY

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the growth was in public expenditure between 2000–01 and 2003–04(a) which was used as comparable spending with Scotland for the purposes of the Barnett Formula, (b) for Barnett comparable spending in Scotland and (c) in the North East for programmes which were comparable with the Barnett Formula compensation programmes in Scotland. [185594]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on identifiable public spending in Scotland and the North East is published in Chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Spending Analyses (Cmd. 6201). The basis of the Barnett formula comparability factors used for the 2004 Spending Review was published in the Statement of Funding Policy in July 2004 and for the 2002 Spending Review in July 2002. The Barnett formula is used to determine increases in spending of the devolved administrations, rather than the levels of spending in English regions.

  Civil Service Employment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the net number is of civil service posts created since 1997(a) in front-line services and (b) elsewhere (i) in each Government Department and agency and (ii) in total. [185368]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of civil service statistics for each Government Department and agency can be found at the following website: http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/ statistics/css.htm.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of early retirement and redundancy packages(a) in total and (b) in each Department for those civil servants whose posts are abolished pursuant to his announcement on 12 July 2004. [185370]

  Mr. Boateng
  All retirement and redundancy plans are developed and costed on a departmental basis—this is still being planned. The Efficiency Challenge Fund will help support departments, and Cabinet Office is providing a brokerage service to assist with the management of these workforce changes.

  Education Maintenance Allowance (Benefit Entitlement)
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons(a) parents of A-Level students aged 16 to

  189W
  19 years receiving education maintenance allowance are eligible for child benefit and child tax credits and (b) parents of children aged 16 to 19 years receiving education maintenance allowance studying for college-based vocational qualifications are not eligible for child benefit and child tax credit. [185388]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The parents of all students aged 16 to 19 who are undertaking courses of full-time, non-advanced education in respect of academic or vocational qualifications and who are receiving educational maintenance allowance will be eligible for child benefit and child tax credit.

  However, the Government are aware of the disparity in support to parents of children in full time education and unwaged training and intend to extend entitlement to child benefit and child tax credit for these young people at the earliest opportunity.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 6 July 2004, Official Report, column 623W.

  EU Withdrawal (Costs)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission and publish a study into the costs of UK withdrawal from the EU, which includes the economic and social impact on each region and nation of the UK. [184369]

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effects on the UK economy of membership of the European single market. [184526]

  Ruth Kelly
  The assessment of the five economic tests, published 9 June 2003, states,"With more than half the UK's trade with the EU and increasing integration of product, labour, and capital markets, the UK's economic interest is best pursued through a deepening cooperation with other European countries as part of the Government's commitment to strong EU and successful EMU."
  The Treasury estimates that 3 million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the European Union.

  International Economy
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the international economy. [185981]

  John Healey
  On 3 June, in recognition of the pressures in the oil market and because of a shortage of oil supply to meet demand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would be reviewing progress of the annual fuel duty increase planned for 1 September.

  The Government's focus since 3 June has been on OPEC and oil producers and their responsibilities to meet their own targets on sustainable oil prices, and we have sought to await the outcome of this month's OPEC Ministers meeting before making a further statement. I will give further details of discussions and progress to Members of the House when I appear before the Treasury Select Committee tomorrow.
  190W
  With the next meeting of OPEC Ministers now moved from July to September, and in light of the continuing uncertainty in the oil market, we have decided to keep the planned increase, including for sulphur-free fuel and rebated fuels, under review, and will report back further at the time of the pre-Budget report. Because of its environmental benefits the Government remain committed to the introduction of sulphur free fuel, and will be in discussion with the industry over its availability across the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will also report back on this issue at the time of the pre-Budget report.

  Network Rail Debts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will guarantee the debts of Network Rail after the abolition of the Strategic Rail Authority; and whether they will now count as part of the Government's borrowing requirement. [185431]

  Mr. Boateng
  When it is wound up, the SRA's duties and financial obligations, including those in support of Network Rail's borrowing, will transfer to the Department for Transport. This will not affect the classification of Network Rail or its debt.

  Pay Systems
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the most recent review of(a) his Department's pay systems, (b) the pay systems of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible and (c) the departmental equal pay action plan. [181355]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the most recent reviews of pay systems of the Chancellor's Departments and of their equal pay action plans has been deposited in the Library. The Chancellor is not responsible for any non-departmental public bodies.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the spending review will be of special advisers. [185481]

  Mr. Boateng
  Special advisers are appointed by Ministers, with the approval of the Prime Minister, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 (as amended).

  Spending Review 2004 published planned reductions in civil service and public administration posts of 84,150 by 2008, including the redeployment of 13,550 to front line posts/activities. Details of these reductions are a matter for individual Departments. Progress on meeting the efficiency targets will be publicly reported so that the Government are accountable for the results. Departments will report progress through their departmental reports and on their website.

  Spending Review
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Statement of 12 July 2004,Official Report, column 1131, on Spending Review, if he

  191W
  will list the £30 billion worth of asset sales included in the objective; and when he expects the sales to be completed. [184867]

  Mr. Boateng
  The £30 billion objective for asset sales covers the period to 2010 and relates to the public sector as a whole. While decisions on specific asset disposals are for individual Government Departments and local authorities, these decisions will he it formed by the work that Chancellor has commissioned from Sir Michael Lyons.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the differences between planned administration expenditure by department in Table 2.3 of the 2004 Spending Review Report and Table 5.1 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2004. [184706]

  Mr. Boateng
  The administration budgets in table 2.3 of the 2004 Spending Review are net of all income departments generate through their administrative expenditure. The figures in Table 5.1 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2004 are only net of the element of this income that forms part of other departments' administration costs.

  Figures published in the Spending Review take account of reclassifications implemented in line with the recommendation of made by Sir Peter Gershon.

  Tax Credits (Compensatory Payments)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax credit compensation claims have been(a) submitted and (b) upheld since April 2003; and what the (i) average and (ii) total value is of compensation payments made. [185054]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2004,Official Report, column 1411W, what the value of compensatory payments made to those receiving lax credits was in the last financial year. [185675]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A total of 10,800 compensation payments for tax credits were authorised in 2003–04. This represents about one eighth of one per cent of all claims received for tax credit awards. The total value of these payments was £370,000, and the average payment was £34. 255 claims were refused.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had on making the UK a cosignatory to the Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement and General Release reached on 19 July between the European Community, Philip Morris International and subsidiary companies; [185503]

  (2) what recent discussions Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have had with (a) Philip Morris International, (b) British American Tobacco, (c) Imperial Tobacco and (d) Gallaher Group plc on the status of the Memorandum
  192W
  of Understanding on the smuggling of tobacco products which these companies have with the Government; [185483];

  (3) what discussions he has had with OLAF, the European Anti-fraud Office, concerning the agreement on tobacco smuggling recently reached between the European Council and Philip Morris International. [185486]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise have Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher. As part of these, Customs meet regularly to discuss developments in the illicit market including the status of the MOUs.

  Although Customs do not currently have an MOU with Philip Morris International (PMI), as their products have much less significance in either the licit or illicit UK tobacco market, they meet regularly to discuss developments in the illicit market.

  The UK was not part of the European action taken against PMI in August 2001.

  There have been no discussions on making the UK a co-signatory to the Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to bring the Memorandum of Understanding on tobacco smuggling in line with the terms of the Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement and General Release reached on 9 July between the European Council and Philip Morris International. [185485]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise have Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) in place with the main UK tobacco manufacturers, the first of which was agreed in July 2002. Since its peak in 2000–01, the illicit cigarette market has been successfully reduced by more than 2.5 billion sticks per annum and the incidence of UK manufactured cigarettes being smuggled into the UK has fallen markedly from about 75 per cent. of large seizures to 31 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Customs regularly assess the size and composition of the illicit cigarette market in the UK and take the measures they consider will continue their successful strategy of reducing smuggling. We will assess the detail of the Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement and consider whether we would wish to become a co-signatory to the Agreement.

  Working Tax Credits (Recovery of Overpayments)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the number of low paid workers who give up work due to inability to afford child care places consequent on the reclaiming of overpaid working tax credits; and what his assessment is of the impact on business. [184718]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The data available to the Inland Revenue do not include information about the reasons for individual tax credits recipients moving out of work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Andersonstown News Group
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) nature and (b) extent of the application for funding made by the Andersonstown News Group to Invest NI. [185371]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Andersonstown News Group approached Invest NI to request assistance for a project to publish a new national daily newspaper at an estimated investment cost of circa £3 million. The project anticipated the creation of up to 41 new jobs, 35 of which were to be based at the Group's offices in West Belfast and six in new offices to be established in Monaghan Town, in the Republic of Ireland. The company anticipated that 50 per cent. of the sales revenue would be generated in the Republic of Ireland.

  A commercial appraisal of the project has been completed by independent consultants. In line with Part II, Paragraph 13 (Third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it would be inappropriate to disclose further information.

  Common Funding Formula
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the common funding formula. [184215]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department plans to consult schools on the final proposals for the Common Funding Formula over the next few months, with the aim of implementing Common Funding in April 2005.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in respect of each Department, agency and non-departmental public body in Northern Ireland the consultancy contracts that they have entered into in each of the last three financial years, together with a statement about the purpose of each contract and its cost to public funds. [181175]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information about all consultancy contracts entered into by Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland and related costs is not held centrally and could be obtained from individual bodies only at disproportionate cost. Information on consultancy contracts awarded by the Central Procurement Directorate on behalf of public bodies in Northern Ireland is held by that Directorate and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public consultation was undertaken in Northern Ireland by his Department in relation to the introduction in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill of non-jury trials for those unfit to stand trial; and if he will make a statement. [183667]
  194W
  Mr. Spellar
  There are no measures in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill that provide for non-jury trials for those unfit to stand trial. However, clauses 22 and 23 of that Bill relate to pre-trial hearings on fitness to plead and will give the judge, rather than jury, the responsibility for determining fitness to plead on mental health grounds.

  Based on a recommendation of the Auld Review of the Criminal Courts, the opportunity arose through the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill to apply this valuable measure to Northern Ireland. Given the timetable of the Bill and the opportunity presented, a public consultation was not possible.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations took place between his Department and the Home Office in relation to the introduction in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill of non-jury trials for those unfit to stand trial in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [183606]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no measures in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill that provide for non-jury trials for those unfit to stand trial. However, clauses 22 and 23 of that Bill relate to pre-trial hearings on fitness to plead and will give the judge, rather than jury, the responsibility for determining fitness to plead on mental health grounds.

  My officials have been and continue to be in close contact about provisions that fall within the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, including those which relate to non-jury pre-trial hearings on fitness to plead.

  Home Office officials have advised my officials of developments in relation to this measure and both Departments have worked closely together to keep the arrangements for Northern Ireland in line with those proposed for England and Wales and to ensure that this valuable provision is applied within Northern Ireland.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public consultation was undertaken in Northern Ireland by his Department in relation to the introduction of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill of restraining orders on acquittal; and if he will make a statement. [183604]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government's proposal to improve restraining orders and extend their availability in Northern Ireland was included in the Northern Ireland domestic violence consultation paper "Tackling Violence at Home".

  The public consultation period ran from mid October to mid December 2003 in addition to which my officials carried out 11 workshops across Northern Ireland on the proposals contained in the consultation document. The proposal to make restraining orders available on acquittal was highlighted at each of these workshops. In addition to comments made at these sessions some further 70 written consultation responses were received.
  195W
  The responses were unanimously in agreement with extending the use of restraining orders, especially for offences of violence against the person. Respondents considered that this provided extra support and protection to victims.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation; took place between his Department and the Home Office in relation to the introduction in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill of restraining orders on acquittal in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [183605]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials from both the Home Office and Northern Ireland Office are represented on the UK-wide Domestic Violence Virtual Group which was established to shadow the Inter-Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence, of which my colleague, Angela Smith, MP (the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) is a member.

  The work of the Domestic Violence Virtual Group has consequently ensured that consultation on domestic violence issues is continuous between officials of both the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office.

  In addition my officials continue to be in close contact with the Home Office about issues arising from and relating to the Domestic Violence. Crime and Victims Bill. Both Departments have been in consultation and discussion regarding the introduction of restraining orders on acquittal at each stage of the drafting and parliamentary processes.

  Employer's Liability Insurance
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will assess the effects of the removal of employer's liability compulsory insurance requirements on Northern Ireland's smallest-owner-operated limited companies; and if he will make a statement. [184937]

  Mr. Gardiner
  At national level the Department for Work and Pensions is currently reviewing the Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance regulations (ELCI) in respect of those limited companies in the UK where the owner is the only employee. If a decision is made to remove the requirement for ELCI from limited companies in the UK where the owner is the only employee, then a formal consultation will take place in the autumn with any legislative change expected in the UK early in 2005. The Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment will be closely involved in implementing the process.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many voters were turned away from polling stations in Northern Ireland at the recent European parliamentary elections for not having valid photographic identification. [179494]
  196W
  Mr. Spellar
  2,622 electors were originally turned away having arrived at a polling station without valid photographic identification. 1,123 of those electors subsequently returned before the close of poll with an alternative, correct form of ID and were able to cast their vote. The remainder of this total—1,499 electors—were unable to vote because of a failure to produce valid identification.

  The totals recorded are as follows.

  Constituency

  Number originally turned away for invalid ID

  Number of these not returning

  Belfast East

  106

  69

  Belfast North

  113

  68

  Belfast South

  92

  46

  Belfast West

  157

  82

  East Antrim

  96

  57

  East Londonderry

  143

  86

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  200

  108

  Foyle

  218

  114

  Lagan Valley

  93

  55

  Mid Ulster

  233

  138

  Newry and Armagh

  200

  108

  North Antrim

  224

  134

  North Down

  81

  54

  South Antrim

  124

  74

  South Down

  145

  86

  Strangford

  103

  58

  Upper Bann

  151

  71

  West Tyrone

  143

  91

  Total

  2,622

  1,499

  Harassment
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what precise conduct of the employee of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland found guilty in May 2001 of harassing a colleague, was deemed by the Department to have constituted the harassment; and whether this information was made known to the employee at the time the charge was levelled. [185152]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Following a thorough and impartial investigation the individual to whom the hon. Member's question refers was found to have acted in an inappropriate manner during a meeting with a colleague that caused the individual to feel upset and intimidated.

  The specific actions that were deemed to be inappropriate conduct were:

  (a)To ignore a member of staff in a distressed condition, and

  (b)To continue with a particular line of questioning and critical personal observations.

  The person to whom the hon. Member's question refers was informed of the charge on 21 May 2001, when a formal written statement defining the disciplinary charge was issued, and subsequently on 24 February 2003 in a written response to correspondence from a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland.

  Housing Executive Properties
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what proportion of former Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties that are retained by the initial owner but are now privately rented were rented within(a) three years, (b) five years, (c) seven years and (d) 10 years of the purchase; [183507]

  (2) what proportion of former Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties are retained by the initial owner but are now privately rented. [183512]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Housing Executive is unable to provide the information. The consultation document launched on 18 May 2004 proposing amendments to the House Sales Scheme and the extension of the statutory Right to Buy Scheme to Housing Associations tenants sets out a range of measures to encourage the retention of properties in the social rented sector.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many former Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties bought initially with a discount have been resold; and of these, what proportion were resold within(a) three, (b) five, (c) seven and (d) 10 years. [183511]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not readily available. The issue of discounts is covered in the consultation document launched on 18 May 2004 proposing amendments to the House Sales Scheme and extending the statutory Right to Buy Scheme to Housing Associations tenants.

  Job Losses (Civil Servants)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in Northern Ireland, broken down by Department, he anticipates will lose their jobs as a consequence of the Comprehensive Spending Review; and how he expects frontline services will be affected. [185084]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am committed to delivering efficiency gains for public services that at least match the 2.5 per cent. a year figure announced by the Chancellor in the SR2004 Spending Review outcome. All the money released through greater efficiency will be retained in Northern Ireland for reinvestment in priority front line services to the public. There is scope in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, to reduce the number of posts involved in back office and related areas, so that more people and money can be reallocated to front line services.

  The detailed implications for Northern Ireland are being considered as part of our own efficiency review which is ongoing. The conclusions of this work, together with the implications for civil service posts, will be contained in our Draft Priorities and Budget, to be published in September 2004.

  Lance Bombadier Restorick
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what advice about IRA operations was given by the RUC's Tasking Control Group (South) to members of the security forces before Lance Bombadier Restorick's death in January 1997; [183674]
  198W
  (2) what measures were taken by the security forces once it became known that an IRA operation was likely in the Bessbrook area in January 1997; [183675]

  (3) what knowledge the RUC had of future IRA operations in the Bessbrook area before the death of Lance Bombadier Restorick in January 1997. [183676]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Police Ombudsman has agreed to investigate the issues surrounding the allegations, therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  Public Transport (Disabled People)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of providing free public transport for the disabled in Northern Ireland. [184062]

  Mr. Spellar
  Free travel on scheduled public transport is available to people who are registered blind and to people in receipt of a War Disablement Pension who have been assessed as being more than 20 per cent. disabled. During the financial year 2004–05 it is estimated that the cost of providing such concessions will amount to £320,000.

  In addition, free travel is available to all Northern Ireland residents aged over 65 years of age, 57 per cent. of whom consider themselves to have a limiting longterm illness. During the financial year 2004–05, I estimate that the cost of providing free travel to that proportion of older people will be around £7.8 million.

  Since 1 April 2004, half fare concessions have been available under the Northern Ireland Concessionary Fares Scheme to people who:
  are in receipt of either mobility component of Disability Living Allowance;
  have had a driving licence refused or revoked for medical reasons;
  are registered with a Health and Social Services Trust as being partially sighted;
  are known to a Health and Social Services Trust as having a learning disability.

  The Department for Regional Development has estimated that the operating costs for these four groups of people for the financial year 2004–05 will be £205,000, at current fare levels. The estimated cost of changing the Concessionary Fares Scheme to provide free-fare travel, rather than half fare concessions, to these groups would be likely to cost around £500,000 per annum in addition to set-up costs.

  I therefore estimate that the cost of providing free travel on scheduled public transport to people with disabilities would be in the region of £8.62 million in the current financial year. However, there are currently no plans to further extend the Northern Ireland Concessionary Fares Scheme to provide free public transport for the four groups of people who have received half fare concessions since April 2004.

  Translink
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Translink expects the first of its new trains to begin service. [185154]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first of the new trains is expected to be introduced to passenger service in October 2004.

  Ulster Volunteer Force
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will recognise the Ulster Volunteer Force as a Unionist paramilitary group; and if he will make a statement; [169174]

  (2) when he will answer the question of 23 April from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, ref 169174, about the Ulster Volunteer Force. [185216]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  There is no paramilitary group categorised as Unionist. The more accurate terminology is Loyalist. The Government's overall judgment is that the ceasefire of the Ulster Volunteer Force remains in place.

  United States (Ministerial Representations)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what representations he has made

  £000

  2002–011

  2002–032

  2003–041

  2003–042

  2004–051

  ODPM(C)

  180,011

  171,648

  177,075

  173,737

  181,352

  Government offices

  110,534

  109,507

  135,205

  133,835

  115,020

  Executive agencies

  43,593

  42,584

  37,505

  35,510

  39,475

  Total

  334,138

  323,739

  349,785

  343,082

  335,847

  1 Budget

  2 Expenditure

  The budget figure in 2004–05 for the Government Offices is lower than in previous years, as additional work undertaken for Other Government Departments is agreed on an annual basis and the budgets transferred in year.

  Arm's Length Management Organisations
  Mr. David Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list arm's length management organisations which have achieved 3-star status. [184236]

  Keith Hill
  Five arms length management organisations have achieved 3-star status. These are Ashfield Homes, Brent Housing Partnership, Carrick Housing, Derby Homes and City West Homes (Westminster).

  Audit Commission
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) estimated running costs and (b) total expenditure of the Audit Commission (i) has been in each year since its creation and (ii) is expected to be in (A) 2004–05 and (B) 2005–06. [184980]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission and I will ask the Chief Executive to reply.
  200W
  to the United States Administration to prevent Sinn Fein representatives entering the USA under the provisions of the Patriot Act following the first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission in April; [182970]

  (2) what representations he has made to the State Department in the USA to place (a) the Provisional IRA, (b) Sinn Fein and (c) the Ulster Volunteer Force on the list of designated foreign terrorist organisations following the first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission in April. [182971]

  Mr. Pearson
  None.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Administration Fees
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been(a) budgeted for and (b) spent on administration fees by his Department in the last three years. [184144]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) was created following the Machinery of Government changes on 29 May 2002. The following table shows the Office's budget and expenditure for administration costs for the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04 and the budgets for 2004–05.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of pensioner households in England paid the full council tax in 2002–03. [184494]

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

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax was in England in each year from 1993 to 2003. [184559]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The requested information is in the table.

  £

  Average band D area council tax

  Average council tax per dwelling

  1993–94

  568

  456

  1994–95

  580

  473

  1995–96

  609

  498

  1996–97

  646

  525

  1997–98

  688

  564

  1998–99

  747

  614

  1999–2000

  798

  656

  2000–01

  847

  697

  2001–02

  901

  741

  2002–03

  976

  804

  2003–04

  1,102

  908

  Departmental Accounting Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the Finance Director of(a) his Office and (b) Ordnance Survey 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. [183430]

  Phil Hope
  Andrew Lean is the Finance Director for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. He is currently studying for an Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) Diploma in Financial Management. The Office's first resource accounts for 2002–03 were not qualified.

  Alastair Matthews has been the Finance Director of Ordnance Survey since July 2003. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The Ordnance Survey's Annual Accounts have been qualified on the same basis in each of the five years up to and including 31 March 2004. The qualification relates to a difference of opinion between the National Audit Office and Ordnance Survey as to whether the National Geographic Database should be capitalised on Ordnance Survey's Balance Sheet.

  Departmental Annual Reports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many copies of his Department's, and predecessor 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. [1838411]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its executive agencies were created on 29 May 2002. Both Annual Reports issued since this date have been published by The Stationery Office (TSO Ltd.). The number of copies they printed and sold, and the revenue they made is commercial in confidence and hence the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not know these details.

  The costs to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—and its principal predecessor Departments—for the past four financial years are set out as follows. Given Departmental changes, the costs of publication for the years 1997–2000 could be identified only at disproportionate cost.
  The Department for Environment, Transport and Regions Annual Report cost circa £52,000 in 2000–01;
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions's Annual Report cost circa £38,000 in 2001–02; and
  the first annual report for the Office of the Deputy prime Minister, publishing in May 2003, cost circa £17,000;
  the second annual report for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, publishing in April 2004, cost circa £49,000.

  Departmental Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [1839071]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed on 29 May 2002.
  202W
  (a) The travel and subsistence costs incurred by civil servants in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in each financial year are as follows:

  £

  2002–03

  3,156,223

  2003–04

  3,187,321

  (b) Information, for the predecessor Department could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (c) In the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's three executive agencies, (i) the Fire Service College, (ii) the Planning Inspectorate and (iii) the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, travel and subsistence costs were as follows:

  (i) The Fire Service College:

  £

  1999–2000

  181,291

  2000–01

  176,313

  2001–02

  121,095

  2002–03

  120,127

  2003–04

  150,352

  Figure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not readily be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (ii) The Planning Inspectorate (figures rounded to the nearest £100,000):

  £

  1997–98

  2,200,000

  1998–99

  1,900,000

  1999–2000

  2,100,000>

  2000–01

  2,400,000

  2001–02

  2,400,000

  2002–03

  2,700,000

  2003–04

  2,600,000

  (iii) The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre (figures rounded to the nearest £1,000):

  £

  1997–98

  39,000

  1998–99

  39,000

  1999–2000

  46,000

  2000–01

  57,000

  2001–02

  48,000

  2002–03

  46,000

  2003–04

  42,000

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code.

  East End of London (Development)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much will be spent on the development of east end areas in London in 2004–05. [184286]

  Keith Hill
  Through projects approved to date under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Thames Gateway Programme it is expected that some
  203W
  £40 million will be spent in the east end of London during 2004–5. This funding will help to regenerate existing communities and open up new opportunities for housing and employment.

  In addition to this there will be further investment by the Housing Corporation. I have asked, the Chief Executive, Jon Rouse to write to the hon. Member separately on this.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homelessness applications have been accepted in Northampton in each of the last five years. [184842]

  Phil Hope
  Information about English local authorities' activities under homelessness legislation is reported to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on quarterly PIE housing activity returns. The total number of decisions made and the number of these accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, as reported by Northampton borough council during the past five years, is tabled as follows.

  Decisions taken by Northampton borough council in respect of applications by homeless households

  Decisions

  Acceptances1

  1999–2000

  1,146

  369

  2000–01

  1,120

  430

  2001–02

  849

  286

  2002–03

  1,066

  414

  2003–04

  1,028

  420

  1Acceptances refer to eligible households found to be unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category Source:

  Source:

  ODPM quarterly PIE homelessness returns

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homelessness applications have been accepted in Portsmouth in each of the last five years. [184315]

  Phil Hope
  Information about English local authorities' activities under homelessness legislation is reported to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on quarterly PIE housing activity returns. The total number of decisions made and the number of these accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, as reported by Portsmouth City Council during the past five years, is tabled.

  Decisions taken by Portsmouth City Council in respect of applications by homeless households

  Decisions

  Acceptances1

  1999–2000

  1,871

  547

  2000–01

  1,906

  529

  2001–02

  2,500

  655

  2002–03

  2,826

  804

  2003–04

  2,040

  760

  Notes

  1Acceptances refer to eligible households found to be unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category

  Source:

  ODPM quarterly PIE homelessness returns

  House Prices/Incomes Ratio
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the house price to incomes ratio is in each region; and what plans he has to boost affordable housing investment in the South West. [185182]

  Keith Hill
  The latest data on property prices to earnings ratios are set out in the following table. The substantially increased funding for affordable housing announced in the Spending Review will, along with significant improvements in efficiency, provide 10,000 (50 per cent.) more social rented homes a year by 2007–08. More than 40,000 homes will also be provided in the next three years for essential public sector workers and through other low cost home ownership schemes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at how funding will be split between regions to reflect housing needs and our national housing priorities and targets.

  Average property price (£)1

  Average annual earnings (£)2

  Ratio of property prices to earnings

  East of England

  166,103

  26,545

  6.26

  East Midlands

  117,228

  22,932

  5.11

  London

  242,782

  31,532

  7.70

  North East

  85,702

  21,017

  4.08

  North West

  96,405

  22,964

  4.20

  South East

  196,027

  28,037

  6.99

  South West

  162,587

  23,400

  6.95

  West Midlands

  123,313

  22,879

  5.39

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  98,109

  22,304

  4.40

  England

  150,947

  25,297

  5.97

  1 January—June 2003.

  2 April 2003.

  Sources:

  Property prices: Land Registry Earnings: Office for National Statistics, New Earnings Survey

  Housing Corporation Rural Programme
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he plans to retain the ring-fenced rural programme of the Housing Corporation available to new starts in settlements of fewer than 3,000 people. [185194]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister current target—to provide at least 3,500 new affordable homes in communities with fewer than 3,000 people—covers the period 2004–06 (and early indications show that this is likely to be exceeded). From 2006–07 targets will be determined regionally based on advice from the Regional Housing Boards.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evidence his Department has collated to support its conclusions that(a) it is more cost effective to improve a house when the improvements are conducted by a housing association or an arm's length management organisation rather than by a local housing authority and (b) the transfer of local authority housing stock into alternative management and/or ownership results in higher levels of tenant satisfaction. [184121]
  205W
  Keith Hill
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The Public Accounts Committee's 40th report: Improving Social Housing through Transfer published in July 2003 contains supplementary evidence provided by the office on the value for money of stock transfer. This assessment carried out in April 2003 used guidance in the 2003 Treasury Green Book "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government" which took effect on 1 April 2003. As stated in our response to ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee's Report on Decent Homes, evidence is also available on inspection ratings of ALMOs following their first six months of operation compared with their previous inspections as local authority managed housing departments.

  Together with the Housing Corporation, we are currently considering the most appropriate approach for future monitoring and evaluating the transfer programme, and parallel work is underway for the ALMO programme. Each monitoring/evaluation system will be tailored to the particular circumstances of each programme, but will also collect consistent data so that it is possible, in the longer term, to provide a comparative assessment of decent homes delivery, value for money, and tenant satisfaction across the different programmes.

  (b) Housemark's January 2004 report showed 79 per cent. of transfer tenants were satisfied with their landlord compared to 74 per cent. for council tenants.

  As the ALMO programme did not start until 2002, there are no reliable data available to demonstrate whether levels of participation and satisfaction are improving.

  Housing Investment
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to meet Regional Planning Guidance targets of 6,000 to 10,000 new affordable homes per year established in 2001 for the South West. [183990]

  Keith Hill
  Policy of the Office Deputy Prime Ministerߝas set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3ߞis 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. Better quality information than currently available is needed to assess how we are progressing against this indicator. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does 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 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 206W
  delivery of affordable homesߞthe 2004 Spending Review will allow us to increase new social house building by 50 per cent.

  Mr. Edward. Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the departmental expenditure limit for housing was in 2003–04. [184124]

  Phil Hope
  Ho using programmes, including the growth areas, comprised £4.022 billion of the Office of the Deputy prime Minister's final departmental expenditure limit for 2003–04.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to allow arm's length management organisations access to borrowing to meet the decent homes standard. [184568]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no current plans to change the current arrangements under which local Authorities carry out the borrowing necessary for their Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) to meet the decent homes standard. ALMOs e unable to borrow direct because, as managers of the local authority's stock, they have no assets on which to secure a loan.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding has been made available in each of the last three years under the Supporting People programme to each of the housing authorities in Somerset. [184636]

  Phil Hope
  The Supporting People programme went live in April 2003. Prior to this date the Government contributed towards the administration costs of administering authorities in establishing the programme.

  For 2003–04 and 2004–05 Supporting People grants have been given for both administration and programme costs. Budgets for 2005–06 to 2007–08 have not yet been finalised. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister plans to announce individual allocations to administering authorities for 2005–06 to 2007–08 in the autumn. Supporting People grants are paid direct to county councils and unitary authorities not district authorities.

  The following table sets out the Supporting People grant funding over the last three years for each of the housing authorities in Somerset:

  £

  Grants

  Bath and North East Somerset

  North Somerset District

  Somerset

  2002–03

  Administration

  190,412

  170,885

  369,694

  Programme

  —

  —

  —

  2003–04

  Administration

  211,383

  198,798

  455,878

  Programme

  4,389,642

  6,437,692

  21,430,845

  2004–05

  Allocated Administration

  185,000

  174,217

  472,697

  Programme

  4,299,069

  6,294,582

  21,133,324

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) affordable, homes and (b) homes for rent have been built by (i) Taunton Deane borough council and (ii) housing associations in Taunton Deane in each of the last seven years. [184639]
  207W
  Keith Hill
  Figures for affordable homes built are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Based on data reported by Taunton Deane council and the National House-Building Council, the number of council and registered social landlord dwellings that have been built within Taunton Deane in the last seven financial years are shown in the following table:

  (i)Taunton Deane

  (ii)Registered Social Landlords

  1997–98

  0

  20

  1998–99

  0

  111

  1999–2000

  0

  79

  2000–01

  0

  44

  2001–02

  0

  51

  2002–03

  4

  51

  2003–04

  0

  23

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many social housing units he expects to be built in the south Midlands growth area as a result of the extra finance for housing announced as part of the Government's three-year spending plans; [184696]

  (2) what proportion of funds for affordable housing announced as part of the spending review will go to the south Midlands growth area. [184697]

  Keith Hill
  The additional funding provided in the Spending Review will, along with efficiency improvements, produce 10,000 extra social rented homes a year by 2007–08. Decisions have not yet been taken on how Regional Housing Pot funding for 2006–07 and 2007–08, including the additional funding for affordable housing, is split between regions. This needs to reflect the different pattern of needs across regions and the Government's national housing priorities, including development of the growth areas, and targets. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aiming to complete this work, which raises some complex issues, by the end of the year. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce decisions on allocation of funding within regions next summer in the light of recommendations from Regional Housing Boards, which are due in May next year.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding was made available to the London Borough of Islington for each year since 1997 for housing capital work, broken down by(a) housing capital authorisation, (b) authority to use capital receipts for housing capital work, (c) authority for stock-transferred estates to undertake capital work, (d) allocations to housing associations for work within the borough, (e) authority for work to be carried out by the arm's length management organisation; and (f) what projected funding in future years is in each of these categories. [184725]

  Keith Hill
  The information is as follows:

  (a) is comprised of a number of different elements as shown in the following table.
  208W

  £000

  Housing Supported Capital Expenditure1

  Major Repairs Allowance

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  1997–98

  12,708

  —

  136

  2,240

  1998–99

  17,214

  —

  124

  1,524

  1999–2000

  18,019

  —

  131

  —

  2000–01

  28,415

  —

  142

  —

  2001–02

  12,651

  25,434

  212

  —

  2002–03

  14,970

  25,030

  237

  —

  2003–04

  13,607

  25,477

  360

  —

  2004–05

  13,843

  23,966

  389

  —

  1Previously known as Annual Capital Guideline, includes private sector renewal and capital receipts initiative allocations; figures up to 2002–03 include an allowance for spending financed from the authorities' capital receipts.

  (b) As a with-debt authority, Islington were allowed to use the useable part of the capital receipts they generated for any capital purpose they saw fit, including housing capital work.

  (c) Islington received £22.69 million of Estates Renewal Challenge Fund funding after the transfer of two schemes in September 1999.

  (d) is comprised of three different elements, as detailed in the following table.

  £000

  Approved Development Programme

  Starter Home Initiative

  Local Authority Social Housing Grant

  1997–98

  9,130

  —

  9,192

  1998–99

  14,318

  —

  200

  1999–2000

  5,800

  —

  223

  2000–01

  9,815

  —

  1,048

  2001–02

  10,313

  —

  2,761

  2002–03

  24,906

  597

  1,541

  2003–04

  34,187

  3,183

  1—

  2004–05

  256,696

  3—

  —

  1Local Authority Social Housing Grant abolished with effect from 1 April 2003.

  2 1997–98 to 2003–04 is spend, 2004–05 is allocation.

  3 No figures for 2004—05 available yet.

  (e) Islington has been awarded provisional ALMO funding of £24.9 million for 2004–06. Release of this funding is conditional on the ALMO achieving at least a two star rating from the Housing Inspectorate when it is inspected later this year.

  (f) A provisional allocation of £16,273,000 has been made for 2005–2006. No other indications for projected funding in future years exist at this time.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to order an environmental impact assessment of the additional home construction he announced on 13 July 2004. [184821]

  Keith Hill
  Proposals for new housing development projects are subject to the requirements of the planning system. Decisions on the need for environmental impact assessment for such proposals will be taken at the appropriate by the relevant local planning authority in accordance with the requirements of Directive 85/337/ EEC (as amended) on the effects on the environment of certain public and private project which is given
  209W
  effect in England by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (England and Wales) 1999.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) affordable homes and (b) homes for rent have been built in Northampton in each of the last five years. [184865]

  Keith Hill
  Figures for affordable homes built and homes for rent built are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Based on data reported by Northampton council and the National House-Building Council, the number of registered social landlord and council dwellings that have been built within Northampton in the last five financial years are shown in the following table:

  Number

  1999–2000

  26

  2000–01

  51

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  0

  2003–04

  83

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he will take of the information on housing in the South West in the National Housing Federation's booklet, "The Evidence Update", when making future housing investment decisions about the South West region. [185387]

  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 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 Minister's on the distribution of housing resources within the region.

  Local Authority Building Control
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the 2003 annual monitoring report on the costs of local authority building control functions. [183682]

  Phil Hope
  No. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government carry out an annual monitoring exercise whereby local authorities in England and Wales are asked voluntarily to provide a return stating their total charges income and costs in carrying out their prescribed building control functions under the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998, but formal 'annual 210W
  monitoring reports' are not prepared. The information derived from the annual returns is primarily used for internal monitoring purposes, although it is shared with the Local Government Association (LGA). Moreover, a commitment has been given to individual local authorities and the LGA that the annual monitoring exercise will be earned out on an in-confidence basis. This arrangement is currently being reviewed in the light of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which comes fully into force on 1 January 2005.

  Market Towns Initiative (Harwich)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding has been spent in the Harwich constituency from the Market Towns Initiative. [185000]

  Keith Hill
  Expenditure in Harwich under the Market Towns Initiative for the period 2002–05 was forecast to be £288,884; actual expenditure to date stands at £254,157.

  These figures relate to investment delivered through the Regional Development Agency. The amount of additional funding and resources estimated to have been levered into Harwich to supplement market towns investment through the RDA is £1.5 million, derived from supporting partners including English Heritage (HERS fund); Countryside Agency; Sport England and Lottery.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received regarding the placing of mobile phone masts near schools and hospitals. [185421]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost as it is not possible from the central recording systems to accurately identify all of representations received that included the issues of the placing of mobile phone masts near schools and/or near hospitals.

  Multi-occupancy Housing
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to combat(a) overcrowded and (b) dangerous multi-occupancy housing. [182162]

  Keith Hill
  Local authorities have powers in the Housing Act 1985 to deal with overcrowded or unfit Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). Section 352 of the Act gives local authorities powers- to require works to be carried out to render an HMO suitable for the number of occupants. In addition section 354 permits local authorities to limit the number of occupants in an HMO to the number which the authority considers it to be suitable for. A failure to comply with a direction or notice under these sections is a criminal offence. These provisions are to be replaced by new measures in the Housing Bill.

  The Bill includes provisions for a new Housing Health and Safety Rating System which will replace the current fitness standard and will enable authorities to take action to deal with health and safety hazards in all

  211W
  housing including HMOs. The Bill also includes provision for mandatory licensing of large HMOs, and local authorities will have powers to introduce additional licensing to tackle the smaller HMOs. In order to obtain a licence, the landlord will be required to satisfy the local authority that he, or the manager of the property, is a fit and proper person and the house is reasonably suitable for the permitted number of occupants. It will be a criminal offence to operate an HMO without a licence if it is required to be licensed or to permit such an HMO to be occupied by more persons than are permitted under the licence. In addition, local authorities will have powers to make management orders on individual HMOs that are not subject to licensing, if a tribunal agrees that it is necessary to make the order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents or other persons occupying properties in the vicinity.

  Under the Housing Bill, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will have power to amend by Order the statutory overcrowding standards in Part 10 of the 1985 Act and also the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill under which local authorities may serve notices to tackle overcrowding in HMOs. I will be consulting later this year on the ways in which this power might be used.

  Northern Way Growth Strategy
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the number of new houses need to fulfil the Northern Way growth strategy. [185282]

  Keith Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the three northern Regional Development Agencies to produce a joint plan for driving sustainable economic growth in the north and that will be published shortly. This plan will also examine the links between housing and economic growth in the north. Until we have sight of this it will be premature to speculate on the number of new houses needed to fulfil the Northern Way growth strategy.

  Regional Assembly Referendums
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) meetings and (b) correspondence his Department has had since 10 June with the Electoral Commission concerning the regional assembly referendums; and if he will place copies of such correspondence in the Library. [182347]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of a regular series of meetings, officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister met with officials from the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Electoral Commission on 28 June to discuss the regional assembly referendums.

  Since 10 June, officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and those at the Electoral Commission have continued to exchange e-mails on technical issues related to the referendums orders, notably about counting officers' fees and charges, due to changes in the number of assistance and delivery points.

  There was also a meeting and some correspondence between an official from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Executive of the Electoral
  212W
  Commission on when the referendums orders should be laid and consequently the timing of the referendums. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister side of that correspondence has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, I wrote to Sam Younger on 15 June, and an official from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission on 6 July, with regard to the text of the ballot paper and the explanatory material for the local government options in the forthcoming referendums. Again, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's side of that correspondence has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Solar Panels
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to reduce the UK's carbon emissions through the introduction of a requirement in building regulations to fit solar panels to all new developments. [185439]

  Phil Hope
  The Building Regulations set functional requirements rather than specifying particular ways of showing compliance. This enables builders to develop their own ways of complying with the requirements, using conventional or new technologies as appropriate. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing the energy efficiency provisions in line with the commitments made in the Energy White Paper and the prospective higher standards that we aim to bring into effect in 2005 will make systems like solar panels more attractive. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shall be announcing consultations on the proposed amendments on 21 July.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the spending review will be of special advisers. [185479]

  Phil Hope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent South (Mr. Boateng) today at column 190W.

  Supporting People
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding has been made available in each of the last three years under the Supporting People programme to(a) Portsmouth City Council, (b) Southampton City Council and (c) Hampshire County Council; and what the projected funding is for each of the next three years. [184309]

  Phil Hope
  The Supporting People programme went live in April 2003. Prior to this date the Government contributed towards the administration costs of Administering Authorities in establishing the programme. For 2003–04 and 2004–05 Supporting People grants have been given for both administration and programme costs. Budgets for 2005–06 to 2007–08 have not yet been finalised. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister plans to announce individual allocations to Administering Authorities for 2005–06 to 2007–08 in the autumn.
  213W

  £

  Grants

  Portsmouth city council

  Southampton city council

  Hampshire county council

  2002–03

  Administration

  202,412

  195,405

  619,499

  Programme

  —

  —

  —

  2003–04

  Administration

  237,195

  274,415

  815,418

  Programme

  9,744,076

  11,521,802

  33,634,572

  2004–05

  Allocated administration

  225,105

  253,267

  888,620

  Programme

  9,570,871

  11,438,573

  33,506,365

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of the Supporting People programme in (i) Portsmouth and (ii) the rest of Hampshire; and if he will make a statement. [184310]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not commissioned any research to evaluate the impact of Supporting People in Portsmouth and Hampshire.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans(a) he and (b) English Partnerships have to (i) publish, (ii) make available for public inspection, (iii) place in the Library and (iv) place on line with full public access English Partnership's register of surplus public sector land; [183838]

  (2) if he will list the (a) location and (b) size in hectares of each site in the register of surplus public sector land; and what the total (i) size in hectares of all such sites and (ii) number of sites is in each Government office region. [183839]

  Keith Hill
  The Register of Surplus Public Sector Land has been set up to enable Government Departments and their sponsored bodies to share information about the availability of land before it is released on the open market for disposal. The Register is part of new arrangements introduced to make better use of, and to deal with the disposal of, public sector land. This followed a review by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and HM Treasury. The Register is operated by English Partnerships.

  The Register provides a mechanism for Government Bodies to ensure that public assets surplus to their individual needs can be put to effective use within the public sector and to identify suitable sites to meet their own operational requirements. It is helping to deliver the policies set out in the Governments Plan for Sustainable Communities (February 2003).

  There are no plans for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or English Partnerships to publish or make publicly available information about individual sites on the Register. In many cases the information provided for the Register is confidential for commercial reasons. It is for the owners of individual sites to determine if information is made publicly available.

  CBRN Training
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what training has been given to emergency services personnel in respect of coping with a potential chemical biological radiological nuclear incident. [184605]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Primary responsibility for mass decontamination in the event of a CBRN incident has been given to the fire and rescue service, through the New Dimension programme of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government have provided a range of equipment to the fire and rescue service to improve its ability to cope with such an event, and are fully funding training to use this equipment.

  Every firefighter has received basic CBRN training, which is now being followed by continuance training. Training has been provided by the Fire Service College and is complemented by a range of interactive training CDs and hard copy materials. Firefighters have also joined with the other emergency services in a range of local, regional and national exercises, such as that at Bank Underground station in September 2003, and the National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham in July 2004. Responsibility for training the other emergency services lies with their sponsoring departments.

  Your Say Event (Sunderland)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost of the Your Say event held in Sunderland on 30 June was; how many invitees attended; how many members of the public attended; and what the cost per member of the public was. [185484]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The total cost of the Your Say event held in Sunderland on the 30 June was £4,400:45 members of the public attended, including 29 invitees.
  The cost per member of the public, including invitees, was £98.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost to public funds was, including publicity, of the regional hearing held at the Crowtree Leisure Centre in Sunderland on 30 June. [184178]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The total cost to public funds was £4,400.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alcohol-related antisocial behaviour incidents there have been since 1997. [182295]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics on alcohol related antisocial behaviour are not collected. However the table shows British Crime Survey statistics (in percentages) from 1996–2003 taken from people who believe their assailants were under the influence of alcohol when they were assaulted.
  215W

  All violence (percentage)

  Under influence of drink

  Yes

  No

  Don't know

  1996

  40

  53

  6

  1998

  42

  48

  10

  2000

  40

  50

  9

  2001–02

  47

  44

  9

  2002–03

  44

  45

  11

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) acceptable behaviour contracts and (b) antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in the Avon and Somerset police force area, broken down by basic command unit. [184650]

  Ms Blears
  Data on the number of acceptable behaviour contracts agreed are not collected centrally.

  The available information is given in the table, up to 31 March 2004 (latest available), on the number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued, as notified to the Home Office, within the Avon and Somerset police force area, by local authority area. The data collected are not identifiable by basic command unit area but by the local authority area within which the prohibitions apply.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been issued in Nottingham in the last year; and if he will list the 10 cities that have issued the most ASBOs during this period. [182662]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of ASBOs issued, as notified to the Home Office by all courts, where prohibitions apply to the Nottingham city council area and to the top 11 local authority areas within England and Wales, from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

  Local authority area

  Number issued

  Nottingham city council

  16

  Manchester city council

  108

  Leeds city council

  99

  Salford metropolitan borough council

  54

  Oldham metropolitan borough council

  37

  Liverpool city council

  34

  Birmingham city council

  34

  London borough of Camden

  31

  Bolton metropolitan borough council

  30

  Trafford metropolitan borough council

  18

  Burnley borough council

  18

  Brighton and Hove council

  18

  Bichard Inquiry Report
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timescale is for the implementation of each of the Bichard Report recommendations, with particular reference to(a) departments retaining records of cases not referred to the police, (b) all posts in schools being subject to the enhanced disclosure requirement, (c) head teachers and school governors receiving training to ensure that interviews reflect the importance of safeguarding children, (d) interview panels to appoint
  216W
  staff working in schools requiring at least one trained member and (e) the introduction of a national IT intelligence system. [180583]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We are developing urgently a programme for implementing the recommendations in the Bichard Report. The Home Office is co-ordinating this programme, but it will involve all the Government Departments responsible for implementation agreeing a timetable and key milestones for the work. We are committed to achieving substantial progress across the range of recommendations by the time Sir Michael Bichard reconvenes his Inquiry in six months.

  The current criteria of eligibility for Enhanced Disclosures have been under review. Proposals for revised criteria have been the subject of consultation and the results are being analysed. The recommendation that all posts working with children and vulnerable adults, including posts in schools, should be eligible for Enhanced Disclosures is being taken forward in the context of this review. Our aim is that new criteria should be in place by the end of the year.

  Work to develop a national IT system for police intelligence is being undertaken as a key priority. It may well be two years before such a system is fully up and running. However, the work we have done with the police service to develop a strategic approach to the delivery of national IT infrastructure is already producing great progress. The Police Local Exchange (PLX) system, which indicates where forces hold intelligence on specific individuals, will be introduced as an interim solution by spring 2005. Taking into account projects such as the £500 million Airwave communication system, the new national DMA database and the investment we have put into the Criminal Records Bureau over the past three years, we have invested more than ever before. This commitment is further reinforced by the £600 million that we allocated from 2002 to the whole criminal justice IT system to improve links between the courts, policing and social services.

  The other specific recommendations referred to are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Officials in his Department are already in discussion with the National College for School Leadership about ways in which appropriate training might be developed for head teachers and governors to enable them to reflect the importance of safeguarding children when interviewing for staff appointments. It will be necessary to consider the practical issues associated with delivering additional training to many of the approximately 22,100 head teachers and a proportion of the estimated 350,000 school governors before making a commitment to a timescale for this to happen.

  As regards handling information about cases involving known or suspected offences against children, the Department for Education and Skills will be writing to local authorities very shortly to reaffirm the existing guidance in "Working Together to Safeguard Children" and will set out how the relevant recommendations will be taken forward in the longer term.

  Community Safety (Islington)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding he has made available
  217W
  in each year since 1997 for anti-crime and community safety initiatives in the London borough of Islington; and what funding is projected for future years. [184721]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office has to date provided a total of £2,948,779 to the London borough of Islington for anti-crime and community safety initiatives.

  Anti-crime/community safety funding in London borough of Islington from 1997

  £

  Financial year

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Total

  Crime Reduction Programme (CRP)

  222,227

  371,809

  125,500

  —

  —

  719,536

  Partnership Development Fund (PDF)

  59,570

  50,000

  50,000

  —

  —

  159,570

  Communities Against Drugs (CAD)

  —

  262,200

  594,218

  —

  —

  856,418

  Safer Communities Initiative (SCI)

  —

  —

  137,255

  —

  —

  137,255

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas (SRDA)

  —

  26,419

  66,236

  66,236

  —

  158,891

  Building Safer Communities Fund

  —

  —

  —

  412,195

  422,500

  834,695

  Basic Command Unit (BCU) Fund

  —

  —

  —

  366,436

  366,436

  732,872

  Home Office Directors Allocation

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  —

  20,000

  Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Fund

  —

  —

  —

  22,414

  25,000

  47,414

  Vehicle Crime

  —

  —

  —

  15,000

  —

  15,000

  Total

  281,797

  710,428

  973,209

  902,281

  813,936

  3,681,651

  Community Sentences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the general population's attitude towards(a) prisons and (b) alternatives to prison as a means of punishment and rehabilitation. [182283]

  Paul Goggins
  The most recent assessment was made as part of the Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales "Making Punishments Work", released in July 2001. This assessment is based on a review of the literature on attitudes to sentencing as well as a survey of public attitudes (conducted in October 2000). Full details can be found in Appendix 5 to the report.

  Further information on public attitudes is also available in Home Office Research Study 245 (Improving public attitudes to the Criminal Justice System: The impact of information, Chapman et al, 2002). This includes details from a nationally representative sample on knowledge and attitudes to crime and sentencing.

  In addition, information will be available in future as a result the Crime and Justice Survey. Results from this are currently being analysed and will provide information on offending, and people's attitudes towards the Criminal Justice System and sentences.

  Corporate Manslaughter Bill
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the forthcoming draft Bill on Corporate Manslaughter is to extend to Scotland. [185162]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: The Government are currently developing their proposals for reforming the law on corporate manslaughter.

  We plan to issue a draft Bill before the end of the current session.
  218W
  Funding commenced in 2000–01. In addition, a total of £732,872 has been provided to Islington police under the Basic Command Unit (BCU) Fund in 2003–04 and 2004–05. The table shows the annual breakdown for each funding stream, giving a total figure of £3,681,651. Future crime reduction funding for individual authorities will be announced in due course.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 24 May 2004 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Manchester council for Community Relations; [182490]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 24 May 2004 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. N Khan Moghal. [183686]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I replied to my right hon. Friend's letter on 9 July 2004 on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Diversity and Equality (Prison Service)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been to the name of the Prison Service's Diversity and Equality Group within the last two months; and if he will make a statement. [184608]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: The Prison Service has reviewed the role of the Diversity and Equality Group, which has led to the formation of a new Race and Equalities Action Group. The new group will have three key teams:
  Delivery Team;
  Community Links Team; and
  Policy and Programme Team.

  The change reflects the Prison Service's commitment to ensuring that significant improvements continue to be made to rite and diversity issues, and that responsibilities and obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, are implemented fully in every prison. The new group will take effect from 19 July 2004.

  Drug Treatment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have received
  219W
  drug treatment in prison in each year since 1997 as a percentage of (a) the prison population and (b) the total demand. [182303]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) People in prison receiving drug treatment as a percentage of those received into prison annually since 2001 (the first year in which drug treatment figures were collected) is given in the following table.

  Percentage of the prison population that have received drug treatment since 2001 based on estimated annual receptions into custody

  20011

  2002

  2003

  Clinical Services (Detoxification)

  21

  36

  42

  CARATs

  21

  35

  40

  Treatment programmes

  2

  3

  3

  1Excluding January—March 2001 from which data is not collated.

  Note:

  Population figures for 2003 are provisional

  (b) The Prison Service does not collate figures centrally on the demand for drug treatment.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders were made in Gloucestershire in the last year for which figures are available; and what the re-offending rate was for those subject to such orders(a) in Gloucestershire and (b) in England and Wales in that year. [182953]

  Paul Goggins
  58 drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) were made in Gloucestershire in 2003–04.

  No offenders subject to DTTOs in Gloucestershire in 2003–04 had their orders revoked because of a conviction for another offence.

  Validated information about re offending for those subject to DTTOs in England and Wales in 2003–04 is not centrally available.

  Drunkenness (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were prosecuted for buying drink for people who were incapable as a result of alcohol in 2003; [185077]

  (2) how many people were prosecuted for allowing drunken or riotous conduct on their premises in 2003. [185078]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been identified as the most significant sustainable development impacts in relation to the operation of his Department's estate. [182221]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The sustainable development impacts of the Department's estate varies according to the nature of the business carried out by its constituent 220W
  parts. For the purposes of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate, we have divided the Home Office estate into seven areas. These are listed as follows with the key sustainable development impacts for each area

  (i) Non Agency Home Office—Office Estate

  Key impacts: Energy consumption, waste generation, procurement of goods and services, water consumption and vehicle emissions as a result of commuting (sites outside London only).

  (ii) Immigration Removals Estate

  Key impacts: Energy consumption, waste generation, procurement of goods and services, water consumption, vehicle emissions as a result of business travel and potential to affect biodiversity.

  (iii) National Probation Service

  Key impacts: Energy consumption, waste generation, water consumption and procurement of goods and services.

  (iv) Her Majesty's Prison Service

  Key impacts: Energy consumption, waste generation (including hazardous waste), procurement of goods and services, water consumption, vehicle emissions as a result of commuting and business travel and conservation of biodiversity.

  (v) UK Passport Agency

  Key impacts: Energy consumption, waste generation, water consumption and procurement of good and services.

  (vi) Forensic Science Service

  Key impacts: Energy consumption, waste generation (including hazardous waste), procurement of goods and services, water consumption, vehicle emissions as a result of commuting.

  (vii) Contracted Out Prisons

  Key impacts: Energy consumption, waste generation, procurement of goods and services, water consumption, vehicle emissions as a result of business travel and potential to affect biodiversity.

  Facilitation Charge
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the charge of facilitation has been used since 1997, broken down by(a) police force and (b) year. [183817]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 July 2004]: The term 'facilitation' is not one that is used in connection with recorded crime.

  Fraud Crimes
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of fraud crimes perpetrated against elderly people in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [185215]

  Ms Blears
  No estimates have been made of fraud crime against the elderly. Statistics on fraud and forgery offences recorded by the police in England and Wales are published annually in "Crime in England and Wales". The latest volume covering 2003–04 is due to be published on 22 July.

  National Offender Management Service
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost is of future market test under the National Offender Management Service. [179473]

  Paul Goggins
  It has not yet been decided how many or which prisons will be market tested in the first year. Work is under way to decide how the competition will be structured and what criteria will be used to select prisons to be market tested.

  Offender Behaviour Programmes
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated developmental cost has been of each accredited offender behaviour programme. [183998]

  Paul Goggins
  It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. Accredited offender behaviour programmes have a number of sources. Some are adaptations of programmes developed overseas, some have been developed by the independent and voluntary sectors, some began as local initiatives and others have been developed centrally by the Prison and Probation Services.

  The costs are, therefore, varied. We estimate, for example, that the cost of adapting and piloting the existing Think First programme was £50,000, while developing the Women's Acquisitive Crime Programme from scratch, including the costs of piloting and accreditation, was in the region of £115,000.

  Police (Jury Service)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received prior to the inclusion in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 of the provision that police officers would no longer be exempt from jury service. [181751]

  Ms Blears
  The Government consulted on the new jury service provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as part of the wider consultation on Lord Justice Auld's Review on the Criminal Courts of England and Wales.

  The Department for Constitutional Affairs also consulted on the guidance that was issued to the Jury Central Summoning Bureau prior to the commencement of these provisions.

  Deepcut Investigation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made by the Devon and Cornwall police of the number of potential witnesses(a) contacted and (b) interviewed by the Ministry of Defence's police detective constables in the course of their involvement in the Deepcut investigation. [183380]

  Ms Blears
  I am not currently able to provide the information requested. Surrey police have advised that they commissioned Devon and Cornwall police to undertake a review into the Surrey police investigation into the deaths of four young soldiers at Deepcut barracks but this has not yet been completed. It is 222W
  understood that the review will consider the use made by Surrey police of Ministry of Defence police detective constables during the course of the investigation. It will be for Devon and Cornwall police to consider whether an assessment of the numbers of potential witnesses contacted or interviewed by the Ministry of Defence police detective constables is needed as part of the review.

  Police Pensions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of each police authority budget in England and Wales was spent on pensions in(a) 1997–98 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [184752]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: The information is set out in the table.

  Proportion of net expenditure spent on pensions

  Percentage

  1997–98

  2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  15.6

  16.7

  Bedfordshire

  11.5

  11.8

  Cambridgeshire

  11.9

  12.9

  Cheshire

  11.1

  12.6

  City of London

  12.7

  16.0

  Cleveland

  10.9

  15.8

  Cumbria

  12.8

  15.8

  Derbyshire

  12.8

  13.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  13.5

  14.0

  Dorset

  13.0

  13.2

  Durham

  16.5

  13.6

  Dyfed-Powys

  12.0

  13.5

  Essex

  10.6

  14.0

  Gloucestershire

  13.2

  14.6

  Greater Manchester

  16.5

  14.1

  Gwent

  11.6

  14.4

  Hampshire

  9.6

  12.4

  Hertfordshire

  9.5

  10.8

  Humberside

  13.2

  13.7

  Kent

  11.3

  13.2

  Lancashire

  14.2

  14.9

  Leicestershire

  11.9

  12.1

  Lincolnshire

  13.8

  15.7

  Merseyside

  14.9

  17.8

  Metropolitan

  11.4

  12.2

  Norfolk

  13.2

  12.8

  Northamptonshire

  12.4

  9.0

  Northumbria

  15.4

  15.5

  North Wales

  13.6

  14.7

  North Yorkshire

  14.5

  13.9

  Nottinghamshire

  13.7

  16.7

  South Wales

  17.6

  16.1

  South Yorkshire

  12.1

  13.1

  Staffordshire

  17.3

  14.4

  Suffolk

  13.3

  14.5

  Surrey

  13.7

  10.3

  Sussex

  13.3

  14.6

  Thames Valley

  9.8

  9.8

  Warwickshire

  13.9

  16.4

  West Mercia

  11.0

  13.4

  West Midlands

  12.2

  12.5

  West Yorkshire

  13.0

  15.6

  Wiltshire

  10.4

  12.5

  Note:

  Leicestershire's 1997–98 figures were not available in the CIPFA Actuals 1997–98. The force estimates have therefore been used.

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics—Actuals 1997–98 and Estimates 2003–04.

  Police Sickness
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in England operate sickness reduction schemes; and what change has been recorded in sickness levels since their introduction. [167051]

  Ms Blears
  All police forces have been set the objective of reducing sickness absence levels.

  The Strategy for a Healthy Police, which was launched in October 2002 supports this objective through funding, guidance and best practice in managing sickness absence and attendance.

  All forces in England and Wales, were allocated a share of £4 million in 2002–03, and then £5 million in 2003–04 and the current financial year. They have been able to focus this extra resource on projects aimed at reducing sickness absence.

  Sickness absence figures have improved since the launch of the Strategy, with overall sickness absence now at a national average of 10.4 days per officer per year, and 11.7 per support staff member. This has decreased from 12.2 days per officer and 12.6 days per support staff member when the Strategy was launched. The best performing forces have continued to make improvements, but the gap between best and worst performers has also significantly narrowed.

  The Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary annual report for 2003/2004 sets out the national and force rates for sickness absence per force.

  Prison Service
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many qualified craftsmen were employed by the Prison Service in each prison in each of the last five years; and how many of these were in the prison officer grades. [184289]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not currently collect data on the qualifications held by its employees. Craftsmen are a sub-grade of industrial staff. While data are available on overall staffing levels within the industrial grades, specific data on the number of craftsmen employed are not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the levels of prison front-line staff have changed since 1997. [182305]

  Paul Goggins
  Since 1997 the number of staff in front line and delivery support functions has increased by 6164 (19 per cent.).

  During this period, the Prison Service has introduced a number of measures to improve overall efficiency, including identifying a number of tasks within establishments previously undertaken by Prison Officers that can more efficiently be undertaken by Operational Support Grade staff. A programme has also been implemented to use industrial grade staff to undertake activities within works departments, which
  224W
  had previously been undertaken by specialist officers. As a result, Prison Officer numbers have not increased as much as overall staffing increases.

  Staffing levels in the healthcare and psychology functional areas have increased at a higher rate than the growth in the prisoner population.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to the answer of 8 June 2004,Official Report, column 330W, on offender management, when decisions will be made as to how many prisons will be market-tested in the first year; and how the competitions will be structured; [184691]

  (2) what criteria will be used for selecting which establishments to market test. [184692]

  Paul Goggins
  It has not yet been decided how many or which prisons will be market tested in the first year. Work is under way to decide how the competition will be structured and what criteria will be used to select prisons to be market tested.

  Probationary Police Constables
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average annual cost of employing, training and developing a probationary police constable in the last year for which figures are available. [183993]

  Ms Blears
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary have estimated that the average salary, training and development costs of a probationary police constable up to independent patrol (which is normally 31 weeks after joining a force) in 2003–04 were £27,048. This figure includes salary costs of £13,993 per probationary police constable for that period and training and development costs of £13,055.

  There are of course, associated employment costs for recruitment, supervision, accommodation, information technology and so on. However, these are not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was of(a) publishing, (b) producing and (c) distributing the Racial Equality and the Smaller Business guide produced by the Commission for Racial Equality. [180500]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  HSBC sponsored the production of the guide and paid for the production of 100,000 CDs. The Post Office distributed it free of charge to small businesses. In addition, 44,417 PDF versions of the guide have been downloaded from the Commission for Racial Equality's website and 2,792 copies have been ordered from the stationary office. The Commission for Racial Equality paid for the Welsh version (£4,506). The only other cost to them was staff time.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which other Government Departments were involved in producing the Racial Equality and the Smaller Business guide produced by the Commission for Racial Equality. [180501]
  225W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Department of Trade and Industry was the only other Government Department represented on the Commission for Racial Equality's advisory group.

  Street Crime (London)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the London area work specifically in tackling street crime. [184283]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of police officers specifically tackling street crime is not collected centrally.

  Statistics on police strength are published every six months. Data for 30 September 2003 appeared in on-line report number 13/04. The latest available figures for 31 December 2003 were issued in Home Office Press Release 095/2004 on 2 March 2004.

  Victims' Code of Practice
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to the inclusion of road crash and road crime victims in the Victims' Code of Practice. [183548]

  Paul Goggins
  The Victims' Code of Practice, provided for in the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Bill currently before Parliament, will place national obligations on criminal justice agencies to deliver specific services to victims of crime. Those bereaved as a result of death on the road will be entitled to the relevant police obligations and, where a charge is considered or brought, the relevant Crown Prosecution Service and courts' obligations. They will not, at present, be entitled routinely to the Code's personal support services, to be offered by Victim Support, as practice in this area is still being determined.

  Last year, at a cost of some £500,000, we established three pilot sites to test different ways of organising and delivering services to road traffic victims. These pilots are subject to independent evaluation with a full report on their effectiveness envisaged for Summer 2005. Following this, we will need to consider, with voluntary sector partners and others, the key outcomes from the evaluation programme and how we can best implement a support service to address the needs of all those victimised by incidents on the road.

  The victims' legislation clearly sets out the procedures for making revisions to the Code of Practice and it is likely that, because it is statutory, there will be regular updates to reflect front line developments. So if, as seems likely, it is not possible to include obligations to provide personal support services for road traffic victims in the initial version of the Code, which is likely to become fully operational during 2005, then we should be in a position to do so when it is revised for the first time.

  Witness Protection
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the amount of police time allocated to supervising witness protection schemes. [184958]
  226W
  Ms Blears
  This information is not currently available. The Home Office, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive the Northern Ireland Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, has appointed an independent consultant to carry out an assessment of witness protection arrangements nationally. The assessment is covering all cases where witness protection is afforded by UK law enforcement agencies including the police. It will provide us with valuable information about the numbers and circumstances in which witness protection is provided and the amount of police time allocated to it.

  The assessment commenced on 2 January; it was announced in the White Paper 'One Step Ahead—a 21st century strategy to defeat organised crime' which I published on 29 March. The assessment is due to be completed over th:, summer, and a final report will be available in the autumn.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether it remains his policy to acquire two British-built new aircraft carriers; and by what dates; [182002]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the suitability of United States carriers to carry out each of the projected CVF tasks if purchased by the Royal Navy; [182004]

  (3) what discussions his Department has held with United States counterparts concerning the possible purchase of US carriers for the Royal Navy. [182005]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 July 2004]: We remain fully committed to buying two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. There has been no change to our policy that Royal Navy warship hulls will be built in the United Kingdom. Given this position, we have not considered the possible purchase of United States carriers, nor have we therefore assessed the suitability of United States carriers to undertake projected CVF tasks. However, the Department regularly exchanges information with the US on our respective programmes, for example in areas such as the integration of the Joint Combat Aircraft. Our target in-service dates for the two carriers remain 2012 and 2015.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the minimum(a) tonnage and (b) aircraft numbers to be operated from each future carrier to enable it to fulfil its strategic expeditionary role. [182003]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 July 2004]: The Ministry of Defence has not sought to fix the dimensions of the aircraft carriers during the assessment phase. The design of the ships will continue to evolve as we seek to balance the overall performance, time and cost parameters of this complex project as part of normal assessment phase activity. Decisions on the capability to be provided by CVF, including the number of aircraft capable of being deployed, and hence on the design and dimensions for the ships, will be taken at the Main Gate investment point.

  Iraq Medal
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers(a) are eligible for and (b) have received the Iraq Campaign Medal. [179022]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is estimated that 70,000 Service and civilian personnel are eligible for the Iraq Medal. As at 9 July, the Army Medal Office had received 18,728 applications for the Iraq Medal from Army personnel. Of these, some 1,600 applications have been approved and the majority of those medals have been issued.

  Combat/Operational Clothing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether appeal procedures apply to the contract for combat and operational clothing supplies DC4BESL/ 1002 Cut and Sew. [184360]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: There is no formal appeals procedure applicable to this contract.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the bleaching, dyeing and printing of the fabric for the contract DC4BESL/1002 Cut and Sew will be carried out. [184347]

  Mr. Ingram
  Due to the variety of products being supplied under this contract there are a number of locations chosen by the Prime Contractor for the bleaching, dyeing and printing of fabric, including China, the United Kingdom and mainland Europe.

  Commercial Exportation Levy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2004,Official Report, column 589W, on the Commercial Exportation Levy, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the value of receipts collected; and if he will make a statement. [182548]

  Mr. Ingram
  Commercial Exploitation Levy is a form of royalty for any commercial sales of a design, use of special tooling or the granting of licences where the MOD has contributed wholly, or in part, to research and development costs. The level of receipts will consequently vary according to the levy arrangements agreed, the type of equipment involved (including software), the volume of sales and the extent to which its development was funded by the Ministry of Defence. From year to year the receipts generated for the MOD also depend upon the level of commercial sales achieved.

  Defence Conferences
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentations made to the IQPC Conference Future Artillery in May 2003 on(a) Developing the UK's Firepower Capability by Colonel Peter H. Tomlinson, Deputy Director Equipment Capability (Indirect Battlefield Engagement) and (b) Future Artillery Weapons Systems—An Acquisition Angle by Alan Nichol], Integrated Project Team Leader, Future Artillery Weapons Systems, Defence Procurement Agency; [170381]
  228W
  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentations made to the IQPC Conference Underwater Warfare and the Role of UUVS in January 2003 on Maritime Mine Countermeasures (MCM): A UK Perspective by Peter Evans, Technical Manager, Maritime Mine Warfare and Countermeasures, DSTL; [170382]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Suppression of Enemy Air Defences in February 2003 on SEAD in Current and Future RAF Operations by Squadron Leader Brian James, Tactical Division Weapons, Air Warfare Centre, Royal Air Force Squadron Leader and Stuart F. Hulley, S02 EW Tornado, Royal Air Force; [170383]

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Software Defined Radios in December 2003 on UK Digitisation: The Future Application of SDR by Colonel Phil Davies, Command Support Development Centre; [170384]

  (5) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentations made to the IQPC Conference Sensor-to-Shooter and Time Critical Targeting in February 2003 on (a) Sensor-To-Shooter: The Users Perspective by Squadron Leader Malcolm Rainier, S02 Air Offensive 2 and (b) UK Sensor-To-Shooter Airborne Capabilities and Concepts by Squadron Leader Dheeraj Bhasin, TD-JAGUAR, Air Warfare Centre, RAF Waddington; [170385]

  (6) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentations made to the IQPC Conference Naval Air Warfare in December 2003 on (a) The Future of Maritime Strike in the Royal Navy by Captain David James, DACOS Strike, Commander-in-Chief Fleet Staff, Royal Navy, (b) UAVS in Future Maritime Operations by Lieutenant Trevor Steele, UAV TD, Maritime Warfare Centre, Royal Navy, (c) The 'Future Lynx': The UK's Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft by Lieutenant Commander Neal Yates M BE, Requirements Manager-Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft, DPA, (d) Royal Navy Commando Sea King by Lieutenant Commander Mark 'H' Hourigan, Commando Aviation TD, Maritime Warfare Centre, Royal Navy, (e) Royal Navy Merlin HM MK1 by Lieutenant Commander Gary Soar, Merlin TD, Maritime Warfare Centre, Royal Navy, (f) Integrating the JSF into the UK: The Future Joint Combat Aircraft by Wing Commander John Chapman, Requirements Manager, Joint Combat Aircraft IPT, DPA and (g) Maritime Patrol and the Future of Nimrod M RA4 Operations by Wing Commander Gordon Bruce, SO1 Maritime Capability Development, HQ3 Group, Royal Air Force; [170386]

  (7) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Military Flight Training Conference in February 2003 on (a) The Future UK Military Flight Training Programme by Air Commodore Peter Coker, MFTS IPT Leader, Defence Procurement Agency, (b) Nimrod-Multi-Crew Training in a Multirole Aircraft by Wing Commander Jerry Kessell, OC 42 (R) Squadron, RAF Kinloss, (c) C-130J Hercules Tactical Training by Group Captain Ray Lock,

  229W
  Commanding Officer and Squadron Leader Mark Pearce, Flight Commander JTTF, RAF Lynham and (d) Future Helicopter Flying Training in the British Army by Lieutenant Colonel David Joyce, SOI Training and Lieutenant Colonel Norman Ryan, SOI Attack Helicopter Training, HQ Directorate of Army Aviation; [170387]

  (8) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Light Armoured Vehicles in February 2003 on (a) UK MoD Overview of Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) and key UK LAV programmes by Brigadier Ian Rodley, DEC (DBE), (b) Future Command and Liaison Vehicle (FCLV)-An Overview by Colonel Charles Hookey, Team Leader, Close Armour and Vehicle Mounted Weapons IPT, DPA, (c) The Bigger Picture—A UK military analysis of the future operating environment, emerging concepts and the shift of emphasis from platform performance to network effectiveness by Brigadier Geoff Sheldon, Director Land Digitisation, UK MoD (Army), (d) Future Force Structures—A UK MoD view by Lieutenant Colonel Crispian Beattie, SO1 Concepts, Director General Doctrine and Development and (e) Viking—An Overview by Major Jez Hermer, SO2 Viking, FLEET N7, HMS Excellent; [170388]

  (9) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Military Helicopter Conference in April 2003 on (a) New Developments in Air Manoeuvre Capability by Brigadier Nick Caplin, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, Joint Helicopter Command, (b) Future Modernisation of the UK Apache A.H.1 by Major Nigel Banks, Attack Helicopter Desk Officer, DEC Air and Littoral Manoeuvre, (c) Royal Navy Lynx HMA.8 and Future Development by Lieutenant Rob Taylor, Senior Observer, Lynx OEU, RNAS Yeovilton and (d) Merlin H.M. MK.1 by Lieutenant Commander Nick Dunn, Commanding Officer, 814 Squadron, RNAS Culdrose; [170389]

  (10) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Future Naval Plans and Requirements in May 2003 on (a) The Future of Maritime Strike in the Royal Navy by Commander David James, CD Strike, Maritime Warfare Centre, (b) The Royal Navy—Future Operational Concepts by Captain Simon Williams, Assistant Director of Strategy, (c) Maritime Combat Service Support To Forces Ashore by Brigadier Charlie Hobson, Director Equipment Capability (Deploy, Sustain and Recover) and The Future Surface Combatant and its Role as a Versatile Maritime Force by Commander Stuart Robinson, Project Leader, Future Surface Combatant and Chris Richards, Capability Definition and Programme Management (FSC), DEC (AWB); [170390]

  (11) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Fighter Conference in May 2003 on (a) Joint Force Harrier by Lieutenant Commander Nick Walker, Joint Force Harrier SO2 OPS FA2, HQ 3 Group, RAF Strike
  230W
  Command and (b) Typhoon Programme Update by Wing Commander Jonathan Hitchcock, Typhoon Requirements Manager (and Future Commander of the Typhoon OCU) Typhoon IPT; [170391]

  (12) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Defence Simulation and Training in October 2003 on (a) A UK Overview of Training Systems by Andy Fawkes, Deputy Director, Analysis Experimentation and Simulation, and Head of Synthetic Environments Co-ordination Office, (b) Bringing Coherence To MoD Individual Training and Education by Commander Jim Hammersley, DGT and E, (c) The Long-Term Future of Individual Armoured Fighting Vehicle Training in the UK by Lieutenant Colonel K B L (Kestrel) Simson QRH Deputy Project Manager, Armoured Vehicle Training System Project, DPA, (d) Simulation Requirements Analysis by Lieutenant Commander Harry Hassall, Development Projects and Research Group, UK MoD, and (e) UK Battlegroup Command and Control Trainer (BC2T) by Paul Newman, Deputy Team Leader, Joint and Battlefield Trainers, Simulation and Synthetic Environments, Programme Manager for Joint and Constructive Simulation DPA; [170392]

  (13) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Air-Launched Weapons in September 2003 on (a) UK Air-Launched Weapons Capabilities and Concepts by Squadron Leader Dheeraj Bhasin, TD-JAGUAR, Air Warfare Centre, RAF Waddington, (b) Advanced Short-Range Air-To-Air Missile (ASRAAM) by Lieutenant Colonel Richard G Dixon, ASRAAM IPT Leader, Defence Procurement Agency, (c) Beyond Visual Range Air-To-Air Missile (BVRAAM)METEOR by Mike Smith, BVRAAM IPT Leader, Defence Procurement Agency, and (d) Update On UK Precision-Guided Bomb by Wing Commander Peter Barker, Precision- Guided Bomb IPT Leader, Defence Procurement Agency; [170393]

  (14) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Air Surveillance and Reconnaissance in March 2003 on (a) Watchkeeper by Alan Baker, Tactical UAV IPT Leader, DPA, (b) Littoral ISTAR-UK Perspective by Squadron Leader Alan Skinner, HQ3 Group, RAF Strike Command and (c) Operational Tactical Reconnaissance by Squadron Leader Andrew White, OC Wing, Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, RAF Marham; [170394]

  (15) if he will place in the Library a copy of the presentation made to the IQPC Conference Air Defence Systems 2003 in May 2003 on (a) UK GBAD future requirements by Air Commodore Richard Moore, GBAD IPTL, DPA and (b) UK GBAD-Bridging capability and future requirements by Squadron Leader David Watkins, SO2 GBAD/OPS, RAF Strike Command and Squadron Leader John Derbyshire, XO RAF GBAD HQ; [170395]

  (16) if he will place in the Library a copy of (a) Brigadier Andrew Stewart's presentation, Support to reflect the extended scope of operations and the more

  231W
  strategically responsive, yet dominant force for the 21st Century, given at the SMI Conference Supporting Forward Deployment on 18 June 2003, (b) Colonel Nick Knudsen's presentation on Supporting Future Air Manoeuvre Forward Deployment given at the SMI Conference Supporting Forward Deployment on 18 June 2003, (c) Peter Jones's presentation, Processes to ensure effective medical support, given at the SMI Conference Supporting Forward Deployment on 18 June 2003, (d) Colonel Phil Naylor's presentation on Base Logistic Support to Deployed Operations, given at the SMI Conference Supporting Forward Deployment on 19th June 2003, (e) Wing Commander Simon Ruddock-West's presentation on Maritime Patrol Aircraft In Force Protection and his key note address given at the SMI Conference Naval Force Protection on 25 and 26 June 2003 respectively: [170396]

  (17) if he will place in the Library a copy of (a) Commander Dickie Burston s presentation, Multi-National Submarine Rescue, given at the SMI Conference Underwater Systems on 2 April 2003, (b) Peter Evans's presentation Maritime Mine Countermeasures, given at the SMI Conference Underwater Systems on 3 April 2003, (c) Colonel David Hargreave's presentation. Paving The Way for Digitization: Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, given at the SMI Conference Joint Battlespace Digitization on 19 May 2003, (d) Lieutenant Colonel Mark Faulkner's presentation on the UK Land Digitization Programme given at the SMI Conference Joint Battlespace Digitization on 19 May 2003 and (e) Major Jeremy Levine's presentation, The Challenges of Digitization in the Jungle, given at the SMI Conference Joint Battlespace Digitization on
  19 May 2003; [170426]

  (18) if he will place in the Library a copy of (a) Colonel Toby Mills's presentation, Transforming Engineering and Asset Management in the UK MoD: the DLO change programme given at the SMI Conference Defence Maintenance on 10 March 2003,

  PQ

  Presentation

  170381

  Developing the UK':. Firepower Capability by Colonel Peter H. Tomlinson

  170381

  Future Artillery Weapons Systems—An Acquisition Angle by Alan Nicholl

  170387

  The Future UK Military Flight Training Programme by Air Commodore Peter Coker

  170387

  Nimrod-Multi-Crew Training in a Multirole Aircraft by Wing Commander Jerry Kessell

  170387

  C-130J Hercules Tactical Training by Group Captain Ray Lock

  170387

  Future Helicopter Flying Training in the British Army by Lieutenant Colonel David Joyce

  170387

  Future Helicopter Flying Training in the British Army by Lieutenant Colonel Norman Ryan

  170389

  Future Modernisatic n of the UK Apache A.H.I by Major Nigel Banks

  170389

  New Developments in Air Manoeuvre Capability by Brigadier Nick Caplin

  170390

  Maritime Combat Se rice Support To Forces Ashore by Brigadier Charlie Hobson

  170390

  The Future Surface Combatant and its Role as a Versatile Maritime Force by Commander Stuart Robinson

  170392

  A UK Overview of Training Systems by Andy Fawkes

  170392

  Bringing Coherence To MoD Individual Training and Education by Commander Jim Hammersley

  170392

  Simulation Requirements Analysis by Lieutenant Commander Harry Hassall

  170392

  UK Battlegroup Command and Control Trainer (BC2T) by Paul Newman

  170393

  Advanced Short-Range Air-To-Air Missile (ASRAAM) by Lieutenant Colonel Richard G Dixon

  170393

  Beyond Visual Range Air-To-Air Missile (BVRAAM)-METEOR by Mike Smith

  170426

  Lieutenant Colonel Mark Faulkner's presentation on the UK Land Digitization Programme

  170427

  Andy Worrall's presentation, Integrated Logistics Support: Reducing whole life cost of ownership

  170428

  Lieutenant Colonel Alistair Hamer-Philip's presentation, Low Level Ground Based Air Defence: a UK perspective

  The following presentations were either not in fact given at the conferences specifiel or have since been
  232W
  (b) Wing Commander David Appleton's presentation, RCM: Intelligently deciding the user's maintenance requirements given at the SMI Conference Defence Maintenance on 10 March 2003, (c) Andy Worrall's presentation, Integrated Logistics Support: Reducing whole life cost of ownership given at the SMI Conference Defence Maintenance on 10 March 2003, (d) Group Captain Peter Gray's presentation, Implementing Joint Capabilities: Organising British Joint Rapid Reaction Forces, given at the SMI Conference Rapid Reaction Deployment on 12th March 2003 and (e) Colonel Neil Baverstock's presentation, A Joint Perspective, given at the SMI Conference Naval C4I on 24 March 2003; [170427]

  (19) if he will place in the Library a copy of (a) Lieutenant Colonel Alistair Hamer-Philip's presentation, Low Level Ground Based Air Defence: a UK perspective, given at the SMI Conference Air Defence Systems on 16 January 2003; (b) Neil McCabe's presentation, The UK experience: Bringing mission rehearsal requirements and solutions together given at the SMI Conference Virtual Battlespace: Developments in Mission Rehearsal on 27 January 2003, (c) Neil McCabe's presentation on Training AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicles) given at the SMI Conference Armour and Anti-Armour on 25 February 2003, (d) Lieutenant Colonel R. J. Laidler's presentation on the future of armour support given at the SMI Conference Armour and Anti-Armour on 25 February 2003 and (e) Squadron Leader Gary Morgan's presentation, Nimrod MRA4: Its role in littoral warfare and future capability given at the SMI Conference Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance on 4th March 2003. [1170428]

  Mr. Ingram
  Copies of presentations given to external conferences by Ministry of Defence employees or members of the Armed Forces are not held centrally. Where it is readily available within the Department, I am placing the information requested in the Library of the House. This covers the following presentations:

  deleted by the presents and are therefore now un obtainable.
  233W

  PQ

  Presentation

  170386

  Royal Navy Merlin HM MK I by Lieutenant Commander Gary Soar

  170388

  UK MoD Overview of Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) and key UK LAV programmes by Brigadier Ian Rodley

  170392

  The Long-Term Future of Individual Armoured Fighting Vehicle Training in the UK by Lieutenant Colonel K B L (Kestrel) Simson

  170393

  Update On UK Precision-Guided Bomb by Wing Commander Peter Barker

  170396

  Wing Commander Simon Ruddock- West's presentation on Maritime Patrol Aircraft In Force Protection and his key note address given at the SMI Conference Naval Force Protection on 25 and 26 June 2003 respectively.

  170426

  Commander Dickie Burston's presentation, Multi-National Submarine Rescue

  170426

  Colonel David Hargreave's presentation, Paving The Way for Digitization: Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps

  The Ministry of Defence is conducting a further trawl to locate the remaining presentations. These will be placed in the Library of the House subject to availability and resource constraints. Should it not be possible to provide all the information requested, copies of conference proceedings can usually be bought from the event organisers.

  The content of these presentations will not have been specifically cleared with MOD Ministers and may therefore represent the views of the individual rather than that of the Department. It should also be noted that some of the content of these presentations is likely to have been overtaken by subsequent events.

  Defence Projects (US Funding)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which defence-related projects in the UK are supported by(a) the US Defense Advanced Projects Agency and (b) the US Office for Naval Research; what funding is being made available in each case; and what the actual or intended benefit to the UK is in each case. [182013]

  Mr. Ingram
  In keeping with our strong defence relationship with the United States of America. the United Kingdom works closely with the US Government on a range of defence projects and has dealings with both the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research.

  Currently the Office of Naval Research is involved in collaborative programmes with the UK on antisubmarine warfare and unmanned underwater vehicle technologies. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency does not currently lead any of the collaborative programmes with the UK but may contribute indirectly through projects led by one of the US Armed Services.

  These collaborative links are to our mutual benefit, enhancing the military capabilities of both our nations and improving our ability to operate alongside one another. Typically, such collaborative activities involve both parties pooling the outputs of respective national defence research activities, on an equitable basis.

  It is unusual for the US Government to directly support or fund UK defence projects. The US does contract directly with UK companies and academia in support of their own defence programmes, but details of these contracts are a matter for the US Government.

  End-to-end Review
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the end to end review. [183973]
  234W
  Mr. Ingram
  The original End to End Study reported its findings on 1 July 2003, leading to a six-month Demonstration Phase which has been a notable success. Many of the principles and recommendations put forward by the End to End Final Report have been proven through the pilot activities conducted thus far. It is the intention; therefore, to focus future activity on implementation and the early realisation of benefit.

  As an example, the cost of delivering the first wave of End to End was far outweighed by the year-on-year savings. The MOD has invested £18 million in this programme over the last 15 months. End to End Demonstration has identified efficiency benefit of between £16 million to £19 million per annum and identification of realisable benefit of around £330 million. Potential exists for additional benefit, whilst at the same time preserving and in many cases improving, operational effectiveness.

  The quick wins achieved by the End to End Programme and the ongoing and extremely successful DLO Change Programme, have been the catalysts for the launch of a defence-wide programme of logistics transformation.

  Haiti
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support the UK has provided to the Brazilian and other UN forces in Haiti. [184188]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK supports the work of the United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), and welcomes the work of the troops from Brazil, Canada and Chile, operating under Force Commander Lt. Gen. Heleno Ribeiro Pereira of Brazil. The UK is pleased that additional contingents from Argentina, Uruguay, Nepal and Sri Lank a and Peru should he deployed by the end of July.

  The UK is not currently providing personnel contributions to Haitl as we have strong and emerging commitments elsewhere—particularly in Africa. We will be contributing an estimated £8.9 million in assessed contributions until October 2004. This contribution will support the UN troops in Haiti as well as other UN work set out in resolution 1542 (2004). Our financial support will continue beyond October, but the levels are dependent on operational needs which are not fully known as yet.

  In addition to financial support for the forces in Haiti, the UK has contributed to related work. The Department for International Development (DfID) sent £1.9 million in bilateral support to Haiti to address civilian unrest. DfID) also responded to the flooding in

  235W
  Haiti, sending £250,000 to the World Food Programme (UN Programme), £150,000 to Save the Children and £109,400 to Action Aid.

  The UK also has a continued interest in raising the standard of peacekeeping. The L K funds world-wide 'train the trainer' programmes to support countries in developing their peacekeeping capacity. These focus on police training, but some of the personnel in Haiti may have benefited from this.

  Hearing Loss (Veterans)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has conducted on the comparative levels of hearing loss suffered by(a) those suffering from age-related hearing loss and (b) veterans suffering from hearing loss which is both age-related and attributable to wartime noise. [184111]

  Mr. Caplin
  Neither the Ministry of Defence, which is now responsible for veterans' matters, nor the former Department of Social Security has commissioned research on this specific comparison. However, we recognise that, particularly in the past, noise injury arising from service in the Armed Forces has been a significant contributor to hearing loss among service personnel. The Government have therefore taken a close interest in the medical understanding of the causes of and prognosis for hearing loss. including instigating the 1997 Caiman review. 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 due to noise and that due to subsequent effects of age are not more than additive. The aim remains that policy and individual decisions should reflect the latest published peer reviewed scientific evidence and, to that end, we carry out a regular scrutiny of emerging relevant scientific literature.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2004,Official Report, column 1235W, on Iraq, if he will give (a) the date of and, (b) if deceased, the name of the person alleged to have suffered harm during the incident to which he refers. [185599]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Manning Control Reviews
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct manning control reviews in the next 12 months: and if he will make a statement. [183827]

  Mr. Caplin
  The answer I gave on 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 919W to the hon. Gentlemen is still applicable today.

  Military Exports
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of military equipment produced in the UK was exported in each of the last 10 years. [182955]

  Mr. Ingram
  Figures for the value of military equipment that is produced in the UK in any year are not available. In deriving the following table, estimated MOD UK equipment expenditure (including MOD spend with UK industry on research and development, repair and maintenance and assets under construction) have been added to identified exports of military goods to provide an approximation to this figure.

  Estimated percentage of military equipment produced in UK which are exported

  Percentage

  Military equipment (goods) exported

  1997–98

  32

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  12

  2000–01

  19

  2001–02

  17

  2002–03

  9

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 1997. 182941]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has seven executive and 12 advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPB)s. The following advisory NDPBs have been established in MOD since 1997:Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (1998)
  Advisory Group on Medical Countermeasures (1998)
  Nuclear Research Advisory Council (2001)

  The Department also took on the sponsorship role of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions and the War Pensions Committees (a multiple body) following the transfer of the Veterans Agency (formerly known as the War Pensions Agency) from the Department for Work and Pensions in 2001.

  The Royal College of Defence Studies Advisory Board and the Royal Military College of Science Advisory Council have been abolished since 1997. In addition the Nuclear Powered Warships Safety Committee and Nuclear Weapons Safety Committees merged in this period to form the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee.

  The National Employers' Liaison Board. later renamed the National Employers' Advisory Board was relaunched in 2002 as "Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers". Finally the Independent Board of Visitors for Military Corrective Training Centre has recently been re-categorised from an advisory NDPB to an independent monitoring board. Further details on MOD's NDPBs are in the Cabinet Office annual "Public Bodies" publications which can also be found on the Cabinet Office website.

  Non-EU Defence Contractors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scope there is to amend the Public Procurement Regulations insofar as they relate to Ministry of Defence contracts to regulate the use by UK companies of sub-contractors outside the EU. [183782]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Public Procurement Regulations implement in the United Kingdom law the European Union Directives on the award of public sector contracts. They apply to Ministry of Defence procurement on non-warlike goods and services. Neither the Regulations or the Directives regulate the engagement of sub-contractors. As a matter of procurement policy, MOD places responsibility on its prime contractors for securing and demonstrating value for money in meeting defence requirements. To this end, MOD encourages the greatest application of open and fair competition by its prime contractors in the selection of sub-contractors.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the short list of sites under consideration for storing radioactive waste as part of project ISOLUS; and if he will make a statement. [185083]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Support Vehicles
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings Ministers in his Department have had with their US counterparts on the Support Vehicle contract; and if he will make a statement. [171577]

  Mr. Ingram
  No meetings have been held between Ministers and their US counterparts regarding the Support Vehicle contract.

  Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current forecast is for(a) the in-service date and (b) the final cost of the contract to provide new tanker aircraft; what the original projections were; and if he will make a statement. [183313]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) project is currently in its Assessment Phase and does not have a formally approved in-service date (ISD). At the commencement of the Assessment Phase, ISD was broadly forecast to fall in the period 2007–09. We now believe it will be achieved later than this, but endorsement of a firm planning date for ISD is subject to the outcome of negotiations with industry. The maximum whole life cost of the FSTA programme is currently estimated to be £13.1 billion, at Outturn prices, which compares to an estimate of £13.9 billion at the commencement of the Assessment Phase.

  Tornado
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans to upgrade the Tornado's anti-aircraft missile self-protection system to combat potential missile threats over the coming decade; whether there is a budget for such an upgrade; and what the in-service date is for this upgraded capability. [183406]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have recently completed the assessment phase for the Modular Defensive Aids Systems (MoDAS) project, which is the programme to upgrade the defensive aids system for the Tornado GR4, and we are evaluating the results. A decision on the next phase of the project will be taken as part of the Department's normal planning process.

PRIME MINISTER

  Operation Mass Appeal
  Adam Price
  To ask, the Prime Minister (1) whether he personally approved the setting up of Operation Mass Appeal; [185423]

  (2) what the purpose was of Operation Mass Appeal. [185424]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to Lord Butler's report paragraphs 485 to 489 (House of Commons 898).

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Office announced in the spending review will be of special advisers. [185480]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Boateng), gave to him today at column 190W.

  Sudan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on tackling the situation in Sudan. [184467]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss all aspects of foreign policy, including Sudan, with the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development, also visited Sudan, including Darfur, between 6 and 8 June to assess the situation.

  The UK is fully engaged in Darfur and we have held discussions with our UN, US and EU partners. We have made very clear to the Sudanese Government that they must now take significant steps to improve the security situation and humanitarian access. We have also allocated over £62 million for humanitarian assistance in Darfur.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS Strategy
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of "Taking Action: The UK's Strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the Developing World" which I published today.

  This paper is being published by the Department for International Development (DFID) but the following Government Departments worked with DFID to help produce it: the Department of Health, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HM Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Patent Office, the Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  AIDS is one of the greatest threats to eradicating poverty and achieving the millennium development goals. Over the last 25 years the number of people affected by HIV has risen dramatically, from the first AIDS cases identified in the 1980s to the 38 million who are living with HIV and AIDS today. Over 20 million people have died. Sub-Saharan Africa has suffered the severest impact: over 25 million people are currently living with HIV and AIDS and 12 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. By 2010 the number of orphans who will have lost parents to AIDS may rise to 18 million. In Asia and eastern Europe, there is a serious risk of a generalised epidemic unless action is taken now. In all regions, women and young people are particularly vulnerable.

  The UK Government are committed to fighting AIDS and reversing the spread of HIV. The challenges facing the world were set out in the "UK's Call for Action on HIV/AIDS" published on world AIDS day last year. "Taking Action: The UK's Strategy for Tackling HIV and AIDS in the Developing World" sets out how the UK will respond to the challenges by promoting a comprehensive response to tackle prevention, treatment and care as well as addressing the social impact of AIDS; prioritising the needs of women, young people, including orphans and other children; focusing on human rights, stigma and discrimination; and ensuring that action on AIDS is sustainable in the long term as well as responsive to immediate needs.

  As announced in the spending review, the UK Government will commit at least £1.5 billion over the next three years to tackle AIDS in the developing world. Of this, at least £150 million will be dedicated to helping orphans and other children made vulnerable by AIDS, especially in Africa. We will also be doubling our contribution to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria with an additional £77 million over the next
  12WS
  three years. This is in addition to extra money for UNAIDS and UNFPA announced in my statement of 6 July.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  A progress report on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in Great Britain was placed in the Library of the House today.

  The report explains primarily how we have managed BSE during 2003. The encouraging reduction in BSE in cattle continues. This shows that the controls that have been put in place are continuing to have an important effect.

  The report explains the background to our application to the European Commission to be classified as a Moderate BSE risk, which will help to re-open exports markets for UK beef; it also outlines the progress of the TSE surveillance programme. It provides an overview of TSE research and sets out progress on the national scrapie plan, as well as our continuing efforts to ensure compliance with the rules on specified risk material and animal feed.

  The report is being published on DEFRA's website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/index.html.

TREASURY

  Tonnage Tax (Post-Implementation Review)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The tonnage tax was introduced in 2000 as part of a package of measures to revive the UK shipping industry. In July 2002, I announced that the Inland Revenue and the Department for Transport would commence a review of the way the regime is operating, and invited public contributions. A number of representations have been received. Individuals and groups wishing to make further representations are invited to do so by 30 September 2004. Details about how representations can be made are available on the Inland Revenue's website.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Forensic Science Annual Report
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I have today published the Forensic Science Northern Ireland annual report and accounts 2003–04. The annual report sets out performance of the agency against key targets. Copies of the report have today been laid before the House.

  Independent Monitoring Commission (Second Report)
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  On 20 April 2004 I formally requested the Independent Monitoring Commission to prepare a
  13WS
  security normalisation report under article 5(2) of the international agreement between the British and Irish Governments.

  Article 5(2) enables the British Government to commission the IMC to prepare a report on security normalisation activity undertaken over a specified period. I asked the IMC to report on all normalisation activities which have taken place since December 1999 up to the present time. The activities are set out in article 5(1)(a)(i) to (v) of the international agreement. The IMC report also takes account of views on the effects of normalisation on the ground and the programme of reform to deliver a community based policing environment in Northern Ireland. It is distinct from the monitoring of the programme of normalisation included in the joint declaration which is yet to be commenced.

  I am most grateful to the commission for its thorough report. The report is helpful in identifying the extent of steps that have been taken to reduce the security profile in Northern Ireland. The report also recognises that further steps are being taken, but that these must be measured against the prevailing assessment of the security threat.

  I have placed copies of the second report of the Independent Monitoring Commission in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Youth Justice Agency (Annual Report and Accounts)
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I have placed copies of the Youth Justice Agency's annual report and accounts for 2003—04 in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This is the agency's first annual report since its inception on 1 April 2003. It achieved eight of its nine key performance targets and all 20 of its development objectives.

  Prison Service (Annual Report and Accounts)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  I have placed copies of the Northern Ireland Prison Service's annual report and accounts for 2003—04 in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The annual report details that the service met seven of its 12 key targets in full and partially met an eighth. Of the comprehensive programme of 24 development objectives set for the service, 12 were achieved, four were partially achieved and substantial progress was made towards meeting the remaining eight.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Ordnance Survey (Framework Document)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  I am pleased to announce today that a new framework document for Ordnance Survey has been published and is also available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  On 23 July 2002 the Government announced that following a quinquennial review, Ordnance Survey, a non-ministerial Government Department, should retain its status as a Trading Fund and executive agency. It was
  14WS
  also agreed that further work should be undertaken on three issues: freedoms and flexibilities that should be made available to Ordnance Survey; the provision and location of policy advice to government on geographic information; and issues surrounding Ordnance Survey's relationship with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The new framework document defines the role and responsibilities of, and delegations accorded to, Ordnance Survey. Ordnance Survey's delegations and freedoms are no different from all other trading funds. They have the ability to borrow funds, from the national loans fund, and have recruitment and retention flexibilities available that are consistent with those generally available to agencies acting at arms length from central Government, and operating within a commercial environment. A Treasury Minute was laid before the House setting a new financial target for Ordnance Survey on 15 January 2004.

  The Government have considered options for the provision of policy advice on geographic information. They have concluded that it is appropriate that the director general and chief executive of Ordnance Survey should remain as official advisor to Ministers on all aspects of survey, mapping and geographic information, and continue to provide advice to meet specific requests. The Government also separately recognise that there is scope for the creation of a geographic information panel to consider medium and long term strategic and policy issues. A panel would also provide a channel, to complement advice to Ministers provided by the director general, on the wider, more effective and systematic use of geographic information. The panel will be chaired for the first year by the director general and chief executive of Ordnance Survey with the intention of rotating the chair on an annual or biennial basis. Panel members will review the chairmanship annually and put recommendations to Ministers. The terms of reference and membership of the panel will be announced shortly.

  Ordnance Survey's relationship, as a non-ministerial government department and an executive agency, with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is set out in the Framework Document. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister acts in the capacity of protecting the Government's shareholding in Ordnance Survey, and as a customer for Ordnance Survey's data. It is important that at both ministerial and official levels, there is proper separation of responsibility between those who deal with the Government's investment in Ordnance Survey, and those taking decisions to purchase Ordnance Survey data. The Minister for Ordnance Survey will therefore play no part in any decisions or discussions relating to such commercially based transactions, primarily through the pan-government agreement for the supply of Ordnance Survey mapping data to Government. Arrangements will also be maintained to ensure that officials within this office are not in a position where they might be considered to hold conflicting responsibilities.

  The Government consider that Ordnance Survey has a critically important role to play in ensuring that the UK economy fully benefits from the availability of quality, up-to-date and definitive geographic

  15WS
  information databases. Full and effective use of geographic information can generate significant benefits, opportunities and efficiencies for all those who have a requirement within their businesses and operations to use information that can be geographically referenced.

  The new framework document will enable Ordnance Survey to continue to develop and enhance their underpinning database, and ensure that products derived from the database are delivered in a manner that meets both customer and national requirements.

  Park Homes (Consultation Paper on Implied Terms)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will publish for public consultation on 30 July, a paper on park home implied terms and a written statement.

  The Housing Bill includes several clauses that improve the rights of park home owners. These include two powers allowing the appropriate national authority (Secretary of State for England, and the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales) to make secondary legislation relating to the implied terms and the written statement.

  Provision has been made for the first exercise of the power to specify new implied terms, and to amend and delete existing ones, to have retrospective effect. It is therefore vital that we address all the important issues in the first exercise of the power. An affirmative resolution approving the order from both Houses of Parliament will be necessary.

  In the consultation paper we have proposed 22 changes to the implied terms on which we have already consulted informally. We propose, for example, amendments on, among other things, further tightening of the resale process, increased transparency in the payment system and more residents' rights through the quiet enjoyment of the pitch.

  The Housing Bill contains a re-enactment of the power of the appropriate national authority to prescribe requirements with which written statements must comply. The consultation paper proposes several changes to the requirements taking account of the proposed implied terms.

  Copies of the paper are being sent to a wide range of interested parties including local authorities, trade and resident associations, and others with an interest in this issue. The closing date for responses is 22 October.

  Copies of the paper will also be placed in the Libraries of the House, and will be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at www.odpm.gov.uk.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Tribunal Service (Performance Targets)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)
  The employment tribunals service has published its annual report and accounts for 2003—04 today. Copies have been laid before Parliament and will be placed on the ETS website at http://www.ets.gov.uk.
  16WS
  I have set the employment tribunals service the following targets for 2004–05:

  Quality
  75 per cent. of single employment tribunal cases to a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt.
  Minimum to be achieved by all offices in relation to above target: 65 per cent.
  85 per cent. of employment tribunal decisions issued within four weeks of the final hearing.
  85 per cent. of employment tribunal users satisfied with the service offered by ETS.
  75 per cent of appeals to EAT to a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt.

  Efficiency
  Three per cent. real terms reduction in employment tribunal administrative unit costs.

  In addition to these key targets:

  Finance
  Pay 100 per cent. of invoices within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  Reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated for the Chief Executive's reply.

  Audit Regulation (Annual Reports of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies)
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I have received the annual reports for the year 2003 from the five recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors: a combined report from the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and one each from the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Schedule 11 of the Companies Act 1989 sets out the requirements which a body must meet to be eligible for recognised supervisory body status. These include requirements to have adequate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance with its rules relating to membership and eligibility (e.g. holding an appropriate qualification, being a fit and proper person, working to technical and ethical standards, maintaining competence), discipline and investigation of complaints. In these reports, the recognised bodies inform the Government about their activities in relation to these arrangements.

  In January 2003, I announced a number of changes to the regulatory regime of the accountancy and audit professions, including the establishment of a new independent inspection unit, located within the Financial Reporting Council, and a professional oversight board for accountancy (POBA), to take over, from this Department, my functions under Part II of the Companies Act 1989 in respect of the recognised supervisory bodies. I am pleased to report that these bodies are now established and in operation. The delegation of these powers is dependent on provisions in the Companies (Audit, Investigation and Community

  17WS
  Enterprise) Bill currently before the House and so for the time being my Department continues to have responsibility for oversight of the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Coal Authority (Annual Report and Accounts)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  I have today laid a copy of the Coal Authority report and accounts for 2003–04 before Parliament.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Multi-agency Initial Assessment Team Trial
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  As part of the continuing work to improve the capability to deal with major incidents, the Home Office, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health are sponsoring a trial of a multi-agency initial assessment team (MAIAT) in the London area.

  Comprising officers from the London Fire Brigade, the Metropolitan Police, City of London Police and the London Ambulance Service, MAIAT will provide an initial assessment of potential chemical, biological, radiological or other major incidents.

  The aim of the trial is to see whether a dedicated team could add to the emergency response by providing an early, effective and integrated assessment of the nature and risk of a CBRN incident. The trial will focus on central London.

  The trial will be for one year during which the overall value of the team and the specific tasks it undertakes will be monitored, and lessons would be learned as the team develops. A full evaluation will be done towards the end of 2005, and lessons learned will be shared with emergency services elsewhere in the country.

  This initiative has been developed with the emergency services in London and builds on their strong working relationship. It aims to add to, not replace, the capability we already have for responding to major incidents.

  National Offender Management Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  On 6 January 2004, the Home Secretary announced the Government's response to Patrick Carter's review of the correctional services and confirmed our intention to establish a national offender management service. This statement outlines the way I intend to introduce the new single service.

  The Carter review highlighted the fact that no single organisation has responsibility for managing offenders. The review proposed that the existing organisations should be absorbed within a new service focused on the end-to-end management of offenders throughout their sentence.

  Since January, I have conducted two consultation exercises and have received nearly 400 written responses. After careful consideration, I have decided that the option of moving immediately to create new regional boards is unlikely to deliver better management
  18WS
  of offenders and better services—my two main objectives. Instead, I intend at this stage to concentrate on introducing the concept and practice of end-to-end offender management. There has been widespread support for this approach and it is key to achieving our overall aim of reducing re-offending. I will introduce greater competition within correctional services by using the powers of the Secretary of State but at this stage I have concluded that this can best be achieved through the existing 42 probation boards. This will allow us to maintain important local links with other criminal justice agencies and the experience gained will allow us to take forward future structural change in a more informed way.

  The regional offender managers will have direct responsibility for budget allocation. They will support the existing local boards in moving to an offender management model, manage board performance, develop contestability, and pilot commissioning in their area. They will play an important part in achieving more effective service delivery through greater competition, using providers of prison and community interventions from across the public, private and voluntary sectors and determining where to split purchaser and provider. This approach will give us the opportunity to expose the core of offender management, and not just interventions, to competition.

  The 42 local probation boards will refocus their role around a new statutory responsibility for managing offenders. They are already able to purchase and commission services. The consultation responses show they are eager to respond to the Carter review and to embed the concept of offender management. I want to enlist this interest and enthusiasm although I am also determined that the boards embark on a radical programme of change, not least to extend their commissioning function.

  While the regional offender managers will lead performance and innovation at regional level, individual offender management will continue to be organised locally below the existing area level. I recognise the importance of the links and relationships that underpin effective joint working. The work probation areas currently undertaken in child protection, on the local criminal justice boards, in the criminal and disorder reduction partnerships and in the youth offending teams will continue.

  In parallel to the ongoing development of NOMS and the core concepts of offender management and contestability I intend to proceed with vigour in implementing the other initiatives recommended in the Carter review that are critical to achieving our goal of reducing re-offending, and which have at their heart the proper punishment and rehabilitation of offenders that will lead to a safer society for all.

  CAC Annual Report (Immigration and Nationality Directorate)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  I am pleased to announce the publication of the independent Complaints Audit Committee (CAC) annual report on the Immigration
  19WS
  and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, for the year 2003–04. Copies are available in the Library of the House and on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website.

  This is the CAC's 10th report. Their role is to monitor the effectiveness of IND's procedures for investigating complaints about the conduct and efficiency of staff in IND. Their findings are valuable to the organisation.

  The CAC has commended and recognised the continued improvement in the processes involved with complaints handling by IND, as well as the continued support of the IND's senior management team.

  As with previous reports this annual report highlights a number of areas where IND could improve its customer service, supported by a number of recommendations. IND will use these recommendations to help inform their wider change and reform programme.

  Refugee Integration Strategy/Refugee Funding Decisions
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  I am today publishing, and placing in the Libraries of both Houses, a draft for consultation of our new national refugee integration strategy, "Integration Matters". The purpose of the strategy, which applies to England and will replace that set out in 2000 in "Full and Equal Citizens", is to help refugees build new lives in the United Kingdom and integrate to the full: the actions it proposes will enable refugees to achieve their full potential, to contribute to the communities in which they live, and to access the public services they need. It sets out how we will use our investment in refugee services, particularly through the European refugee fund and the challenge fund, to promote these ends. The draft strategy proposes for the first time a set of indicators which, in conjunction with a major study of the experiences of new migrants, will enable us to monitor its effectiveness and make changes where necessary. In this task we will rely on the expertise of the National Refugee Integration Forum, whose role in drawing up the draft strategy has been invaluable.

  In accordance with best practice, we are allowing three months for comment, and we would welcome the widest possible range of contributions: from the public, voluntary, and private sectors, and of course from refugees themselves. Further online copies of the strategy can be obtained from Priscilla.Pegg@ homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk to whom any comments should be sent. We are publishing simultaneously with the draft strategy the results of a skills audit of refugees, which has also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and forms part of the evidence base underlying the strategy, demonstrating both the wide range of skills brought to the United Kingdom by refugees and the extent of the help which many of them need in order to contribute fully to British society.

  I am also announcing today the grants we are making for 2004–05 from the European refugee fund and the refugee challenge fund. Both funds exist to channel much-needed resources to innovative projects designed to deliver services tailored to the specific needs of refugees. We have been able this year to fund 38 projects for a total of £2.5 million under the European refugee
  20WS
  fund, and 79 projects for a total of £3 million under the challenge fund. A list of the successful projects has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Compact on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector (Fifth Annual Meeting)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of the report of the fifth annual meeting, held on 5 May 2004, to review the compact on relations between Government and the voluntary and community sector.

  The meeting reviewed the significant achievements made across Government and the voluntary and community sector to implement and develop the compact. The compact is the blueprint for improving partnership working between Government, at all levels, and the sector.

  The challenge now is to make sure the compact is used as a practical tool to improve public services and citizens' everyday lives.

  The compact action plan in the report of the fifth annual meeting sets out our priorities for driving the relationship between Government and the sector forward this year.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Charter Review: "What You Said About the BBC"
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  On 11 December 2003, I announced the first phase of BBC Charter review with the launch of a major public consultation. The consultation was supported by a programme of survey research, visits to different parts of the country to hear the views of people in the media industry and the public first hand, and a series of events for children and young people to hear what they had to say.

  By the time the consultation closed on 31 March 2004 we had received over 5,000 written responses and there had been over 25,000 unique visitors to the charter review website. We published the responses on the internet as the consultation proceeded. The research fieldwork we commissioned was completed in June this year.

  Today, I am publishing the results of this consultation and research. The report we are publishing "What You Said About the BBC" summarises the main points that were put to us. It does not capture every single one of the many hundreds of issues raised, which is why I am also publishing in full the reports of research and consultation on which "What You Said About the BBC" is based. These documents, together with the consultation responses I have already published, should be seen as a complementary package and taken together give a comprehensive picture of the views received.

  "What You Said About the BBC" contains both praise and criticism. Most people indicated that they value the BBC and hold it in high esteem, but a significant minority disagreed. To those who like the BBC it was generally seen as the best broadcaster for news, documentaries and features about personal

  21WS
  interests. But even to many supporters it is seen as being by no means perfect. Although satisfaction levels are high, most people want to see changes. However, there is a clear view that the BBC should continue to remain independent of Government, parliamentary and commercial pressures.

  People believe the BBC should keep up with developments in new technology and should be a leading partner in new markets-this will be particularly relevant as we make the journey towards full switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting.

  Contributors clearly felt that there was room for improvement in the way the BBC is governed and regulated, although there is more debate to be had about exactly what changes are needed.

  On the question of how we should pay for the BBC, the licence fee was widely considered to be the best—or rather the "least worst"—method for the time being, although other options were put forward and questions were raised about how the licence fee is set, collected and distributed.

  The findings contained in this report will feed directly into the review of the BBC's charter. As I have said on numerous occasions, the only certain outcome of charter review will be a strong BBC, independent of Government.

  I have placed copies of "What You Said About the BBC" and the supporting research in the Libraries of both Houses. Further copies are available from the charter review website: http://www.bbccharterreview. org.uk.

DEFENCE

  Watchkeeper (Selection of Preferred Bidder)
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  I am pleased to announce the new chapter to the strategic defence review setting out the potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) significantly to improve operational effectiveness. UAVs will be a key contributor to network enabled capability and their ability to provide persistent surveillance of the battlefield or theatre of operations, without putting lives at risk has been demonstrated recently by US operations in Afghanistan and coalition operations in Iraq.

  The central element of the UK's current plans for acquiring UAVs is the Watchkeeper programme, which will provide UK commanders with accurate, timely and high quality imagery. Watchkeeper will be an advanced system integrating air vehicles, sensor payloads and ground control facilities. It will be joined to the wider command and control network through communication systems such as Bowman, allowing information to be passed quickly, providing commanders with an improved understanding of the battle space and shortening sensor to shooter times.

  The competition for entry into the final stage of the Watchkeeper programme has been run between two industrial teams led by Northrop Grumman and Thales Defence Ltd. Both submitted bids reflecting an understanding of the programme requirements, the technical complexities, the project management requirements and UK industrial participation.
  22WS
  Following detailed consideration of the proposals, on the basis of value for money and demonstration of the best potential to deliver the required capability, the selection of the team led by Thales Defence Ltd will be announced as the preferred bidder for the Watchkeeper demonstration and manufacturing phase by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Farnborough international airshow today. Further negotiations will be required before the project is ready to pass its main investment decision. It is planned to start these negotiations immediately. Depending on the outcome of that work, we aim to make the main gate decision on Watchkeeper later this year. The intention remains to bring Watchkeeper into service as soon as possible with capability beginning around the end of 2006.

HEALTH

  NHS Estates and Facilities Management Development Agency (Annual Report)
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  We have received the NHS Estates and Facilities Management Development Agency annual report and accounts 2003–04 and copies have today been laid in accordance with the requirements of section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

  The report describes the agency's performance against key tasks and targets and incorporates its accounts for that year.

  Copies of annual report and accounts 2003–04 have been placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Air Quality (Heathrow)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Department is today making information available on its website concerning the programme of work promised in the "Future of Air Transport" White Paper to examine how to make best use of Heathrow's existing two runways, and how a third runway could be added after a new runway at Stansted, while complying with strict conditions on air quality, noise and improved public transport access. Copies of the information available today have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The most challenging issue confronting expansion at Heathrow is compliance with forthcoming EU air quality limits. In addressing this issue, we have set up three air quality panels—involving independent experts supported by officials—to help us review the data and methodology used in analysis underpinning the White Paper and to advise on any further research and data that may be required over the next 12–18 months. In addition, work is underway with key stakeholders to explore the issues surrounding mixed mode operations and the options for improved surface access.

  We are aiming to reach conclusions on the prospects for further development at Heathrow in time to contribute to the White Paper progress report promised

  23WS
  for 2006. Any proposals that were not consulted on in the run up to the White Paper, such as the introduction of mixed mode, will require full public consultation.

  Early work will be focused on evidence gathering and analysis. We are committed to keeping people involved in this process and informed of any significant developments. In addition to the information and documents that we are making available on the Department's website, we will also hold periodic meetings with stakeholders and interested parties. The information on the web site—available at www.dft.gov.uk/aviation/projectheathrow—provides a summary of the project and its work and gives details of the air quality panels. We will keep this information under review as the project progresses, adding material as appropriate and responding to the feedback we receive.

  Crossrail
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Alistair Darling)
  On 14 July last year I announced I had received business case proposals for the east-west London Crossrail project from Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) and that I was establishing an expert team to assess them. On 9 September I announced that Adrian Montague had been appointed to lead the review.

  The Crossrail team had the following terms of reference:

  (i) To establish the full cost of Cross London Rail Link's July 2003 Crossrail business case proposals, and to assess:

  (ii)

  (a)whether they are likely to deliver to time, scope and budget;

  (b)whether the business case proposals will offer value for money;

  (c)the extent of Government funding that can be justified;

  (d)the proportion of the funding required from non-Government sources.

  (iii) To identify any means of delivering a Crossrail project which offer better performance than the business case proposals against tests at (ii) (a)(d) above.

  (iv) To report to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable.

  I have studied the Montague findings closely. They broadly confirm the CLRL proposals, but indicate scope for important improvements. I am publishing the report today.

  I have confirmed on many occasions the Government's support for the principle of building a new east-west Crossrail link. Indeed, as the Prime Minister says in his foreword to my transport strategy document today, Crossrail is a project that we want to see delivered.

  In light of the Montague report, and the Government's analysis of what needs to be done to give effect to the suggested improvements, I am now confident that Crossrail should proceed, although a major funding challenge remains and I shall return to that later. I intend that appropriate powers for the construction of Crossrail should be sought by means of a hybrid Bill to be introduced in Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
  24WS
  The Montague report finds that, while some individual cost and revenue elements may be queried, CLRL's overall indicative cost for the scheme they propose, some £10 billion at 2002 prices, is broadly correct. It would appear to deliver acceptable value for money and provide an effective vehicle to support the Government's regeneration objectives and the creation of sustainable communities both in the Thames gateway and elsewhere, though there is scope for debate about the level of wider benefits that might be realised.

  While the review concluded that there were no pivotal problems with CLRL's proposals, there were nonetheless areas of doubt. In particular, the review questioned whether CLRL's scheme could be operated at the planned high train throughput levels, given the multiple interfaces between Crossrail and the national railway network. The review also questioned the capacity of the construction industry to tackle such a large project in one go, and the suitability of CLRL's current governance structure to delivering the project.

  In aggregate, these concerns create significant uncertainty. Some doubts reflect the nature of a scheme at this stage of its development, and could be expected to be resolved as the design matured, but others—not least those above—are more enduring. As a result, the review could not confirm the deliverability of the CLRL business case proposals as they stood. Montague made suggestions for further work and improvements. I have set in hand the further work needed to ensure that these areas of concern are satisfactorily addressed.

  As provided for by its terms of reference, the review considered alternative ways of delivering a Crossrail project. Specifically, it explored a number of options based on a Paddington-Liverpool Street tunnel that runs broadly along the line of the currently safeguarded central route. All of these represented less extensive schemes than that initially proposed by CLRL and would enable a Crossrail project to be delivered at lower cost. They would also overcome some of the potential interface, capacity and deliverability problems identified above. In particular, although reliability questions arising from multiple interfaces should be substantially alleviated once Network Rail's plans for improved performance on the national railway show results, reducing the number of interfaces between Crossrail and the wider rail network would clearly bring advantages.

  On the basis of the review's work, it is clear that the case for a limb to Richmond/Kingston is relatively weakly developed, and that an extension on the western side to Maidenhead might provide a better solution. This would be a key change, and would align directly with key review concerns about the scale, and deliverability of the project and number of interfaces it has with the national railway. I am today inviting CLRL to bring forward as soon as practicable confirmed route proposals for which powers should be sought in the hybrid Bill.

  CLRL have already asked me to update the safeguarding directions for the central section of its proposed route, replacing the existing ones from 1990 and 1991, which are somewhat out of date. Updating the safeguarding directions would not only protect the

  25WS
  route, but also allow affected property-owners access to compensation via the statutory blight provisions. Accordingly, I will now issue safeguarding directions forthwith for the central section of CLRL's plans. Subject to due process, including the necessary consultation with local authorities, I would expect to safeguard the rest of the route, including access for the Thames gateway.

  The review also explored ways of funding and financing Crossrail, including by means of alternative funding mechanisms and a novel stakeholder equity concept, which would involve using a fares supplement to provide passengers with a real stake in the future of Crossrail and to offer protection against project cost overruns. While this is a highly innovative idea that is worthy of further consideration, the potential to use fares as a buffer against cost overruns is limited. It would need to be considered in the context both of the existing fare level and pressures on fares more generally.

  The Montague report makes clear the scale of funding challenge that Crossrail represents. As I explained in my statement last year, those who benefit from Crossrail should contribute substantially to its delivery. The Montague report confirms the likely availability of funds through alternative funding mechanisms but notes that these are not nearly enough to close the very large funding gap. Further work therefore needs to be done to develop a funding solution that is equitable to all parties, and which can successfully deliver a London project of such importance. My Department and HM Treasury will take this forward, working with the Mayor and the London business and finance community. This will include consulting on appropriate alternative funding mechanisms before next Summer, so that those who benefit from Crossrail are in a position to contribute as fully as possible to meeting the costs.

  A key element of a robust project funding plan would be an effective mechanism to ensure that those bearing the risks of the project have proper control of it. In due course, control of a London-based scheme such as Crossrail should lie with London interests directly. However, as the review's report also makes clear, CLRL's current ownership structure is unlikely to provide an effective basis for the robust project governance that will be required initially for the management of the hybrid Bill, and then for the construction of the Crossrail itself.

  Accordingly, I propose to reform Crossrail as a joint venture company between my Department and Transport for London, at least for the purposes of seeking and obtaining the necessary powers. The Secretary of State will appoint, with the agreement of the Mayor, an independent chairman of CLRL, who will have a casting vote on the board of the company. This will ensure that CLRL's Board has the clear decision-taking capability that the current deadlocked structure lacks. TfL will be involved in all aspects of the progress of the Bill and Crossrail could subsequently be transferred for TfL implementation.

  The Crossrail concept has been around in one form or another for many years and commands considerable support from business and the travelling public alike. It has the promise to improve significantly travel into and across the centre of the capital and also to deliver wider benefits, in particular to the east of London. The
  26WS
  Government's decision to proceed with this project after decades of prevarication represents a significant milestone in the history of London as we seek to build a transport system fit for the twenty-first century.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car and Despatch Agency (Annual Report)
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have today laid the Government Car and Despatch Agency annual report and accounts 2003–04 before Parliament, copies of which are available in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The latest report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website www.fco.gov.uk. The report covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2004 and includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  I commend the Report to the House.

  Constitutional Treaty for the European Union (Provisional Text)
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  I have laid before the House Command Paper 6289, containing the text agreed by the European Council on 17–18 June 2004 for a Constitutional Treaty for the European Union (CIG 86/04). Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

  This is an interim text of the treaty, which still has to go through a process of technical amendment by jurist-linguists this summer. The Dutch presidency then plan for the final text to be signed by Heads of State and Government on 29 October.

  Command Paper 6289 includes the declarations of the council that will accompany the treaty, and the protocols that are new or directly relevant to the UK (the remainder can be seen in the on-line version of the treaty, at http://www.fco.gov.uk. We will present the final text in full to Parliament this autumn, also as a Command Paper, prior to introducing legislation to give it effect in UK law—subject to its approval in a referendum.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  International Labour Conference 2003 (Convention 185)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  The 91st session of the International Labour Conference 2003 adopted a new Convention 185—Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention. We have today laid before Parliament a
  27WS
  White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference, Proposed action on a Convention adopted at the 91st Session of the International Labour Conference 2003", (Cm 6290), copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome
  The Minister for Work (Jane Kennedy)
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) has completed its review of hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) and its report has been laid before Parliament (Cm 6098). The 28WS
  Government thank the council for the care and diligence taken in producing the report, and has decided to implement the report's recommendation to widen the terms of prescription of prescribed disease A 11.

  The revised prescription will take account of sensorineural symptoms, which are not included in the current prescription for prescribed disease A 11.

  The Department for Work and Pensions is currently working on detailed plans for putting this report into practice, which will include communicating with those representing people who may be affected.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Baroness Young of Hornsey
Margaret Omolola Young, OBE, having been created Baroness Young of Hornsey, of Hornsey in the London Borough of Haringey, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Amos and the Lord Ouseley, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Rowlands
Edward Rowlands, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Rowlands, of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in the County of Mid-Glamorgan, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Richard and the Lord Morris of Aberavon.

NHS Treatment: Overseas Visitors
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Boothroyd Baroness Boothroyd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidelines are being given to general practitioners to check the eligibility of overseas visitors to receive medical care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, existing guidance to general practice on these matters is set out in health service circular 1999/18. That makes it clear that if GPs do not wish to accept overseas visitors as NHS patients, they can offer to treat them on a private paying basis. The Government are currently consulting on proposals to clarify the rules in this area. Revised guidance will be issued to explain any changes that are made to the rules after the consultation ends on 13 August.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I am delighted to hear of the consultation process, although I am sad to say that the GPs with whom I have spoken are not aware of it. Is the Minister aware of the claim made by GPs at their recent conference that one in 10 patients is not entitled to NHS care? Does he agree that general practitioners are the gatekeepers of the NHS, without the time or the resources to ascertain the eligibility of visiting tourists?
Would he consider that until such time as we are issued with identity cards, we insist on holiday insurance that covers healthcare for every overseas visitor who does not fall within the eligibility rules? Would that not have the two-pronged effect of reducing pressure on our health service and at the same
88
time lessening the need to recruit professional health personnel from overseas countries whose need is often greater than our own?
Lord Warner: My Lords, there are a number of strands to the noble Baroness's questions. As regards the suggestion that one in 10 patients on GPs' lists are not entitled to NHS care, it was in fact one general practitioner at the BMA conference who said that, who happens to be based in Gants Hill, Essex. We have no reliable data on the number of overseas visitors registered with general practices but, as I said, it is open to doctors now, under the current guidance, not to accept people where they have good reason to believe that they do not live in their practice area and to deal with them on a private, fee-paying basis.
Given that we have started a process of consultation, it would be premature to pre-empt that consultation by deciding how we are going to tackle this problem. Out of that consultation will come further guidance for general practice to bring it more in line with the guidance that has now been reissued to hospital services. Under the new system, essentially, the burden of proof will be on the person presenting himself or herself for registration to declare and demonstrate unambiguously that they are eligible for free NHS primary medical services.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend enlarge on what seems to me to be a fantasy land? Most of us when we try to visit our general practitioner get to see a receptionist, who then quotes a date a month or five weeks ahead when we might be fitted in. I know that all these overseas visitors are diabolically clever, but how do they manage in their short visits to get to see a GP at all?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I know how lit my noble friend is; he may not have been to his GP lately and may not have noticed that we have speeded up access to general practitioners. It is one of the many achievements within the NHS that is to the Government's credit. Of course, when the new arrangements come in—we are not reorganising general practice—it will be for patients to present themselves and, as I said earlier, to convince the practice that they are eligible for free NHS care.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, when answering the first Question the Minister told the House that the Government do not know the size of the burden placed on GPs at present. Is it not rather important to know that before you start instructing GPs how to handle what might be quite a minor problem? If further guidance is issued, is it not important to ensure that it does not result in an additional administrative burden upon GPs, who are already extremely overburdened with administration? Finally, is there not a risk that persons of ethnic minorities who live in our country might constantly be checked for eligibility?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work done by GPs. As the House knows, the Government

89
have increased the number of general practitioners so that the burden is more evenly spread. We are conducting a survey to ascertain whether there is a problem in this area. It is important that we amend the guidance because it contains some ambiguities. It is important that the guidance on free NHS primary care is aligned with the new guidance on the entitlement of overseas visitors to hospital services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people with HIV come from abroad, develop AIDS and stay on? Will GPs be given extra funds to cope with these people?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I would suggest that that is a little wide of the scope of the Question. As the noble Baroness may know, the Cabinet Office is currently reviewing imported infections and immigration into the UK. We await the result of that review, which will be made available publicly in due course.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that today he has announced another survey and reported to us on further consultation? Can he tell the House the state of play of the consultation that is already taking place in relation to entitlement cards, which was announced with a great flourish some months ago? If we had entitlement cards, would not that relieve general practitioners of any kind of administrative burden being put upon them?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government are still working in this particular area. Although, again, it is a little wide of the scope of the Question, I shall make further inquiries and write to my noble friend.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that short-term visitors to the UK who are taken ill during a holiday or a short-term visit are entitled under the law to free treatment, both by general practitioners and in hospital; but that people coming here specifically for medical treatment and investigation at hospitals must be private patients? To avoid any kind of misunderstanding, can the Minister clarify the position of overseas students from outside the European Community and their entitlement to medical care in the UK?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is true that the NHS remains a humanitarian service and that treatment will be provided free of charge where, in the professional opinion of a healthcare clinician, it is an emergency or immediately necessary. Nothing in the consultations will change that. As I said earlier, the arrangements in relation to primary care will be brought into alignment with the new hospital charging regulations, which came into operation in England on 1 April. We want to ensure that the same conditions apply. Essentially, they will require people to be ordinarily resident in this country. There will be a number of exemptions, and I
90
believe that students will form a part of those exemptions. I shall confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.
Earl Howe: My Lords, what is the scale of the problem that the Government are seeking to solve?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, we are conducting a survey to establish precisely the scale of the problem. But we know, and there have been concerns expressed, that the guidance issued in 1999 is not as clear as it might be. It is important that we amend that guidance to bring it in line with the new hospital charging regulations, which, as I said, were brought into operation on 1 April. We are undertaking consultation to achieve that end.

Andhra Pradesh
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool The Lord Bishop of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the Department for International Development's strategy of engaging with the newly-elected government in Andhra Pradesh in India following the vote of no confidence in Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, following the recent elections, officials from the Department for International Development initiated discussions with the new Government of Andhra Pradesh on their priorities and how DfID can best support their efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve the millennium development goals. These discussions will continue over the next few months and are expected to be concluded by the end of the year.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. Can she give an assurance that DfID will seek to serve the interests of the citizens of Andhra Pradesh? As she will know, there is considerable anxiety about the role of some of the multinational companies involved in these programmes. It would be good to have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give a primary purpose to DfID to serve the interests of the local people.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will know that the core of our development strategy is to work to eliminate poverty around the world. That is why we continue to work in India, where a quarter of the poorest people in the world live. Of course I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we shall seek to ensure that the Government of Andhra Pradesh consult their citizens on their priorities, which we are seeking to support, and through our own work we shall support civil society.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with last week's Economist that DfID's practice of direct budget support can improve governance and increase a government's accountability to their own population?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Many questions have been raised about the impact of budget support in many countries. We work by agreeing a memorandum of understanding with a country's government, setting out very clearly the monitoring mechanisms that will be put in place and the expectations that the partner government can have of us and that we can have of the partner government.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, although the newly elected Government of India have still to clarify their position on overseas aid, will the Minister confirm that it is their policy to rely less on development aid and that they would prefer donor countries to relate more with non-governmental organisations? If that is the case, would it not be wise to seek partners in NGOs rather than compromising the position of central or state government?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is referring to two different things. It is the policy of the Government of India to rely less on development assistance. To that end, they have become a donor country with respect to development aid. But I come back to what I said in response to the right reverend Prelate: a quarter of the poorest people in the world live in India. An important part of what donor countries do is not only to work in partnership with the Government of India but to work in partnership with key states in India. We are working with four to support the priorities of those states to ensure that the developments we are seeing in some parts of India are reflected in other parts as well.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that Her Majesty's Government have been investing in aid for Andhra Pradesh for nearly 20 years? Will she tell us of the progress and the benefits of that aid, and how it has helped in capacity-building in that state?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, will know that over the past two years, we have given some £130 million to Andhra Pradesh. Between 1990 and 2000, the poverty headcount came down from 30 per cent to 22 per cent. The state has, as one of its priorities, the eradication of child labour. In 1991, there were 1.6 million children in child labour. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that between 1990 and 2000, the number of children in primary school rose from 59 per cent to 89 per cent, which means that far fewer children are labourers. Literacy rates have improved from 51 per cent to 68 per cent. So our programmes and those of the World Bank, along with the state's own priorities, are having an impact, but there still remains a great deal to be done.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that DfID sometimes has a difficulty in reconciling the different views of national governments, state governments and NGOs on the ground? It surely is a reasonable proposition for central governments to say they have priorities which must always be taken into account, while the NGOs feel that they are doing a much better job and have a much better grasp of the individual situation. How do all these issues become reconciled?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Through the significant resources at our disposal, we are seeking to work to change the long-term development possibilities in a country or in a state by influencing an entire sector, be it health or education. NGOs quite often try to work on individual projects which have an immediate impact. We try to ensure that we achieve some kind of balance between those two things. However, the reality is that if a country does not have a health system that functions effectively, although a degree of short-term assistance can be given, long-term sustainability will not happen.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that so often the poverty reduction programmes put in place are undermined by environmental disasters, such as the recent floods in India? Is she satisfied that DfID has a sufficient risk minimisation programme in place?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. If we look at what is happening around the world, development gains can be undermined by environmental disasters, be they floods or anything else. We do engage in risk assessment; one of the things that we do in areas prone to environmental disaster is to work not just on preparedness but also on prevention mechanisms.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, does my noble friend recall, before the last election, the tragedies in Gujarat, where many Hindus were killed, and a very much greater number of Muslims were killed in subsequent problems? Recognising the primacy of the role of the Government in India in these matters, then and now, is DfID able to play any part in contributing towards the reduction of the problems in Gujarat, in reducing those tensions and the underlying causes of them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There was considerable violence in Gujarat in 2002 in which more than 1,000 people, mainly Muslim, were killed. We have been working to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. My noble friend is right that we need to work to reduce the issues that caused that rioting. We do that principally through our diplomatic work rather than through our development work, but, as the British Government, we are continuing to work with the Indian Government on these issues.

Abortion
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to consider the proposals of the Lord Steel of Aikwood to reduce the stage at which abortion is legal except in the most exceptional circumstances.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the law on abortion. This is a subject on which people hold strong and widely differing views. However, it is accepted parliamentary practice that proposals for changes in the law on abortion come from Back-Bench Members and that decisions are made on the basis of free votes, with Members and Peers voting according to their own beliefs and values.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, in view of the increasing interest—indeed, sense of awe—at the recent 4D ultrasound pictures of what a baby at three months is capable of, and the fact that babies can now survive at 22 weeks, does the Minister agree that the Government should take a lead by setting up a Select Committee of both Houses to look at how far the present abortion law is applicable and appropriate in view of the changing technologies involved?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is perfectly true that Professor Stuart Campbell's images of the 12 week-old foetus are fascinating. But they do not, I suggest, contribute to the abortion debate. The incoming president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said that the images add little to the abortion debate. He said the fact that Professor Campbell is,
"observing these developments and physiological movements is not changing anything about the time of viability".
It is worth bearing in mind that survival at 22 weeks' gestation is only about 1 per cent.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will be very disappointing to a large number of people, particularly since there is so much evidence now of better treatment and that children who have only a very small blemish such as a cleft palate are being aborted? Surely that cannot be right. In that case, should not the Government take a lead?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am pretty confident that if I said anything on this subject which pleased the noble Baroness, I would also displease a very large number of other people in this House. I stand by what I said in my Answer: this is a matter for Back-Bench action when that is thought appropriate. Members in both Houses vote on this issue on the basis of their beliefs and values.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I have not actually made any proposals, but I wonder whether the
94
Minister agrees that the time has come to have a look at how a 40 year-old Act is working in practice. A committee such as the right reverend Prelate suggests could usefully look at three things: first, whether the requirement for two doctors, under the present law, is itself causing delays and therefore later abortions than is necessary; secondly, how the law is working in neighbouring countries, where abortion on request is allowed up to the third month of pregnancy; and, thirdly, whether medical techniques have now advanced to the point where we ought to lower the upper limit of abortions from the 24th week except in cases of emergency.
Lord Warner: My Lords, if the Government went round telling either House what subject its Select Committees or otherwise should be studying, they would probably be criticised. It is of course open to any Select Committee in this House or in the other place to decide which subjects it wishes to consider.
In a poll of MPs in the Independent on Sunday, the 150 MPs who replied suggested that, on a free vote in the House of Commons, they would keep the current time limits as they are, and 62 per cent said that the 24-week time limit was about right. So, as I understand it, a majority of opinion is still in favour of the present arrangements.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a poll of 150 MPs is not the same as a vote in another place? On the previous occasion when another place voted on this subject, on a Bill that I put forward, 296 MPs—a majority of 45—voted in favour of a reduction in the time limit to 18 weeks. Does he also accept that many of us from all sides of the argument very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said about a reduction to 12 weeks in all cases other than those of exceptional circumstances and that the time has indeed come to look at this question again? Is the Minister in a position to respond to the letters that I sent to his right honourable friend Mr John Reid concerning the five recent cases of babies who were born alive during abortions and were not then resuscitated? Does he not accept that, at least on this narrow point, new guidelines ought to be issued in those compelling circumstances?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I was only gently and I thought helpfully reminding the House that there were differences of opinion. I quoted the Independent on Sunday survey to show that many MPs took a different view on the issue from that of the noble Lord. I repeat what I said about inquiries. It is up to the Houses of Parliament, through their Select Committees, to decide what issues they wish to study. I shall certainly look into the correspondence that the noble Lord is having with the Secretary of State and ensure that he receives a reply. I do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was saying was quite the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was saying, but it will be for the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to correct the record.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is it not a fact that most late abortions occur because of the inadequate

95
facilities in the abortion service? Would it not be better if we had a proper and comprehensive abortion service in all areas so that these late abortions which are causing most distress were avoided?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy and sexual health strategy are intended to reduce the level of unintended pregnancies. As I understand the situation, there has been an improvement in the number of abortions in the under-18 age group. There has been a 9 per cent reduction in the under-18 conception rate since the introduction of the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy. We have put more resources into this area so that women can get an abortion, when it is appropriate and meets all the necessary requirements, at an earlier stage in the pregnancy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I declare a professional interest as one who—for my sins—has recently argued a case about this subject in the Northern Ireland courts. Does the Minister agree that one practical problem with reducing the time limit particularly affects women in Northern Ireland? They come to England because they cannot get abortions on the same basis in Northern Ireland. As a result, they often come late and they have no NHS funding. Would that not have to be considered carefully if there were to be a reduction in the period in which abortions would be lawful in this country?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course absolutely right. There are some complex issues involved in this particular area. That is why one should not rush into change without due consideration, and that is only one of the many considerations that would have to be taken into account. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that 87 per cent of abortions were carried out under 13 weeks' gestation.

Traffic Islands
3.14 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the design of traffic islands and maintenance of signposts on them do not endanger public safety.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the design of traffic islands and the maintenance of traffic signs are the responsibility of highway authorities. Guidance on sign maintenance and traffic islands is given in the Code of Practice for Maintenance Management that was published by the Institution of Highways and Transportation in 2001. The Department for Transport supports the code and commends it to local highway authorities.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that the Department for Transport will investigate why highway authorities are failing to maintain signs on traffic islands, which increasingly
96
endanger road safety rather than improve it? Given that bad maintenance increases the risk that more traffic islands will be hit, will he ensure that a limit is imposed on the height of traffic islands, many of which are higher than the level of car axles and endanger both life and limb? In some cases, they resemble tank traps more than anything else.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's second point, the height of traffic islands depends on their purpose. Some of them certainly play their part in traffic calming measures and that is why they are particularly high. However, there are road markings on the approach to such islands and they are generally attended by lower speed limits. On the more general question of maintenance, local authorities and the Highways Agency have to satisfy safety audits of their levels of maintenance. The noble Lord's concerns reflect the fact that one of the problems is that the modern traffic island can be more subject to vandalism than in the past. Traffic islands are not only struck and damaged by cars, necessitating their replacement, but some are also prone to vandalism. That is why a safety audit needs to be carried out as the noble Lord hinted.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does not the occasional failure of traffic authorities to follow the kind of appropriate guidance that the Minister mentioned suggest the need for at least some back-up powers in central government, such as will be proposed later this afternoon by the Minister in relation to the Traffic Management Bill?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the House has already indicated in broad terms, the Traffic Management Bill has many merits, but the particular issue of traffic bollards and islands has been regarded as a major safety consideration, although there is concern whenever any of our safety measures and provisions falls short of the highly desirable. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, indicated in his Question, some aspects with regard to traffic islands need attention. The Department for Transport will be monitoring them.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that mini-roundabouts often form an island in a road? Very often, cars are seen to go right across them, causing a danger. Would the Minister agree that, where possible, it would be appropriate to erect warning signs ahead of a mini-roundabout in order that people can take appropriate action instead of having to brake sharply when they reach it, sometimes going straight across?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, all roundabouts need adequate warning signs. My noble friend is reflecting the fact that many motorists have found mini-roundabouts particularly difficult. Certainly, the multiple roundabouts that were introduced in one or two places a number of years ago have created a degree of complexity that has worried motorists. However,

97
roundabouts are very successful in guaranteeing traffic flow and the number of accidents on them is not particularly excessive.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, it is now common practice to divide the carriageways of former three-lane roads and the approaches to traffic islands with white hatching marks. Those are not enforceable. Is it the Minister's intention to make them enforceable, thereby helping many people to avoid colliding with traffic islands and enhancing road safety by reducing the chance of head-on collisions?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that such markings are not enforceable. They are meant as a warning to motorists and an indication that they need to take care wherever those signs appear. It is certainly the case that if we are not successful in that strategy, and collisions with traffic islands then occur more frequently, we shall need to look at toughening up enforcement measures, as the noble Lord indicated. As I said earlier, as with all road furniture, from time to time vehicles collide with traffic islands. That is true of all signs. The fault more often lies with the driver than with the inert sign.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prime purpose of a traffic island is to protect pedestrians from cars? Would he not therefore also agree that the wider and higher the island is, generally, the more protection they will get? If an incident involves the car hitting it and breaking its axle, is that not a good price to pay to protect the pedestrian?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think the House has some sympathy for that viewpoint about the protection of pedestrians at traffic islands. But the question is about all traffic islands, and there are many traffic islands which are not designed to protect pedestrians at all. In fact, the pedestrians are nowhere near them. The islands are there to separate traffic on two lanes of carriageway. It is those which give rise to a certain anxiety over the height of the kerbstone and maintenance of the signs. It is very important that all such signs—remember, these signs are in the middle of the road—should be maintained and entirely visible by day and night.

Butler Report
3.21 p.m.
Lord Owen Lord Owen asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the withdrawal by the Secret Intelligence Service in July 2003 of two reports, as described in paragraph 405 of the Butler report, was revealed to the Hutton inquiry; and, if so, whether the inquiry was prevented from disclosing this withdrawal.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Hutton inquiry was not informed of the withdrawal of the reports. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, said, his remit was not to look at the wider intelligence picture. Paragraph 9 of his report states:
"The issue whether, if approved by the Joint Intelligence Committee and believed by the Government to be reliable, the intelligence contained in the dossier was nevertheless unreliable is a separate issue which I consider does not fall within my terms of reference."
It was precisely in order to meet the call for a look at the wider intelligence picture that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set up the Butler review.
Lord Owen: My Lords, is it not an indictment of our democratic procedures that not only was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, not informed about the matter—I gather from the newspapers that he has expressed some concern about this—but that two parliamentary inquiries were not informed about it, and above all, more extraordinarily, that the Prime Minister himself read about this only when he read the Butler report? Are we to assume that the Foreign Secretary was not told about this by the head of MI6?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made clear in another place, there are indeed criticisms in the Butler report that have to be addressed. However, I do not believe that one can go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in saying that it is an indictment of our entire system. I would also not wish the noble Lord, Lord Owen, to run away with the idea that others were not informed about the withdrawal, because he would not be correct in drawing that conclusion from what I have said. What I have done is to answer his question about the Hutton report. Others were informed about the withdrawal.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be beneficial to the House if we knew who knew what, and when?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I will do my best to give your Lordships a view on that, although I do not think that I can be absolutely exhaustive. The Office of the Prime Minister has already made clear that he knew about the withdrawal of the reports as a result of the Butler inquiry. My noble friend's question demands a slightly longer reply than normal, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me.
On 17 July 2003, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service told the Intelligence and Security Committee that the intelligence was being withdrawn, on the condition that they did not refer to it in their report. This was because the sourcing was still being investigated as a sensitive operational matter. The report was formally withdrawn on July 29 2003, and the investigation continued. But C pointed out to the ISC that he still

99
believed the information was correct, although SIS could no longer substantiate the sourcing chain and hence the report was being withdrawn.
The Foreign Secretary first became aware of the withdrawal of this report when he agreed, in response to a request from the SIS on 8 September 2003, that the reports in question should be disclosed to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the other place is discussing the Butler report today. Can the Government give us an assurance that this House will also have an opportunity to discuss and debate the conclusions of this further inquiry? It has clearly not yet given the public reassurance that everything has now been uncovered.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will expect me to say on these occasions, that is a matter for the usual channels. I understand the noble Lord's desire to have a fuller opportunity to discuss this as soon as possible in oral questions. No doubt the usual channels will have their usual discussions on that.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, has the Minister has the chance to read the latest report of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Has she identified the most serious criticism by the all-party committee, that the Government's attitude towards the recommendations that it made—and their failure to respond to a number of points made in that report—is deeply unsatisfactory? Does she recognise that when the noble Lord, Lord Owen, talks about the democratic processes, that is one of them, which, in my view, the Government are treating with increasing contempt while failing to respond to sensible suggestions made by that committee?
I hope that she has read that report, and will make sure that her colleagues in government read it with far greater seriousness than to date.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord King, asked me a direct question about that report, no, I have not read it. I shall certainly do so as a result of the noble Lord's inquiry.
This matter has now been looked at by four different reviews. It has been looked at by the ISC, by the FAC, by the Hutton inquiry and by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. On all points, the Government have been acquitted of acting in bad faith. The noble Lord raises points which are perhaps more about the machinery of government, and some of them were addressed in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, he accepts the findings of the Butler report.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, looking ahead to the future, can my noble friend say what lessons the Government have learnt from this episode about the way in which our intelligence sources operate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, first, as any reading of the report of 195 pages will show, there
100
are a number of important issues. My understanding of the important issues that have to be addressed certainly includes validation, particularly of human intelligence.
Secondly, there are issues of how one caveats anything which is put into the public domain, and the importance of applying appropriate caveats to intelligence is stressed in the Butler report. There were points made about the way in which the chairman of the JIC had authorship of the report. As your Lordships will know, that was also an issue that was questioned.
Lastly, and very importantly, there is the question of the co-ordination of the intelligence services. Again, those are issues that have to be addressed.
Lord Howell of Guilford: My Lords, this question of the defective or withdrawn intelligence—
Noble Lords: Time!
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we really are at the fortieth minute.

Medway Council Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Balance of Funding Review and Report
3.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Fire and Rescue Services Bill has not yet been called—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are on the Statement.
Lord Rooker: The Statement, my Lords? I was about to move that the fire Bill be read a third time. I apologise.
With the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford, the Minister for Local and Regional Government. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the Balance of Funding Review report which is published today and about the Government's response.
"Before I begin, I should like to say a word or two about the speculation we have seen at the weekend and in yesterday's press that the Government have plans for huge increases in people's council tax bills. This is simply untrue. I will say more about this when I come to the report's conclusions on council tax.
"The review started in April 2003. I chaired the steering group which included my honourable friends the Members for Wentworth and Corby, as well as other senior figures from central and local government, academia, business, the union movement

101
and professional bodies. The remit of the review was to establish the nature and priority of the balance of funding issue and to identify and analyse options for change, setting out the pros and cons of each. We commissioned research, held a public consultation and sought further evidence on the main options for reform raised in the public consultation. We had nine meetings in all. All the papers presented to us are available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
"I must first record my thanks to the steering group members, to everybody who responded to the review's public consultation last year and to those who presented papers to the group.
"Secondly, I should like to welcome the report published on 16 July by the ODPM Select Committee following its inquiry on local government revenue. There is significant common ground between the committee's conclusions and those of the Balance of Funding Review. The Government will reply formally to the committee in due course.
"As those who read the report will find, some of the press speculation of recent days has been wholly misleading and inaccurate. As the report makes clear:
'The Review has been conducted for the Government, not by the Government. It follows that this report is not a statement of Government policy. It is rather an analysis of issues and options. Although it draws some conclusions, in line with its remit it does not make recommendations'.
"It has always been the case—indeed, it was included in the terms of reference—that the review would simply set out the pros and cons of a range of short and long-term options.
"As the report states quite clearly, the aim of the review was,
'not to provide a detailed blueprint for reform, but to gain consensus at this stage of the argument on the broad issues, and to agree what the most likely options were, as the basis for more detailed work in the future'.
So we are at the start of this process of further work and there is a great deal more detailed thinking to do.
"The main conclusions of the review are as follows. First, like the Select Committee, the review concludes that there are strong arguments for shifting the balance towards more local funding. However, this depends on the feasibility and desirability of any measures to achieve it. And it would have to be possible to achieve satisfactory equalisation for needs in the distribution of resources between local authorities alongside any greater local revenue raising.
"Secondly, again like the Select Committee, the review concludes that council tax should be retained but reformed. It has important advantages as a local tax. However, in the opinion of the group, it will need reform in order to help people on low incomes and to reduce the impact of revaluation. Further work will be needed on the options for such reform. A fair and effective system of council tax benefit will be a vital component of any reform package. It is
102
clear, for example, that levels of take-up for council tax benefit amongst pensioners and others on low incomes remains low in comparison with other benefits.
"As for council tax bands, the report concludes:
'There is a clear case for reviewing council tax bands and the ratios between them at the time of revaluation'.
And I should point out that the Government have always made clear that we would want to consider these issues with other stakeholders ahead of revaluation. But the report adds:
'particular care is needed to ensure that council taxpayers on low incomes living in high value properties are not unfairly affected'.
It goes on,
'further detailed work is now required on how council tax might be reformed, based on a clear vision of the direction of travel'.
Far from proposing a trebling of people's council tax bills, the review actually states that,
'the aim should be to avoid significant changes to the overall liabilities of taxpayers'.
"There has been much comment in the media about the ideas submitted by the New Policy Institute. It is certainly true that the NPI gave evidence to the review on changes to the banding structure and its ideas are well documented in the report. Indeed, its original paper for the review has been available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since January. However, these are the NPI's ideas and they are not government policy. Indeed, they are not actually recommended by the review.
"Thirdly, the review concludes that the only way to achieve a major shift in the balance of funding is to supplement a reformed council tax with either re-localised business rates or a local income tax or a combination of both. None of these options would be easy and further work would be required here too.
"Fourthly, re-localisation of business rates could give councils greater incentives to promote economic development and improve links with business as well as altering the balance of funding. However, business has serious concerns, including potential risks to their productivity and competitiveness.
"Fifthly, while a local income tax would be more progressive and more buoyant than council tax, it would also be less predictable as a result. Considerable further work would be required to address the substantial technical and administrative issues and costs, as well as the impact on individuals and employers before firm conclusions could be reached on the feasibility or desirability of a local income tax. In that respect, the report makes for difficult reading for those who regard local income tax as a simple solution. As we say in the report, the devil is very much in the detail. I note that the Select Committee takes a similar view.
"Sixthly, the review has concluded that smaller taxes or charges do not provide the potential for major change in the balance of funding. The case for and against each such option should be judged on its own merits.
"I turn now to the Government's response. We are developing a new 10-year vision for local government. We want local government to be more effective and more accountable. A fair and sustainable finance system is crucial to this. We welcome the Balance of Funding Review report as a major contribution to the debate.
"The review could not look at everything. However, while it does not make recommendations, it has reached a number of important conclusions defining the issues, narrowing down the options and assessing the case for change as well as investigating much of the preliminary detail. It provides a sound platform from which to go forward.
"The Government can accept right away that council tax should be retained but reformed. It is clear that council tax is far from perfect and that changes are needed. We are, for example, working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to improve take-up of council tax benefit. That work should continue.
"However, the report flags up the need for more work before decisions can be taken either on how council tax should be reformed or on the possible means for shifting the balance of funding. These matters need to be considered carefully and in detail. We must keep up the momentum, but we must also ensure that any changes are soundly based. As I said earlier, the press speculation that the Government are planning a council tax shake-up that will lead to huge rises in council tax is simply untrue. Any suggestion that we have opted for any particular course of council tax reform is just plain wrong.
"The review concludes that,
'the detailed case for and against some kind of sub-national approach should be considered'.
It is right that we should do this, but not because we want to hit middle England; precisely the opposite. We need to look at options for regional banding in order to ensure that areas of high property price growth such as London and the south-east are not unduly affected by revaluation.
"One thing is clear: there are no easy answers. This subject needs extremely careful examination and detailed consideration. It is far too important to be a political football.
"We have therefore decided to set up an independent inquiry to be undertaken by Sir Michael Lyons to look into these matters and report back by the end of 2005 to my right honourable friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Michael is very widely respected and brings to the task a wealth of local government and other relevant experience. I can think of no one better able to take forward the work which the Balance of Funding Review has begun. Honourable Members will recall that Sir Michael has a distinguished background in local government. He is currently director of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham and between 1994 and 2001 he held the position of chief executive of Birmingham City Council. He was recently appointed as deputy
104
chair of the Audit Commission. He is a member of the Treasury's Public Services Productivity Panel and was also a member of Sir George Bain's review of the fire service. In 2003 he reported to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the relocation of public sector jobs away from London and the south-east.
"The inquiry will consider, in the light of the report by the Balance of Funding Review, and other developments such as new funding arrangements for schools, the detailed case for changes to the present system of local government funding. It will make recommendations on any changes that are necessary and how to implement them; and take evidence from stakeholders.
"In particular, the inquiry will make recommendations on how best to reform council tax, taking into account the forthcoming revaluation. It will assess the case both for providing local authorities with increased flexibility to raise additional revenue and for making a significant shift in the current balance of funding. It will conduct a thorough analysis of options to complement council tax, including local income tax, reform of non-domestic rates and other possible local taxes and charges, as well as the possible combination of such options. It will consider the implications for the financing of possible elected regional assemblies, as well as any implications that its recommendations have for other parts of the United Kingdom.
"The Government now look forward to a period of focused study by the independent inquiry which will build on the Balance of Funding Review's work. We can then take firm decisions on the best way forward to put in place the fair and sustainable system of local government finance that is our objective".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for not getting too muddled about which business we were approaching. I agree with him that we face a difficult afternoon in deciding what we are dealing with. I also thank him very much for repeating the Statement made by the right honourable Nick Raynsford in another place.
The Minister was at some pains to point out that the Balance of Funding Review was a report to the Government and not by the Government. But however presented, there are within it a number of areas of considerable concern.
It is of course a sine qua non that when the Government find themselves in a difficult position they call for an inquiry or, in this case, another inquiry; this one to be undertaken, as the Minister has said, by Sir Michael Lyons. That clearly falls into this category. We of course wish Sir Michael well and hope, without great confidence, that he may find the road to the holy grail.

105
Will the Government say when in 2005 the review will report? Will the Minister also tell us whether the terms of reference of the committee, rather than the broad outline given in the Statement, will be available to the House before it is set up? Nick Raynsford was a brave man when he set forth on the path of reconsidering the options for the council tax and the relationship between the Government's contribution to local government expenditure and that raised by local government itself, which of course now includes the uniform business rate. He was brave because the options for reform have been considered on innumerable occasions and the same difficulties and objections to their alternatives outlined in the Balance of Funding Review report have always come into focus.
As is clear from this report, business does not want to return to a local business rate. Business revaluation will bring untold problems anyway, and any local form of income tax is bound to raise fundamental issues, whether it is assigned from central government revenues or raised locally. Immediately one sees the problems in relation to a tax raised locally, particularly in central London, in view of the number of people who do not actually pay income tax in this part of the world and who therefore might possibly avoid it if paid locally.
All the usual suspects are raised, including local sales tax, tourist tax and now congestion charging which is a tax which should be used, if at all, only for preventing congestion and not as a means of raising missing revenue. Sir Michael will have his work cut out to come to any conclusions which will meet any, never mind everyone's, aspirations and/or concerns. If the members of the balance of funding review have not been able to answer that problem, then Sir Michael's mind is going to have to be very superior indeed.
But whatever is brought forward or thought through again, it is clear that the council tax will remain at the heart of local government revenue. I believe that the Minister made that absolutely clear this afternoon. If I may remind the House, it was much derided when it was introduced by the previous government, but it has proved to he a tax which is simple to collect and to allocate to property, and is understood by those paying it. That has been one of its prime successes, in that it took into account the property base so that there was always somewhere to collect the revenue.
A great deal of the Minister's Statement was concerned with trying to downplay the reports in the press over the weekend that the already scheduled revaluation of domestic properties, along with the possibility of increasing the number of bands and the ratios between them, would have a massive impact on people in the new high bands. It is instructive to recall that throughout the discussions on the Local Government Bill the Government resisted all amendments which would have limited the number of bands and, if there were to be an increase in that number, maintain the current ratio of 1:3 between the top and the bottom. Those amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and myself, would at least have ensured that the elongation of bands
106
would not result in vastly increased amounts being paid by those in the upper tiers. Those amendments were opposed by the Liberal Democrats.
It is clear from the balance of funding review that that is not an option and that, whether suggested by the NPI report or the review itself, there could be potentially substantial increases if this route of extending the ratio were adopted. The Minister has said, and I agree, that no one wants families in either low value or high value property penalised by having to pay much too high local taxes. The rise in property values has been a mixed blessing to those who have lived in their houses for a number of years since the Chancellor now seems to believe that they are a suitable milch cow. The Government need to think very carefully before they accede to any proposal which will force people into having to sell their property because they cannot afford to pay the council tax. We might perhaps seek an assurance from the Minister today that that would not be the intention because there are a great number of people who are already living in properties, particularly in the south-east, which have risen in value well beyond their income if the council tax were to increase substantially.
Will the Government indicate what they intend to do about improving the uptake of council tax benefit? The Statement said that this matter is being looked at, but it has been looked at ever since council tax benefit was introduced and still there has been no resolution. I believe that I am right in saying that there are over 1.5 million people who are entitled to council tax benefit but are not taking it.
The balance between funding that is raised locally and that raised nationally, as the report brings out, is a sensitive one. That is why whenever it has been looked at before nothing has resulted. Council tax has risen remorselessly under this Government. It is now 70 per cent higher than when they came to power. A further 20 per cent rise is predicated by the Chancellor's spending review over the next three years. In addition, much of that spending is regulated by the Government in the form of passporting or specific grants. Extra costs are being borne in London as a result of the regional assembly. There is no reason to assume that that would be any less the case for any new assembly. The Statement makes it clear that is an aspect which will be looked at by Sir Michael Lyons, namely, the possible cost of a possible assembly. One ought to note that in the Greater London Authority Bill, now an Act, the expectation was that the cost to the boroughs would be three pence in the pound. That has now risen by 210 per cent since the Mayor's office came into being.
This may not be the Government's review, but it was chaired by the Minister and staffed by people from various government departments. Therefore, it is owned by the Minister at least or it would not have seen the light of day. At least a further review of the review will put off the final day of decision, probably until after the next general election. I would have thought that a very wise decision for the Government to take, as the implications of both a revaluation and the extension of the council tax bands will serve to ensure that it is a hot issue with the electorate. They

107
may not be minded to come out and vote in great numbers at local elections, but they will surely take note of a threat of massive increases in council tax rates, and/or in any other form of contribution that they are asked to make, through local tax, tourist tax, or any of the other options.
The Government are embarking on yet another 10-year plan; good heavens, we have had 10-year and five-year plans for all sorts of things recently. The council tax has stood the test of time so far—it has certainly stood 10 years. The Government will mess with it at their peril. I thank the Minister for the Statement and ask that he be kind enough to respond to the few questions that I have raised. Ultimately, I look forward to the final decisions and discussions on the subject when Sir Michael Lyons finally reports to the House and the country.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the Statement. I was also unclear which set of papers to have ready at the start of business.
The noble Baroness referred to a 10-year plan, but the Statement referred to a 10-year vision. I am not sure whether what is referred to is a plan or a vision, but I doubt that those struggling to pay the unfair and outdated council tax will feel hugely enthusiastic about the time frame envisaged by the Statement. They may feel—as I did when I read it, and as the noble Baroness clearly did, although our views are different—that to announce a review of a review to report at the end of next year is a clumsy way of saying, "We still don't know what to do, and will postpone it until after the general election and in the mean time repeat some cosy words about how we understand the problems inherent in the current continuing system". It must be undeniable that, now knowing something of the time frame, we will be well into the 10 years before there is any change in local taxation.
The terms of reference of the balance of funding review were to review all aspects of the balance of funding—fair enough; to review the evidence; and to look at the reform options. So perhaps I should not criticise the Government for sticking so closely to the letter of that. However, I criticise them for deferring the decisions, however elegantly. When talking about elegance, I must congratulate the noble Baroness on dancing around the issues so delicately in her support of council tax.
According to the Statement, the objective is to gain a consensus on broad issues. Do the Government not recognise that there is consensus about the unfairness of council tax, and that there will be consensus that the review appears barely to take us forward? The Statement also refers to particular care to ensure that those on low incomes in high-value properties are not unfairly affected. We are not starting from square one—they are unfairly affected today, and clearly will be next year and the year after that. The Statement refers to council tax benefit. We support encouraging the take-up of that, but the problems go far wider than those who are entitled to it.
108
The Minister recognises that local income tax is more progressive and buoyant. I am sure—I invite the Minister to confirm it—that the Government themselves want to be recognised as progressive although, at this point in the parliamentary term, buoyancy may be another matter. It is sad that fear about the overall tax take being unpredictable, which is what I understand from the Statement, might override progressiveness and fairness. The Minister may not want to commit himself—I ask him anyway—on whether everything that we have heard is code for a disagreement between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasury. That is certainly how it reads.
The Minister refers to work to do, including reviewing council tax bands and the ratios between them. There is a lot of work in that, and once it has been done substantially it will be human nature not to want to ditch the tax. I fear that, by committing the Government to such a course of action, we shall have a self-fulfilling prophecy of, "We've done all this work, so we need to stick to the programme that it supports". In any event, I fear that reviewing banding will exacerbate the problem for those with low incomes in high-value properties.
We welcome visiting the issue of business rates, which the local government world has sought for a long time. The inquiry is to be independent. Can the Minister tell the House anything about its membership? The membership of the review group included local government representatives and others. Will he say anything about how the other members will be appointed, from where they will come, and how they will be supported? Presumably everything will come from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Can he assure us about the independence of the other members? The appointment of Sir Michael Lyons has been announced; I assume that it took place on Nolan principles, but I would welcome some comments from the Minister.
The inquiry is to go further than local, personal and business taxes. There is a reference in the Statement to other developments such as—I emphasise those words—new funding arrangements for schools. What are the Government really saying about funding education and local government? Is there more here than meets the eye?
I hope that the Minister knows that we on these Benches look for the positive and try to be constructive in our criticism. I am sad that I find so little to be positive about in the Statement, but I fear that the Government have given little cause for optimism to those outside the House and another place who have protested so loudly and—I had thought—effectively about the unfair council tax. Those people will feel badly let down by what the Government have said today.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise for the confusion at the beginning. The annunciator suggested that the Statement would be at a convenient time after Questions, and no one had informed me that that would be immediately after Questions. I assumed that we were going on to legislation.

109
I shall deal with as many of the points as I can, in reverse order. Schools funding was not within the remit of the balance of funding anyway, but ring-fencing will halve the gearing ratio for non-school services. In that sense, it will increase councils' financial flexibility. That is a major issue, obviously, because education is so important.
The members of the inquiry will be absolutely independent, because there will not be any. Sir Michael Lyons will conduct the inquiry at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Deputy Prime Minister. He will be fully supported, of course, by officials from across Whitehall and by local government experts, and will have full powers to call for evidence from other stakeholders. He will conduct the review on the same basis as Kate Barker did the review of housing supply. The post was not advertised, but no one will question the independence and probity of Sir Michael Lyons, given his track record and his service to local government.
There is no disagreement within government. We are trying to show that we have learnt the lessons from getting rid of the unpopular rates. We never really had a balance of funding review and discussion before the poll tax—the holy grail. The duke and the dustman were to pay the same; that was the phrase used. Those who proposed that came unstuck. A secret inquiry was conducted within government by the great and the good, saying that the poll tax would be a good idea. I shall not list the names on its front cover, because it is embarrassing for people who are still around. We will think about the matter carefully. We are affecting people's lives in a massive way, because council tax is clearly the most visible tax that people pay, so we have to be very careful about the changes.
There may be a consensus that council tax is unfair, but there is no consensus on an alternative. Whatever people might think about a quick-fix, simple option, there is no consensus on it. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, indicated that.
The date for publication is by the end of 2005—I cannot be any more precise than that. Whether it will be Christmas Eve, the Recess, New Year's Eve or next summer, I cannot say.
The terms of reference have been published today with the press release. I am happy to read them out, but they come to 300 words and that would take an excessive amount of time. I have given a broad summary of what Sir Michael will be asked to do.
The membership of the balance of funding review, in this House as in the other House, was varied. There were people representing local government, such as the chief executive of Luton council, the director of finance of Wigan, the chief executive of Manchester. The group director of corporate affairs of Tesco also attended. The local government trade union, Unison, was also represented, as were academics and, importantly, the leaders of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups at the Local Government Association. Let us not run away with the idea that this was a secret government cabal behind closed doors. Three political parties, a trade union, Tesco and Uncle
110
Tom Cobley and all in terms of local government and academics were involved in the review. They are all listed—there is no secret about it—so it was a report to the Government and not by the Government.
The rise in property values has not been evenly spread across the country. If that were the case, we would not need a revaluation, because the percentage and the ratios would be exactly the same. The revaluation has been legislated for and will proceed. There is the question of the economics versus the politics—at some time those issues have to be in the balance. If we were to farm all that out to officials and academics they would come up with a brilliant system, but it would not be acceptable to the people. That is the role of us grubby politicians—to find a way forward, to raise the taxes and provide community services in a way that is acceptable to as large a majority of people as possible. Our role is also to give local government greater accountability. At present, only 25 per cent of funding on average is raised locally and 75 per cent comes from the general taxpayer. That is partly the result of the nationalisation of business rates.
I have to say the following in response to questions: we have set up an independent inquiry and it ill behoves me to give any answers, because I do not know what it will come up with. However, I hope that it comes up with the holy grail, because that would be helpful to everybody.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the balance of funding review did not cover the capability of local authorities to charge for the services that they render?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the review may have looked at part of that issue, but the inquiry that Sir Michael Lyons will conduct will look, as I said in my Statement, at a mixture of things such as charges. We pointed out that some small charges do not make a difference—we are talking about billions of pounds. The amount currently raised by the council tax is something like £19 billion, so even small charges are miniscule. Certainly, there are no no-go areas, although we have said that it is a matter of the reform of council tax, which may be added to other taxes or a combination of other taxes. Looking at charges is not ruled out, but it is not a panacea.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, first, I would like to declare an interest as the leader of a council, Wigan, in fact, whose treasurer was a member of the balance of funding review. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the council tax was accepted largely because it was not the poll tax. If we can agree that there is a need for a property tax, let us consider renaming it, because the council tax was not well designed.
Secondly—and the Minister will remember that I raised this matter during the last Local Government Bill—will he agree to refer to the Lyons inquiry the prospect of introducing an annual uplift to a property tax based on house price inflation? That would

111
increase the buoyancy of any property tax and would also avoid the political pitfalls of a periodic revaluation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, according to the terms of reference, part of the remit of the inquiry is that it will,
"consider, in the light of the report by the Balance of Funding review, the detailed case for changes to the present system of local government funding".
To that extent, people can put their evidence and Sir Michael will no doubt be swamped with all the schemes that could be helpful. Then he will be required to make recommendations on any changes that are necessary to implement them.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill
4.5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Power to create combined fire and rescue authorities]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 27, after "question," insert—
"(aa) any local authority all or part of whose area forms part of the combined area,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I will speak also to government Amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 12. The amendments have been tabled in response to arguments put forward in both Houses of Parliament. There has been considerable debate about whether local authorities, as well as fire and rescue authorities themselves, should be included in the list of those to be consulted on the making, variation or revocation of combined schemes. To allay concerns expressed, we have stated our aim to allow for the widest possible involvement of all affected stakeholders, including local authorities.
We did not wish, however, to list in the legislation every category of organisation that should be consulted on a scheme on the basis that such a list could never be exhaustive. That said, we recognise that local authorities are in a unique position. That point was made from all sides of the House. We think that the Bill should reflect this. They are democratically elected bodies representing people of the areas involved in any proposed combination scheme, and they are also bodies from which the existing fire and rescue authorities are constituted. The amendments therefore add an explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes where all or part of an area forms part of the area which would be or is covered by the scheme. I hope that that demonstrates our commitment to an inclusive approach.
Amendment No. 12 adds a new clause in order to define "local authority" for the purposes of the Bill. I therefore respectfully request noble Lords to accept
112
the amendments in the spirit in which they are moved. They are born out of experience in this House and in the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I welcome the amendments. As the Minister said, they are the result of considerable debate and it seems to us that they are wholly sensible and much more inclusive than the previous structure of the Bill. I thank the Minister for listening on these aspects and I welcome their inclusion.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister. He always knows how to take the Opposition by surprise, and he did so last time when he grinned at me and said that he would have some good news next time for the noble Baroness. The drafting is so much better than mine and I am happy to welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34, after "affected," insert—
"(ba) any local authority all or part of whose area forms part of the combined area or would, under the scheme as varied, form part of the combined area,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"COMPOSITION OF COMBINED FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITIES
(1) Membership of a combined authority, made under section 2, will be made up of elected members from those authorities that constitute the combined fire and rescue authority.
(2) In Wales, a scheme under section 2 may not make provision for the appointment of members by the National Assembly for Wales unless the Assembly has consulted the Partnership Council for Wales established under section 113(2) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38) (relations with local government )."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment returns to the matter that we discussed last time. It is now a new clause on the composition of a combined fire authority. I will also speak to the amendment dealing with changes to Clause 3, which is consequential to the new clause.
Hand in hand with regionalisation, the Bill gives almost unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State, as we have discussed over and over again. Indeed, the two themes of regionalisation and centralisation run throughout the Bill. Coming from the Government, who have little opportunity to proclaim their belief in localism, I still find this slightly puzzling. We see that manifestation again here in black and white, with the power of the Secretary of State to appoint up to 49 per cent of members to a combined fire and rescue authority.
We have rehearsed the arguments in some detail at each stage of the Bill. Suffice it to say that our minds have not changed. We do not believe that, for a local service, the provision is democratically acceptable. It will do nothing to improve local accountability. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has claimed that the power is there as a last resort and

113
would be used in the instance of a failing authority. I have the highest regard for the noble Lord in person, but my experience of watching the Government in operation tends to allow me to take a slightly sceptical view, when I see something like that in a Bill.
The arguments are well known, and I will not detain the House with detail that has already been aired. I suspect that, on this point, we will have to disagree. I will, however, touch quickly on two distinct aspects of the new clause. The first is that it would ensure that each combined fire authority was made up of elected members from the constituent authorities. That seems a sensible way forward that would guarantee accountability and representation at local level.
The second part of the new clause deals with the issue that we touched on last week, with regard to the power of the Welsh Assembly to appoint members to Welsh fire authorities. It seems to us that the provisions of Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 will be meaningless if the Government continue to legislate in new ways for the Assembly to reduce the power, autonomy and accountability of local government in Wales. Subsection (2) of the new clause, therefore, would insert a requirement for the Assembly to consult the Partnership Council for Wales, before making any provision for the Assembly to appoint members of a fire authority. That will ensure that the Assembly's proposals are discussed with senior representatives of local government in a public forum. It may not guarantee that the Assembly will listen, but it would be an appropriate safeguard to ensure that the Assembly's scheme to sustain and promote local government is respected.
As I mentioned, the amendment to Clause 3 is consequential and would remove reference to the involvement of the Secretary of State in the appointment of members of the authority and the reference to different voting rights for different categories of member. That would not exist under our new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I support my noble friend on the Front Bench, as I did on Report, with particular regard to the new clause. I am particularly concerned about the situation in Wales and would insist that the Assembly should be under an obligation to consult local authorities.
There is a tendency in the legislation coming from the National Assembly Government to ride roughshod over local authorities. This is not the only Bill in which that tendency is detectable. It is patent in the draft Bill relating to transport in Wales that was recently considered by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in the other place. Suffice it to say that the Select Committee's report states:
"the draft Bill does give the appearance, if not the intention, of an overbearing National Assembly influence over Local Transport Plans".
I have made my point: there is such a tendency. I hope that the Government will accept my noble friend's reasonable and moderate amendment, in the interests of good relations and harmony between Welsh local authorities and the National Assembly. I hope that the Government will see their way clear to
114
showing their respect for the spirit behind the Government of Wales Act 1998—Section 113 in particular.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we have stood together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, throughout on these issues. I congratulate her on finding a way of bringing the amendment back. We did not get quite enough people through the Division Lobby on the previous occasion. I say, "Well done", and I must remember to have Wales as a back-up, when I want to divide the House again or, at any rate, bring some matter before it again. That makes my position on Amendment No. 3 clear enough.
Amendment No. 4 would alter the detail of a scheme made under Clause 2, as set out in Clause 3. I had a look back to see what the Government had to say about differential voting—if I can put it that way—at previous stages. We tabled an amendment that would have taken that bit out, and it did not seem to me that it was spoken to. I see no justification for giving different weight to the votes of members of pretty much any sort of authority. It leads to trouble, and it will not enable the members of an authority to work together easily and productively.
I did not read through Hansard for the Commons, but there seemed to be no justification for the move in Hansard for this House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the Minister an opportunity to justify it to those of us who are hanging on his words.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing the matter back, for reasons that I will explain in a while. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said. I know nothing about the Assembly riding roughshod—his words, not mine—over local government, but local government always claims that somebody is riding roughshod over it, when it cannot get its own way. For centuries, the call has been, "It's the Westminster Parliament riding roughshod over us"—not any more. That central change has taken place.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would challenge the power in the Bill for the Secretary to State to combine authorities. I realise that that has been a sore throughout; I fully accept that. The amendments would remove the provision about how members are chosen, while restricting membership of combined authorities to elected members of constituent authorities. The amendments would leave us in an untenable position.
Amendment No. 4 would remove powers for a combination scheme to provide for the composition of the combined authority and for how the members are chosen. The Secretary of State would not be able to specify the maximum number of members who should sit on an authority, a power that he rightly has at present for combination schemes under the 1947 Act. Reading the amendment alongside Amendment No. 3, we assume that the intention is that existing authorities will retain the power that they now have to appoint members. The basis on which those appointments

115
would be made is not at all clear from the new clause. For example, how will the balance of membership be determined? Will authorities be represented equally or in proportion to their size? The new clause is silent on such important matters.
As we have argued, we believe that the Secretary of State must have the power to make appointments to fire and rescue authorities. The Government's motivation in seeking the power to appoint is not to enhance central control but to improve the delivery of a public service. It is essential that fire and rescue authorities collaborate effectively with each other in order to deliver the modernised, efficient and effective service that we need. This Bill and the national framework give authorities ample scope to collaborate voluntarily to deliver what is required. That is the point: it is in their gift to get it right and do it themselves, without any involvement of the Secretary of State. We are not seeking to get involved. Combination would therefore be a last resort, in the event that authorities failed to collaborate effectively. In other words, if they fail to do the job, we are responsible for making sure that the job is done.
Authorities might fail to collaborate effectively because of lack of capacity, lack of will or lack of leadership. Given the new statutory framework, organisational obstacles are unlikely to be the sole cause of failure, so combining them, without more, would not necessarily resolve the problem. That is why we are insisting that it is essential for the Secretary of State to be able to appoint a minority of members should it be necessary to do so to overcome the previous problems. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State in making the combination scheme would make provision for the appointment of a number—less than half—of the members, who would be statutory officers under the Crown. The scheme would provide for the appointment of the remaining members by the constituent authorities of the new combined fire authority.
Should such appointments have to be made there are none the less considerable safeguards for local democracy built into the clause, including appointees being in a minority and their being excluded from votes on precepting. That would be left to those democratically elected. We have given assurances to both Houses that appointments would be publicly advertised under the Nolan principles. So in the event of the power being invoked it would be used in a transparent and proportionate manner.
Amendment No. 3 would limit membership of a combined authority to elected members of the constituent authorities only. As we have argued, the Secretary of State must have the flexibility to address a failure to collaborate by fire and rescue authorities by having the power to appoint. It is vital that the power is not restricted to appointing the elected members of the failing authorities. That would be barmy. It would be absurd to leave it to the fire and rescue members who had proved lacking in will, capacity or leadership to provide the new combined authority with the will, capacity or leadership needed to turn the situation around. Those people will have failed and have been given every chance. It is a last resort, not a first resort.
116
Indeed, we do not want to see any restriction placed on the type of person who might need to be appointed to a new combined authority. The Secretary of State needs flexibility to make a judgment based on the reasons for the combination. He needs to be able to appoint people chosen for their ability. I assured noble Lords on Report that we had no plans to appoint lire and rescue authority employees to a combined fire authority.
I can, however, now go further—which is why I am glad the debate is taking place—and assure noble Lords, in the light of detailed legal advice, that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State the power to override the absolute restriction on an employee of a fire and rescue authority being a member of that fire and rescue authority, under Sections 79 to 81 of the Local Government Act 1972. Nor does the Bill override the provisions of Section 1 of the Local Government Act 1989, which prevents anyone who holds a politically restricted post from becoming a member of any fire and rescue authority. The latter provision would prevent all but very junior employees of a fire and rescue authority from being members of any fire and rescue authority. So there would, after all, be no question of appointing a chief fire officer.
Amendment No. 3 also requires the National Assembly for Wales to consult the Partnership Council for Wales on the appointment of members. The Government have already conceded that local authorities should be explicitly listed as consultees on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes—that was our first debate a few minutes ago. Our fears were that the list of potential consultees to those schemes could go on and on, and so it proves. The Government have already stated their position, which is that we are committed to the widest possible consultation on the matter. We cannot keep adding bodies to be consulted to the Bill, but I assure the House that our intention remains to consult as widely as possible.
Furthermore, it is our intention that the Bill should apply to Wales in exactly the same way as it does to England. The amendment would impose a further duty that would apply to Wales alone, a situation that we have carefully avoided. It is for the National Assembly for Wales to determine which bodies it should consult, in the same way that that responsibility falls to the Secretary of State in England. The principle of consulting as widely as possible remains, however, and I hope that Members of the Committee accept this assurance.
I used a phrase earlier when I was talking about the people who would be appointed as statutory officers under the Crown. I previously said that,
"we are insisting that it is essential for the Secretary of State to be able to appoint a minority of members should it be necessary to do so to overcome the previous problems. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State in making the combination scheme would make provision for the appointment of a number—less than half—of the members, who would be statutory officers under the Crown. The scheme would provide for the appointment or the remaining members by the constituent authorities of the new combined fire authority".

117
I am reliably informed that "statutory officers under the Crown" is not correct, so I am not sure what status they would have. However, as I put it on the record and I am now told that it is incorrect, I am removing it. In due course I shall no doubt receive a further clarification. This issue has now been raised at every stage and I fully understand why. The Government have moved on the issue, but I repeat that it is a last resort; the Secretary of State will use those powers only if people fail to organise themselves properly and efficiently. Central Government are not coming in and reorganising and combining fire authorities. It is a power of last resort.
If it were a power used when there had been a failure it would not make sense to allow the same groups of people who failed previously to sort it out in the future, because they would have had more than adequate opportunity.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he answer a question that we raised at another stage? I am not sure what the answer was. How will the local authority members who are to be appointed be confined to elected members? As the Bill stands it says that local authorities can appoint, but are they going to appoint anyone outside or is the intention, which we have been trying to get specifically in the Bill—it would be enormously helpful if the Minister could place it on the record—that those members would be local authority elected members; that is, the 51 per cent?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the final sentence of the paragraph I just repeated was,
"The scheme would provide for the appointment of the remaining members"—
that is, the 51 per cent—
"by constituent authorities"—
that is, the local authorities—
"of the new combined fire authority".
I cannot see the local councils appointing anyone other than their elected members. The intention under the scheme in Clause 2 is that they would be members; that is, elected councillors.
There would be no justification for non-elected councillors being appointed, bearing in mind that the extra influx from the Secretary of State could make up for that and it is right that they are the constituent authorities. It is true we are saying that they have failed, but nevertheless they would have the right to appoint and they would appoint councillors—people elected from those constituent authorities. That is our intention.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am glad to have the Minister's confirmation on the record. As we have discussed in the past, there are many occasions where local authorities make appointments and those appointees do not have to be elected members. If the Minister has now placed on the record that those members appointed to the fire authority will be from the
118
council and will be councillors, that is enormously helpful. It does not totally respond to the amendment that I tabled, but it takes us forward.
We have discussed the composition of the fire and rescue authorities at length in the past. I have returned to the matter to try to ensure that the question of elected members is placed on the record. I am still not happy about the appointment of 49 per cent by the Secretary of State. I expect and hope that that would happen only in a moribund and difficult situation where fire authorities were being brought together in order to resolve a particular problem.
We have rehearsed again the question of Wales because it is important in matters relating to the Assembly that there is a clear understanding of the position of the people who will be on that fire authority. We have now more or less reached the position that I wanted. The 49 per cent will have to stand. I have taken the matter as far as I can and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 3 [Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Combined authorities under the Fire Services Act 1947]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 36, after "affected," insert—
"(ba) any local authority all or part of whose area forms part of the combined area or would, under the scheme as varied, form part of the combined area,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Charging]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 10, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would remove from the Bill the requirement that the charges set by an authority do no more than recover the full annual cost of providing the service in question.
On Report the Minister went over the ground that he covered in his letter dated 14 June. That dealt with the Government's concession in Committee which allowed for an authority to continue recovering an element of profit on a given service if it had been doing so on or before 1 April this year for up to two years after the introduction of a freedoms and flexibilities package under the fire CPA. Although we were pleased with that concession we feel that the Government have not made the case for restricting fire authorities in the manner proposed by Clause 19(6).
The Government's decision to restrict charging for services, even taking into account the concession, is bad for innovation in local government—my noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who is unable to be here this afternoon, waxed lyrical about Essex's innovative powers—and will unfairly close down possible sources of income. This loss of income will have to be paid for

119
by the council tax payer. The Government's plans introduce a serious opportunity cost to the taxpayer, and will get worse over time. We do not agree with the Government's intentions and their interference with fire authorities' charging regimes. The Government have failed to articulate why it is so important that the present system should change. The capacity to charge more than the cost of a service is important in terms of future innovation and motive. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we take a similar view, although the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, always waxes lyrical when he talks about Essex. On the last occasion that this issue was debated in Grand Committee the Minister referred us to an order to be made under the Local Government Act 2003 and we have recently seen the first wave of such orders. We on these Benches very much dislike the CPA procedures and allowing freedoms and flexibilities for certain authorities only. But much as I would like to see all fire and rescue services able to charge at their discretion, I understand the Government's logic in treating them like other local authorities for this purpose. I hope that I have correctly understood the Government's position, although I may be corrected in a moment. It is a pity that they are doing that for any local authorities at all.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the final time we have come to what I shall call the "Essex amendment". I do not wish to interfere in Essex. It is a well run authority with an excellent leader.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, from our party.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, thanks very much. I often wonder if those people who pay the charges to the Essex fire brigade realise that they are not paying a charge, but a tax, because it is obviously used as a revenue raiser. I do not know what is on the invoices or the bills or how that fact is advertised—"We have this extra way of raising funds and keeping the council tax down. We are ripping off people"—some people might say, although others, not I, would use that term—"We are not paying for the cost of this charge, we are putting something on top of it because we need more revenue". I do not know how open and transparent that is, but one thing is certain—it is trading that is not carried out via a company. By and large when local government trades it has to set up a company properly, with accounts, because trading without a company structure is anti-competitive, I am told.
However, I do not wish to discuss again the issue of different fire brigades fighting fires in each others' areas. I shall not even suggest that that might be looked at in the Lyons review because this relates to fire service, not local government, funding—although in this case it is used as a means of local government funding and, regarding the question that the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, asked me earlier, it may be a source of revenue. I do not know.
120
The amendment is identical to earlier amendments and my argument is exactly the same. We have made a concession openly and in good spirit. It is true that the wording of Section 3 of the 1947 Act has caused confusion among authorities about the extent of their powers to recover more than the cost of providing a service. That is certainly the picture to emerge from fire and rescue authorities during the recent consultation exercise on charging. We want greater clarity on the issue and that is precisely what the clause as drafted achieves. But I and my ministerial colleagues in the other place have repeatedly made clear that we have no wish to create financial difficulties for authorities such as Essex that have become accustomed, in good faith, to recovering a profit component on some of their activities.
That is precisely why we announced a concession in Grand Committee when considering the then Amendment No. 65. I shall put on record again that as a result, where an authority was recovering an element of profit on a given service on or before 1 April this year, the concession will enable it to continue doing so for up to two years after the introduction of a freedoms and flexibilities package under fire comprehensive performance assessment (CPA). That will be achieved by means of an order under Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2003 and will require authorities to conduct their trading activities through a company. Authorities will not be allowed to expand into new areas of trading under the concession but may be allowed to do so if they achieve a favourable CPA. Where an authority fails to achieve a favourable assessment within two years any trading order under this concession will be withdrawn.
Our objective throughout has been to draw a line under the previous uncertainty. It is obviously a certainty in Essex and there might be other areas where that is the case, although none have come to my attention. But we wish to remain sensitive to authorities such as Essex that currently recover a profit element. We do not wish to damage them in any way. Our approach provides clarity about the way forward. With those assurances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn for the final time.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall certainly pass the Minister's comments on to my noble friend Lord Hanningfield regarding his abilities, with which I agree. Perhaps this time he may not have totally convinced the Minister about this matter but the commitment given in Grand Committee took us some of the way. I do not think that we will go the rest of the way today; therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"INTERVENTION PROTOCOL
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare, and may revise, a protocol about the exercise of his power to make an order under section 22(2).
(2) The protocol must in particular make provision about persons or descriptions of persons that the Secretary of State will consult before exercising that power.
(3) The Secretary of State must have regard to the protocol in exercising that power.
(4) In preparing the protocol, or any revisions to it which appear to him to be significant, the Secretary of State—

(a) must consult fire and rescue authorities or persons considered by him to represent them;

(b) must consult persons considered by him to represent employees of fire and rescue authorities;

(c) may consult any other persons he considers appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State must publish the protocol for the time being in force in the manner he considers appropriate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment places on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish an intervention protocol under which the powers to intervene under Clause 22 will be exercised. We have always said that we would be more than happy to follow the provisions of the local government intervention protocol in exercising those powers.
We therefore propose to consult fire and rescue service stakeholders on the application of the local government intervention protocol to the powers contained in Clause 22. This will give the fire and rescue authorities and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the procedures that we will follow should intervention under Clause 22 prove necessary.
Since the local government intervention protocol is specifically designed to address the needs of poorly performing authorities, we believe that it is appropriate to apply it to the powers contained in Clause 22. However, the amendment gives us the opportunity to review the protocol if, following consultation, it becomes clear that there are additional factors that need to be taken into account. Following all necessary consultation, we will publish the protocol that has been agreed.
Coupled with this amendment is Amendment No. 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. This is an opposition amendment that goes further than the government amendment. It requires that an intervention code be published that will apply to all direction-making powers in the Bill and not just those in Clause 22. We do not think that that is necessary or desirable. The powers in Clause 22 are different from other "intervention powers" elsewhere in the Bill. They are specifically designed to deal with poor performance, so we need a protocol which reflects that, as the existing protocol, developed for the use of best value intervention powers, does.
Other intervention powers in the Bill will, for the most part, be used to deal with specific circumstances rather than poor performance. For example, the power under Clause 29 will allow us to access equipment to ensure public safety in the event of industrial action. There are other issues, so a "one-size-fits-all" protocol would not work.
I have more material, but I hope that I have made the point that our amendment relates the protocol to the issues specific to Clause 22. The opposition amendment goes widely across the Bill, dealing with other matters, which is not desirable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I never lose an opportunity to try to be all-encompassing. However, I recall the Minister saying in Committee that he would consider the matter, and my amendment was tabled in case he forgot to do that or forgot that he was being careful and helpful. Clearly, that is not the case.
The intervention code under the Minister's amendment does not go so far as ours, but it sets the parameters that we wanted to see. We wanted to ensure that there was a protocol on the intervention procedures that people understood—what should be involved and who should be consulted. I am happy to rest on that and to withdraw my amendment. I thank the Minister for having considered our original approach and for having brought forward that satisfactory amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter. He confirmed that the protocol referred to in his amendment will be the same protocol that operates now in equivalent areas.
I understand that a report to be published in the autumn by Inlogov on the engagement process is taking place with the application of the current protocol. It is obviously important to consider what lessons have been learnt since it was set up. The amendment provides, rightly, for consultation with a number of organisations and people. I am sorry to bowl this one unexpectedly at the Minister, but it would be interesting if he could explain how the work that is going on separately will interlock with the consultation provided by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would be interesting if I could, but I cannot. However, I am certain that one will dovetail the other and not contradict it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Clause 36 [Prohibition on employment of police]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 18, line 42, at end insert "except in such cases as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment has been brought back today because we were unable to pursue it on Report owing to a line error. The Minister had the wrong dates and we had the wrong indications of what we were talking about.
The amendment concerns whether Clause 36 unduly restricts the employment of police officers as retained firefighters. The clause penalises the retained part of

123
the fire service in a way that is inconsistent with the stated aims of the Bill to make the fire and rescue services flexible, effective and diverse.
In Committee, the Minister said that there would always be a possibility of conflict between the duties of a police officer and his or her duties as a firefighter. I do not believe that there have been any examples of a conflict of interest caused by this professional relationship but I am happy to stand corrected on that point if it helps me to understand the Government's position. More importantly, I do not understand why there cannot be a reasoned and rigorous process put in place that could effectively prioritise between potentially conflicting roles.
Surely, that would not be difficult to implement. There are many examples in public life where fulfilling the duty of one role ultimately gives way to another. I have no doubt that that choice would have to be made at difficult junctures, such as in emergencies, but that is why a process could be in place so that the police officer and his employers would know exactly where they stand in advance of such a situation arising.
I am also concerned that Clause 36 seems to restrict all employment with a fire and rescue service whereas the 1947 Act dealt only with employment with a fire brigade. For example, under Clause 36, a part-time police constable could not be employed as a part-time fire control room operator or in a part-time administrative role. That suggests that the clause is not only an unnecessarily wide prohibition on a police officer's right to secondary employment, but also that there may be circumstances which need not result in what the Government would presumably class as an unacceptable conflict of responsibilities.
The amendment would allow the Government an opportunity to specify in regulations the circumstances in which it will be possible to be both a police officer and fire and rescue services employee while not compromising the main intention of Clause 36. We feel that that would be a much fairer and more effective way forward for both individual employees and the retained part of the fire service, as well as reflecting the fact that many of us are able to navigate potential conflicts of interest in many walks of life without undue restriction. I understand that many people are already in that position and would be jeopardised by the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the amendment. It seems to be reasonable as it would not remove the restriction altogether, but allows for sensible, practical arrangements to be put in place. I have been unable throughout to understand the complete restriction, given what we have heard about recruitment difficulties in some areas, and those who undertake a civilian role in the police, or those who are not on shift duty for the police service providing support for the fire service. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. The noble Baroness is not asking him to put detail into the Bill. The amendment would allow for reflection and detailed consultation with the two services, which is important. I am sure that the police have something to say. I am aware that
124
we have been hearing from the fire service, not from the police on the issue. The opportunity is there for the Government and I hope that they will take it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I can give further clarification. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we have not heard from the police, but we shall hear from the police and the Home Office now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that the clause was too restrictive and would prevent a person who is also a police officer being employed for any purposes, and not just firefighting. She gave examples of part-time working in a fire control room or in an administrative role. It was also suggested that a process could be in place so that a police officer and his employer would know in advance what his position would be at an emergency incident.
We are very concerned here with the duties that a person holding the office of constable might be required to perform if employed by a fire and rescue authority. I want to make it absolutely clear that the prohibition would not affect special constables or community support officers, who, of course, are employed by police authorities, or the civilian administrative staff of police authorities. We are talking about police constables.
We remain satisfied that there could be a conflict of roles at an incident if an off-duty police constable were employed as a retained part-time firefighter and confusion over which employer had the primary claim on the officer's services. I do not think that it would be practical to agree responsibilities in advance because by its very nature an emergency is unpredictable and police officers and firefighters have to make decisions in difficult and dangerous situations. It is better, therefore, to make a clear distinction.
Furthermore, the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear that it would wish the present prohibition, which has been in place since 1947, to remain, not only because of its concerns about confusion at times of emergency over primacy of role, but also because retained firefighters can be called out at no notice, which could impact upon police constables' ability to perform their next tour of police duty, with consequences for the efficiency of the police service.
We have reflected on the possibility of accepting the amendment. There have been internal discussions in government and we have had discussions with our colleagues in the Home Office. However, we have taken the view that it would be wrong to introduce the power to make a change by regulation when we have no intention of exercising that power.
As I said, the prohibition impacts only on persons who hold the office of constable. I have not seen any examples of where such a situation would occur, but this is not a change that we are prepared to make. The Association of Chief Police Officers is against it and I believe that we should take account of that advice.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we have been around this circuit a few times. I do not understand the logic put forward by the Minister. If a police officer acts as a retained firefighter, he acts as a retained firefighter and not as a police constable. I am certain that he would understand that he wore that hat. The possibility that I believe is being suggested by the Minister that a police constable who acts as a retained fire fighter would suddenly decide that he was a police officer, and leap into the breach when he was fighting a fire, or acting under command, seems to me to be absolutely ludicrous. I am certain that this happens at the moment, that police officers supplement retained firefighters in one way or another, even if they are not in the front line of fighting fires. I believe that it is a great pity that the Government are taking their present line.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not addressed the issue of a police constable being a retained firefighter. One does not know how long it will take to fight a fire and what brigades will turn up to it. Such a constable may not be able to turn up for his next shift as a police officer. We have to consider that because of the nature of the areas concerned.
We are talking about police officers, who are not on duty, undertaking this job. However, police officers are never off duty. Whatever they do, they are always police officers. They may do something in their spare time—when they are not clocked on—but the noble Baroness has not addressed the issue of police officers who are not fit, or who are too tired or not available to turn up for their shifts as police officers the next morning or later the same day or for the night shift, undertaking such jobs. This is not an unimportant point and it is not one that we should ignore.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies and with the leave of the House, perhaps I can ask whether this is a matter for the forces involved rather than Parliament trying to dictate how the matter would work. Any employee in any situation will look at how it will work in practice. I feel very uneasy, sitting in London SW1, suggesting the detail of the matter. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I did not address the point, but retained firefighters are made up of all kinds of people who have all kinds of responsibilities within the community. The only reason we are addressing police officers is that they are the only people mentioned. The Government may just as well restrict nurses, doctors or anyone in the community who has a specific role to play and a specific responsibility. Presumably everyone else is entitled and can make that decision and the employers can make the decision.
It seems to me very strange indeed that police officers will be excluded in such a way by definition specifically because, as I understand it, the Government are afraid that such people may forget which hat they are wearing and suddenly become police officers. That is what the Minister says. I do not intend to test the opinion of the House but I remain unhappy about the Minister's response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 21, line 12, after "out" insert "or to be about to break out"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 11. These amendments have been prepared in response to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on Report, and which had been raised at earlier stages of the passage of the Bill in both Houses: that Clause 43 as drafted would not allow a firefighter to make an appropriate response to situations in which, while there was as yet no evidence of fire, there was clear evidence that the ingredients for a fire were present.
In consideration in Committee in the other place, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions challenged those who considered that the scope of the clause was too limited, to provide better examples of the type of incident which could cause such problems. As I made clear on Report, all the examples received both in this House and the other place are, in our view, satisfactorily covered by the powers already provided in the clause and no extension of the powers seem to be necessary.
While the House accepted that point in relation to the specific examples given, a concern remained that an opportunity to plug a potentially serious gap was being missed. My ministerial colleagues and I have reflected further on the point alongside our objective of ensuring firefighters are equipped with adequate powers to deal with the often life-threatening incidents that they face.
While the likelihood of such an event occurring remains in our view small, we believe that it would be prudent to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to give firefighters this modest but potentially important extension of powers. The power could be exercised only where the firefighter had a reasonable belief that a fire is about to break out and, without it, there might be occasions on which a police officer had to be called before action could be taken, unnecessarily distracting the officer from other duties and perhaps increasing the risk of a more serious emergency developing because of the delay in taking action.
We have listened to what was said on the previous occasion and we believe that it is right to make these very modest changes. It is an opportunity that it would be silly to miss. The clause already gives a firefighter power to do anything necessary when a fire has broken out and this amendment will allow intervention if he reasonably believes that a fire is about to break out. Any action that he takes will have to be justified by the circumstances of the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am delighted that my powers of persuasion or my wearing down has finally brought us to this extremely sensible outcome.

127
Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for being so responsive in this matter. While I appreciate that he has not been totally responsive on all matters, I am glad to have a victory on one or two points. This is an important amendment and an important concession. I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 21, line 13, after "extinguishing" insert "or preventing"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF "LOCAL AUTHORITY"
In this Act "local authority" means any of these—

(a) a district council;

(b) a county council;

(c) a county borough council;

(d) a London borough council;

(e) the Greater London Authority;

(f) the Common Council of the City of London;

(g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 41, line 17, at end insert—
"60A In paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 11 (police and fire services: derelict petroleum tanks), for "fire authority" substitute "fire and rescue authority"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment to the Local Government Act 1985, which, I am afraid, was not picked up at an earlier stage. It simply changes a reference to "fire authority" in the Act to "fire and rescue authority". I therefore respectfully request noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Traffic Management Bill
5.1 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS DISAGREEMENT TO A CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS SO RESTORED TO THE BILL
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 47 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
4 Leave out Clause 20
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
4A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
5 Leave out Clause 21
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
5A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
6 Leave out Clause 22
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
6A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
7 Leave out Clause 23
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
7A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
8 Leave out Clause 24
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
8A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
9 Leave out Clause 25
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
9A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
10 Leave out Clause 26
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
10A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A to 10A. I shall also be speaking to the other amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 11, 11 A, and 11B and Amendments Nos. 12 to 15.
In considering these amendments there was much debate in the other place which led to the reinstatement of these vital clauses.
We have said repeatedly that local authorities are in the best position to deliver improvements in their area and to ensure that optimum use is made of the existing road network. If they fail it would be wrong for the Government to do nothing. But these powers would not be used lightly.
We have put on record that these powers would be used only as a method of last resort. We would look for every opportunity to resolve problems with the

129
local authority before considering the imposition of a traffic director. Even where that was unavoidable, the provisions are constructed in such a way that the intervention order can only confer the powers that are needed to do the job.
Concern was raised that a traffic director's appointment would be open-ended, and that it would be difficult for him to disengage. One of the traffic director's objectives would be to help the authority improve to the standard where it could take back full responsibility. As such, there would be a natural and sustainable conclusion to the appointment. But in any event it is in no one's interest to have a traffic director for any longer than absolutely necessary.
It has been said that intervention would be difficult to justify given that the traffic director would have no local knowledge or accountability.
On the first point, I would normally expect intervention to be the result of a breakdown in the arrangements put in place by an authority. Here the traffic director would apply sound business management principles. However, in any case a traffic director would be expected to work with the local authority, drawing upon its experience and local knowledge.
On accountability, it is important to bear in mind that intervention would occur only where an authority was failing. While I accept that a traffic director would be accountable to the appropriate national authority, the appointment may indeed be made to protect local people.
That said, we would expect a traffic director to have regard to existing obligations, policies and objectives of the authority when undertaking his activities.
It was also mentioned during Third Reading that intervention was an unjustifiable cost for the local authority. On one side we need to keep in mind the cost of failing to manage effectively the road network—delays for businesses and travellers and inconvenience for everyone. But, in terms of the cost to the local authority, the provisions in the Bill allow the appropriate national authority discretion on whether to reclaim all or part of the cost.
Clearly, we need to guard against rewarding failure through the provision of a resource aimed at turning the service around. But I accept that it would be in nobody's interest to force payment if that draws funds away from meeting the duty in the future.
It has been said that the intervention provisions mark a fundamentally different approach to dealing with local government. Not so; the Local Government Act 1999 allows intervention in a council as a whole. There is no significant difference between the way those powers can be exercised and the provisions in the Bill.
Finally, a key concern expressed during Third Reading was about how failure would be assessed. The Bill provides that if the appropriate national authority is satisfied that a local traffic authority is failing, it is able to intervene. But it also provides for that authority to publish guidance about the criteria which
130
it proposes to apply for the purposes of deciding whether to give an intervention notice or to make an intervention order.
Not only is the guidance on those criteria being drawn up by representatives of all the interested parties, including the Local Government Association, but it will also be subject to consideration by Parliament through the negative resolution procedure.
I am confident that this inclusive process will deliver an outcome that is acceptable to all stakeholders. However, to allay any outstanding concerns—and I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed during the passage of the Bill—should either opposition party wish to participate in this work, we would be more than happy for it to be represented on the working group which is to be established.
To conclude, I would hope that I have offered suitable reassurance that these powers are not a big stick with which we plan to beat local government. Instead, they offer a flexible and proportionate approach, for use very sparingly, which is consistent with the protocol governing intervention in a failing authority. As such, these provisions should be part of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A to 10A.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I stand in the place of my noble friend Lord Astor, who sends his apologies for not being here today, especially as the topic in question is a straightforward matter of principle close to his heart.
It is a great disappointment to these Benches that the Government have seen fit to reintroduce the clauses on intervention into the Bill. Indeed, I go so far to say that it is a slap in the face for local democracy and the changes we implemented to protect the interests of local government in this country. As my colleague in the other place explained, this shows that the,
"new localism in new Labour simply equalises the old centralism. When push comes to shove, the Government want to control all details and all aspects of every policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/04; col. 1598.]
Indeed, the Local Government Association has said that the reinstatement of these clauses undermines local freedoms and accountability.
The imposed traffic management officer will not be accountable to those who elected the local authority. He will be able effectively to overrule their democratic decisions on who they want to run the roads, and thus not necessarily take into account local traffic schemes—although I accept that what the noble Lord said earlier is possible—and plans on matters such as environmental issues which local authorities have a duty to care for. Will the Minister explain how he can justify letting such an individual, or many individuals, be unaccountable to those on whom their actions will have a daily effect?

131
As the Government are putting the clauses back into the Bill, perhaps the Minister will clarify for the House some issues of great concern that have so far gone unanswered. I accept that the Minister has answered some points about how the Government will decide whether a local authority is failing. However, we look forward to seeing the criteria that will be used to decide that one local authority is managing the traffic well, and another is not. Will the Government have to prove that a local authority is failing before they intervene? How long will the intervention last, and on what basis will the intervention be reconciled? How may a local authority appeal against an intervention decision? Will the Minister outline a set timetable that will be used for disengagement? Will the National Audit Office be given a role to decide if this method of intervention provides value for money, particularly in terms of additional costs that could be forced on a local authority by intervention?
It is clear that there remains much uncertainty as to how this power will be used, and who will ensure that it is used only as a method of last resort, based on a set of clear criteria available to all. It is an inadequate means of achieving the desirable end of less congestion, especially when a tool for sensible and practical intervention is already available.
Does the Minister agree that a scheme under the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment already exists that could be utilised to judge how effectively a traffic authority was performing? Attached to the commission's comprehensive performance assessment are improvement mechanisms to assist and aid local authorities, in the form of peer reviews; the Local Government Association; and the Improvement and Development Agency for local government, which I would have thought would have made the role of the external traffic director completely unnecessary. What discussions did the department have with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister prior to the drafting of this Bill?
It is with a heavy heart that we have decided not to further oppose this Bill. We do not want to hold up the Bill over an issue that the Government are refusing to back down on.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said. The restitution of the clauses to the Bill is totally unnecessary and, as I said on Report, smacks of a Stalinesque attitude to local government. With the production of local transport plans, which must be submitted to the department, and which do measure progress year on year, and with the comprehensive performance assessment, which the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, has referred to, there are plenty of opportunities for the Government to deal with a failing authority.
The approach of appointing a traffic director from outside, whose presence will be bitterly resented wherever he is appointed to, is a heavy-handed and clumsy method of dealing with someone, bearing in mind that the Government have the mechanism of
132
withholding money from that local authority in the annual grant review if they believe that the local authority is failing.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I do not intend to divide the House or call for the Bill to be rejected, because there is much in it that we like and that we want to see. I say to the Minister that with so much transport legislation likely to come in the next Session, which I imagine will be the last before a general election, much of it requiring considerable co-operation from this side of the House to get it through, we feel badly let down over this. Our reasons for sending this hack to the Commons were soundly based, and if we are going to have things thrown back at us time and again, the battle over the next lot of legislation will be fierce indeed. We will not withdraw so easily again. However, I am content to let the legislation pass.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am glad that the other place has restored these provisions to the Bill. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—who I admire as an expert in these fields—has today used somewhat extreme language in referring to the Government's "Stalinesque" approach. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was overstating the case when he said that this was a slap in the face for local democracy. It is a reserved power for the Government in an extreme situation. How can it be a slap in the face for local democracy when it can only be applicable if one, or possibly more, local authorities at some point in the future fail in their important traffic management duties set out in the Bill? There should be a power for central government by way of traffic directors to intervene.
Given the other provisions in the Bill, which I will not develop now, as to what the obligations of a local authority are, and how it can be that one can fail, no one expects authorities to fail. All noble Lords are great believers in local democracy and local government. No one expects that more than one local authority in a blue moon will fail in its activities. It would be irresponsible if there was no power whatever, in that rare circumstance, for central government to intervene. Are central government supposed to do nothing in such an instance, when we all regard traffic management, coping with congestion and so on, as so important?
This is not a "Stalinesque" approach to government. It is a modest proposal, it has been made plain what it is all about, and the Minister has explained that guidance will be provided as to what is meant by "failure" to carry out the proper duties. I am only glad that both Front Benches have agreed not to pursue their opposition any further after today.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I appreciate the contributions that have been made to this short debate. It will be recognised in the House that I appreciate the contribution of my noble friend most of all. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that it is quite something to be accused by my noble friend the moderate, reasonable, judicious Lord Borrie of having

133
used extremist language and to be warned about the danger of going over the top. My noble friend is exactly right. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, probably deserved a degree of my noble friend's opprobrium as well. These measures have been dramatised as centralisation measures. They are not; they are measures of last resort. There are a whole series of processes to be followed before any possibility of the imposition of a traffic officer on a local authority would occur.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and the Minister have overlooked the fact that we have been put in a very difficult position. We do not know the criteria that are going to be used to judge whether a local authority has failed. It would have been much easier if we had known this before the Bill came along, in which case perhaps this problem would never have occurred.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I gave a clear indication, which I have reiterated today—together with a welcome for the Opposition parties if they wish to be represented on the committee which will draw up the criteria—that we do not propose to adopt criteria which are anything other than acceptable to local authorities and in which the LGA is to play a prominent part.
Even in the extreme circumstances of a traffic officer being appointed, he will have to work with the grain of the local authority. I made it quite explicit in my opening remarks today that it is not conceivable that he will operate like a deus ex machina with regard to the local authority, but it may be necessary in the extreme circumstances of failure. It goes without saying that the failure would impact upon the local people, and the traffic officer would be employed in order to remedy that situation.
Traffic congestion spills beyond local authority boundaries. We reflected on this point at Third Reading when we had the opportunity of discussing the congestion charge and its impact on boroughs. I was at pains to point out at that time that of course I recognise that a congestion charge imposed on a discrete area has a significant impact upon the immediate area and the people who live there, but I am sure that we all recognise, by the very definition of traffic movement, that these issues go far wider than the immediate locality. That is why a failure will, in the last resort, need to be addressed.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that the duty is applied in the first instance to local traffic authorities. We place trust in them to deliver the programme outlined in the Bill to reduce traffic congestion, which we all recognise is a blight on our transport system. The intervention powers will come in only in the extreme case of failure.
I recognise that I cannot satisfy noble Lords in every respect today. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, attempted a small flying wedge by asking whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had been consulted on this measure. But, of course, this Bill, like
134
all other significant Bills, is a product of a Government who are totally seamless in their approach to policy; who recognise the importance of co-operation between departments beforehand and, even more important, recognise that delivery should be a responsibility of government. In sustaining the arguments on the Bill, the Government, as a whole, are in total agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked about appealing against an intervention. I emphasise that it is a staged process towards intervention; at each stage there is an opportunity for an authority to make representations and to set out its plans for redressing any problems. We all fervently hope and wish that we will resolve problems in this way. By definition, if we reach the position of appointing a traffic officer there will have been considerable delays in remedying the very issues we are seeking to tackle. We want to see a process that is flexible and responsive to local authorities, but which also ensures that they meet their obligations under the terms of the Bill.
I note the element of regret. I note also the incipient threat to future legislation. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has been constructive in regard to certain aspects of this legislation. However, he has not had his way in regard to all aspects of it and he is bound to forewarn us of challenges to come. It would be a poor approach for the Government if we put forward transport legislation that was not challenged by the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Rotherwick, because that is in the nature of the process upon which we are engaged. However, they will forgive me if I leave the quaking of my knees to a later date and merely take solace in the fact that, as I understand it, the amendments will not be opposed today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
11 Leave out Clause 27
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
11A Page 12, line 28, leave out "publish" and insert "give, in accordance with subsection (2),"
11B Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
"(2) The guidance shall be appended to an order made by the authority by statutory instrument.
(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) made by the Secretary of State is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11A and 11 B to the words so restored to the Bill. I spoke to these Amendments with Amendment No. 4
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11A and 11B to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
12 Leave out Clause 28
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
12A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

LORDS AMENDMENT
13 Leave out Clause 29
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
13A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 Leave out Clause 30
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
14A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 31, page 14, leave out lines 6 and 7
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
15A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 12A to 15A. I spoke to these amendments during the debate on Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 12A to 15A.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
5.27 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Meaning of "category 1 hazard" and "category 2 hazard"]:
Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, leave out lines 6 to 14 and insert—
"( ) Meanings of "category 1 hazard" and "category 2 hazard" shall be prescribed for the purposes of this Act.
136
( ) Those meanings shall be so prescribed by reference to—

(a) hazards of prescribed descriptions, and

(b) a ranking system for the severity of such hazards by which the question of whether a hazard achieves a particular ranking is decided by reference to—

(i) the results of qualitative assessment of the hazard in question, and

(ii) an assessment of whether those results meet prescribed qualitative criteria."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 7, which are in the group.
The amendment seeks to rewrite the way in which the two types of hazard gain meaning. The Bill proposes meanings based on a numerical scoring system; Amendment No. 1 would specifically write into the Bill that the meanings found foundation also in qualitative considerations.
So why have we brought forward the amendment? As the Bill stands, it would define the banding and categorisation of a hazard based on a numerical score arrived at by an inspector. It is not disputed that in arriving at the score professional judgment would also be required. A score would be difficult to defend unless there is some explicit recognition of the judgments required.
I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which has brought the matter to my notice and to the notice of others. It has highlighted this issue because it believes that the decision should be based on descriptions rather than just on scores. The old system that the new housing health and safety rating system will replace contained advice and guidance, but it was judgment based.
5.30 p.m.
The Government have piloted version one of this system, and a number of problems were found by environmental health officers. Although version two has been produced, it has yet to be tested. There are still questions surrounding this, which is the purpose of raising the amendments at this stage.
On 20 January 2004, the Minister in another place, Keith Hill, recognised the problem at col. 48 of the Committee's proceedings in the Official Report. On Report in the Commons, this same amendment was debated, although it was not pressed to a Division. Mr Hill recognised these concerns and explicitly referred to the "judgment of the inspector". The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has indicated that regulations and guidance can address our concerns, but I think it right that we explore this fully.
The amendment would remove these concerns by explicitly basing the categorisation on qualitative considerations. It need not undermine the principle of a numerical system, but it would make it more of an underlying than an underpinning system. It would provide for greater protection against challenges on numerical calculations.
Along with many others, we support the principles of the new system. It is right that the effect of housing conditions on the health and safety of occupants should be decided on the basis of hazard analysis and risk assessment. We also welcome the addition of many new hazards, as compared with the current fitness standard, and also the evidence base that has been established. However, I emphasise again the concern of many that when enforcement action is taken under the new system through tribunals or courts, such cases could get bogged down in a lot of legal and technical argument about scores, arising from the use of this system.
It is important that court decisions are made on the basis of descriptions of the property rather than on scores. In this regard, the guidance notes that will be issued by the ODPM are crucial. I have had communications from the Minister about various pieces of guidance that arrived at the end of last week. I really have not had the time to digest them; perhaps the Minister can tell me more when replying to the amendments. We want the system to protect occupiers, but it must not become a charter for lawyers.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, which aim to widen the meaning of "hazards" to include other matters of housing condition, back up Amendment No. 1. They were discussed in another place. As I said on Second Reading, there was some discussion about the repeal of Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985. The Minister in another place wondered whether this was why these issues were being raised. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the Government's position on the repeal of Section 190 of the 1985 Act.
Amendment No. 7 backs up the intention of the amendments in my name in the group. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19 and 22, which are in my name, also relate to the hazard categories of the assessment. I am aware that this series of amendments was raised in another place, but I believe it is worth us having another look at their intent in order that we may be able to discuss some of the Government's intentions in relation to the assessment of housing standards and the system for defining hazards, as set out in the Bill. I also hope that the Minister might, in his usual skilled manner—that is what I have written down here—provide noble Lords with slightly more detailed explanations than those received by honourable Members in another place. In that regard, the amendments should be seen as essentially probing in nature.
Amendment No. 5 would amend the definition of "hazard" so as to clarify that deficiencies in buildings or land should be in the immediate vicinity. It is likely that any potential problems with the house will be on the premises, so my question is: what other circumstances does the Minister envisage coming into play that would not be in the immediate vicinity?
Amendment No. 6 would require disability to be taken into account in the methodology used to determine the seriousness of hazards. The estimated
138
number of disabled people in this country varies between 6.8 million and 8.5 million. A very large number of people are not registered disabled and are not chronically disabled, but may be temporarily disabled. They may have a dynamic disability of one sort or another, which is changing, and their needs may change accordingly. They may have moderate learning difficulties; they may fall into a number of categories; they may be temporarily very ill; they will have housing needs, be subject to hazards and be vulnerable in a way that the Bill should identify and cope with. Only by defining ability and disability using a different kind of evidence-based approach will we get to the people that we need to reach if we are to make the Bill work to the best effect.
Amendment No. 8 requires that the hazard bands should be,
"clearly defined by the appropriate national authority".
Those hazard bands will be described in regulations. To be effective and to stand up to robust legal challenge, they will need to be clear.
Amendment No. 9 would add "physical and environmental" to the definition of health. Again, we are looking for a firm commitment.
Amendment No. 16 in Clause 5 and Amendment No. 19 in Clause 7, along with Amendments Nos. 18 and 22, have a similar intent to that of Amendment No. 8. Again, we wish to probe the Minister to be more specific about the balance between category 1 and category 2 hazards and where such hazards would actually arise.
Lord Rooker: It is useful to have this large group of amendments as a preliminary to start the Committee stage of the Bill. I shall try and stick to my golden rule about not using acronyms, but I am really being tested. The HHSRS slips off the tongue quite easily, compared with the housing health and safety rating system, which I shall be repeating ad nauseam. So if I use the acronym it is because even I am getting tired of saying it.
I should like to deal with these amendments in the two groups in which they have been spoken to. To put the amendments in context, Clause 2 provides for the components of the new system to be prescribed in regulations. The components are: the method for calculating the seriousness of the hazards; the descriptions of the hazards; the bands into which the hazards may fall according to the seriousness of the hazards; and the numerical scores which determine the bands into which the hazards fall.
Subsection (1) defines hazard for the purpose of Part 1 of the Bill. It is a,
"risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency"
on the premises,
"or in any building or land in the vicinity".
Examples of such deficiencies are construction faults, dangerous features—such as broken banisters—inadequate heating or insulation, or lack of repair or maintenance.

139
Subsection (1) also defines category 1 and category 2 hazards. Category 1 hazards are those which are sufficiently serious as to trigger the general duty on the local authority in Clause 5 to take the appropriate enforcement action. Category 2 hazards—that is, all the other hazards—are those which trigger the powers set out in Clause 7, under which the local authority will have a discretionary power to take enforcement action.
The assessment of a hazard has two elements: how likely it is that there will be an occurrence resulting in harm, and the potential outcome of that occurrence. By virtue of Clause 2(3), the regulations that prescribe the method will take account both of the likelihood of harm occurring and the severity of the harm if it occurs. For example, a child may fall through a low window with a wide opening and no safety catch. The likelihood of falling out is no different whether the window is on the ground or the top floor of a block of flats, but the likely outcome will be very different. For other hazards—for example, excess cold—certain factors, such as the presence or lack of effective insulation, will be a factor in the severity of the health outcome.
I have made available to the Committee copies of the current draft of version 2 of the housing health and safety rating system. That document describes the method for assessing hazards; sets out the principles of scoring the hazards and placing them in bands; and lists the 29 categories of hazard covered by the system. It also gives advice on how local authority officers should operate the system using their judgment; that is, what they should look for and what can be done on the premises to remove or reduce the hazards. Most noble Lords present missed an excellent presentation on the technical aspects of the system which we held recently in an upstairs Committee Room. Nevertheless, certain Members of the Committee came to listen to the experts who designed the system.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 would miss the point of the assessment and the way it needs to work. Though new to the Committee, they are not new to the debate on the Bill and they were tabled in almost identical form in the other place. Amendment No. 1 would make technical changes to the meaning of hazards. Unless they are intended to disrupt or harm the introduction of the rating system, they undermine its objectivity, which is its primary aim. It is also clear that they reflect a view that the system is mechanistic and leaves no room for judgment. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in moving the amendment, said that the inspector would still use his judgment and knowledge, but the rating system does not deal with numbers at the expense of the inspector's professional judgment and knowledge. We have been at pains to stress that. The system of course uses numbers, but the hazard score is not determined by the system; it is determined by the inspector.
Amendment No. 4 would introduce the concept of relative standards to a system of risk assessment by requiring the "age, character or locality" of a property to be taken into account. That leads us on to a slippery slope—that is not the hazard, but an unintended pun.
140
We do not argue that the rating system seeks perfection in every dwelling. That is just not possible in the 20-odd million dwellings in this country.
Some kinds of dwelling will have characteristic defects; for instance, early-20th century terraced houses may have steep staircases that increase the risk of a fall. A local authority inspector will know that and will make appropriate allowance for it. That is my personal experience in London every day. An early-20th century steep staircase would not pass muster in a modern property today.
On the other hand, it will not be good enough for the inspector to say that, because many dwellings in his area have leaking roofs, he should play down the seriousness of that defect in a particular dwelling. The housing health and safety rating system is a tool that provides objective information as a starting point for an inspector to support his judgment of the action needed to deal with a hazard. That judgment should take on board the effect of housing conditions on the health and safety of occupants.
Amendment No. 4 would also introduce considerations of material comfort to a system which assesses the health and safety risks to occupants. That is obviously a reflection of representations that have been made regarding the repeal of Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985. Aside from any merits for a separate power to deal with minor disrepair and discomfort, it is inappropriate to introduce such considerations to the housing health and safety rating system formula.
The rating system formula will pick up disrepair where it contributes to a hazard; that is, any hazard in category 1 or 2. I can assure the Committee that that represents a very wide range of housing conditions. The worked examples that we issued in 2000 to illustrate version 1 of the rating system showed examples of category 1 hazards. We will be issuing an updated and extended series of worked examples to illustrate category 2 hazards and how the defects are taken on board. It would make for very bad regulation indeed and be confusing to those who are being regulated to try to superimpose on a regime that deals comprehensively with everything from very serious to modest deficiencies a regime that simply comes at the problem from another direction.
The housing health and safety rating system provides a tool for authorities to prioritise intervention. They can choose to tackle disrepair that contributes to modest hazards should that be their approach. Where disrepair does not even contribute to a hazard, we should hesitate to provide open-ended powers. Enforcement action needs to be proportionate and evidence based. There is no reason why authorities cannot provide advice to landlords where they judge that defects might lead to discomfort or further deterioration in the future and monitor those conditions.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. Clause 2 provides for the components of the new rating system to be prescribed in regulations. Those are: the method for calculating the seriousness of hazards; the descriptions of

141
hazards; the bands into which they may fall; and the numerical scores. As I said, Section 1 defines "hazard" for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 5 would qualify "hazard" by limiting any deficiencies outside the premises to any building or land in the "immediate" vicinity. This appears to be an unnecessary change as the assessment should take account of all factors that the inspector judged to contribute to the hazard, regardless of whether they are in the immediate vicinity. Why would we not want the inspector to consider all of the relevant facts if they are available?
Amendment No. 6 would add consideration of an individual disability to the assessment of a hazard. I fully understand the motives behind the amendment and I am sympathetic, but it fails to take account of three important considerations. First, the rating system is evidence based and the evidence of vulnerability is mainly age related, although that would not prevent us adding to our evidence base over time. Secondly, the assessments are based not on the individual occupant, but on the generality of vulnerable people.
Thirdly, there are difficulties in trying to use health and safety legislation to deal with disability rights. We have serious doubts that we could reasonably use this legislation to require a landlord to make alterations and provide special adaptations to an otherwise healthy dwelling. There are other processes and procedures for aiding adaptations for people with disabilities.
Amendment No. 8 would require the hazard bands to be clearly defined by the appropriate national authority. The amendment is unnecessary, because we will ensure that the regulations prescribing the bands will be clear. In addition, the guidance may provide additional assistance.
Amendment No. 9 would clarify that "health" should include "physical and environmental" health. That is unnecessary. Clause 2(5) does not preclude physical and environmental health from the meaning of health. The clause merely states:
"In this Act 'health' includes mental health".
The purpose of Clause 2(5) is to make sure that mental health is not excluded. The parliamentary draftsman obviously thinks that we need such a provision, but I find it appalling, because mental health is a health issue like any other. Nevertheless, as we normally use it in legislation, I assure the Committee that environmental and physical health are included in the meaning of "health", but subsection (5) is needed to make sure that mental health is not excluded.
I turn to Amendment No. 16 in Clause 5. Clause 5 imposes a general duty on a local authority to take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to a category 1 hazard existing on residential premises. Local authorities may select the appropriate enforcement action from the options provided in Clause 5(2). The amendment would ensure that any category 1 hazard that exists in a dwelling is one that has been "clearly defined". All of us want to be sure that decisions taken
142
by local authorities are sound. That is why we want those decisions to be based on an evidence-based system that helps them identify the problems in housing that matter, and to rate and prioritise them.
Amendment No. 16 reflects similar misunderstandings to those behind Amendments Nos. E1 and E5 to Clause 2—I am sure these amendments have been assigned different numbers now, but they were certainly E1 and E5 when first tabled, so far as my notes are concerned. It fails to take into account the fact that the assessment of the hazard is a function of the inspection carried out by the environmental health officer having regard to the guidance. Whether there is a hazard, and whether that hazard is a category 1 hazard, is therefore a professional judgment of the environmental health officer.
Amendment No. 18 is a cousin to Amendment No. 16 in that it seeks to ensure that any category 1 hazard that exists in a dwelling has been clearly defined. Again, this ignores the fact that the assessment of the hazard is a function of the inspection carried out by the environmental health officer having regard to the guidance. That, we believe, is a matter of professional judgment.
Amendment No. 19 is again related to Amendment No. 16, in that it seeks to ensure that any category one hazard that exists in a dwelling is one that has been clearly defined. We want to be sure that these are sound, and it comes down to the fact that Amendment No. 19 reflects what are apparently no more than misunderstandings behind Amendment No. 16 and Amendments Nos. 3 to 9 to Clause 2—they must be the Amendments Nos. E1 and E5 I referred to. It fails to take into account that the assessment of the hazard is a function of the inspection, and this will be a matter for professional judgment.
Amendment No. 22, the final amendment in this group, relates to Clause 7, which gives local authorities the power to take particular kinds of enforcement action in response to a category 2 hazard existing on residential premises. Authorities may select the appropriate enforcement action from the options provided. These options are essentially the same as those provided by Clause 5 in respect of category one hazards.
Amendment No. 22 fails to take into account that the assessment of the hazard is a function of the inspection, carried out in accordance with the guidance that we issued under Clause 8, by a professional environmental health officer.
I know it sounds like a bit of a damp sponge—I do not say a bucket of cold water. I have gone into some detail with this, because it is an important part of the Bill. The amendments are quite legitimately tabled for the Government to be held accountable, but I hope I have explained the general thrust of this part of the Bill. Much of what has been tabled here is a matter for the assessment, which will be carried out not on a hunch, but by a professional environmental health officer, in line with the final guidance which will be

143
issued in due course after the Bill has received Royal Assent. So it will be some time before we have a final version of the guidance.
Baroness Maddock: The Minister has, as usual, been very full and explicit in his explanations, and we are very grateful to him for that. My noble friend Lady Hamwee, sitting beside me, was wondering whether people trying to listen to this debate were wondering what on earth we were all talking about.
I challenge the Minister again with my main point: those people who are going to try to make this happen on the ground—by and large, environmental health officers—are still concerned that when enforcement action is taken, and if somebody challenges it, the legal and technical arguments in court or tribunals could be quite complicated. They are worried about the system getting bogged down. Can the Minister say what his department thinks of this proposition? That was the one thing he did not touch on.
Lord Rooker: I asked that very question this morning, putting my former constituency member hat on. What would happen, for example, if campaigning solicitors in localities, or campaigning groups, wanted to pick off one property against another? I am assured that the nature of the system is robust enough to stand court judgments on the basis of the scoring system across the range of issues, and the fact that it relates to the property and the vulnerability of people who may be in it. It will have to be an issue of judgment in the case of a particular property. That is the nature of the situation, so one cannot draw premature conclusions. I am assured that it is legally watertight. A parliamentary draftsman has prepared it so that it does what it says in the Bill—not to give anybody free advertising. But it will, along with the guidance, do that.
It is a very technical system, as was seen when we had the presentation upstairs by the external experts who designed it. We are satisfied that the system is robust, and the way it is drafted in the Bill is fit for the purpose we intend, without succumbing to the pitfalls of nit-picking in the courts over the judgments of environmental health officers.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that response, and for the presentation on how the system works.
The Minister, in referring to Amendment No. 4, felt that it was not quite the appropriate place for it, so I shall read what he said very carefully. It may be that there will be other matters we might want to return to at a later stage, but I certainly will not be pressing the amendment for the moment.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I come back to the question of whether a "vicinity" is a vicinity or an immediate vicinity. The concept of a vicinity goes very wide, and in terms of individual properties, one has to ask "How wide is wide?". Would a house in danger of collapsing in the street behind be in the vicinity? I presume, if it was a
144
hazard to property, it might be. If there was a tree whose roots were coming through, and nobody knew quite how far but the tree was two streets away, would that be in the vicinity?
One has to be really careful about this definition. We have clearly defined some things, but if we do not clearly define this then the environmental health officers will use their own discretion as to how near or how far they are going on what could potentially be a fishing expedition. Perhaps the Minister has an answer to that, then I will come to the next point.
Lord Rooker: It would be unreasonable for people to go on fishing expeditions. It means in the vicinity of vulnerable people in a particular property. Joint entrances, passageways, covered walkways jointly shared with another property but not within the property, would all certainly be within the vicinity and be used by people in the property being inspected. I am not sure about roots of a tree two streets away, but if they are affecting the safety of people in a particular house, may be because they are making the entrance unsafe, then I would imagine that would come within the vicinity of that particular property. EHOs would certainly not be allowed, however, to go on fishing expeditions.
Baroness Hanham: Thank you. I hear what the Minister says, and I shall read his reply carefully.
I am not clear why the definition of health includes mental health, which is more or less what the Bill says. I cannot think why mental health has been picked out as the only aspect of health. In this day and age, with all that we know about mental health, and all that health means, the word "health" should be all-encompassing. There should be no need for an Act specifically to pick out that one word. That is one of the reasons we have put in the others, to define the extent of jeopardised health. It appeared to be a curious single word—and a curious aspect of health—to include. It might have been easier for it simply to be removed. We needed to debate the reasons for its inclusion.
6 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I do not know. I cannot say more than I have said. I regret that there is nothing in the Explanatory Notes. I am assuming that in Acts of Parliament and Bills the way in which "health" has been used in the past has been found not to cover mental health, and perhaps this approach involves redefining health. The fact that mental health must be specifically stated must mean that it has been held in the past that the term "health" did not cover mental health. For the purposes of this Bill, "health" includes mental health. I assume that it is included for some historical reason involving other legislation. I shall get further particulars on this, however, because I need a better explanation. That is the only common-sense view of why subsection (5) appears as it does.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister. If it is possible to let us know why it has been included in

145
advance of the Bill's next stage, that would be helpful. For today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, moved the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: I knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, wanted to intervene so I did not withdraw the amendment earlier. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 16, leave out "potential" and insert "likely"
The noble Baroness said: The housing health and safety rating system—I will not attempt to pronounce its acronym—is to operate in accordance with guidance to be published by the Government. At the moment, an unfinished draft known as version 2 is available. There are 29 proposed hazards including falls, fire, structural stability, crowding and space, radon gas, security and so on.
Where an assessment is required the environmental health officer will assess each category of risk on a structural basis to establish the likelihood of the risk occurring which could cause harm within the next 12 months and the range of outcomes from such harm. The spread of outcomes relate to the risk of death or injuries that require medical attention, by a GP or hospital.
This assessment is always based on the most vulnerable age group, if one exists, and is purely age related. Depending on the category of risk, the most vulnerable are either the very young or the elderly. The reason for this is that the only statistics that exist are age based.
Many properties which will be subject to the housing health and safety rating system assessment are not lived in by the very young or the very old. Indeed, most private, rented properties are occupied by students, young couples and young working people.
The guidance assessment process disregards characteristics relating to the actual or potential occupiers, except in one case; namely, crowding and space, where the number of occupants is taken into consideration.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that this is done as part of the evaluation process in all cases. No guidance is intended despite the structured approach in which the first two stages of the process are to be undertaken. There would therefore be no structured way of doing this.
The effect of not making this change will be to require unnecessary works to be undertaken to properties with the consequent costs involved. This will lead to higher rents or possibly encourage the landlord—for example, an owner of one or two
146
properties in a student area—to sell up and so reduce the amount of accommodation available. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, helpfully took us through the Clause 2 components of the new system in his earlier inspection of the way in which we see the new HHSR system working. He did so rather forensically, I thought. He usefully set out how we see it operating. For that reason, having listened to the noble Baroness, the amendment probably misses the point of the way in which the assessment must work if it is to give an objective means of comparing the severity of hazards across the housing stock. I heard what she said about assessments and how they relate to the age of the occupant and the level of risk but she failed to make a leap of faith, as it were, involving the way in which we see the system working in practice.
Amendment No. 3, which attempts to redefine hazards as a risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or likely rather than a potential occupier, slightly misses the point. It fails to take account of the fact that the assessment system is intended to assess the condition of the property for the most vulnerable person who could potentially live there based on the principle that a dwelling that is safe for the most vulnerable is safe for all.
We need to know not who is likely to live there but only that such a person may possibly do so in future. Having come to an understanding of the degree of hazard, it will be for the environmental health officer to determine the appropriate action to be taken in the circumstances, which involve the property and the way in which it is likely to be used.
The noble Baroness may have failed to take account of that part of what happens after one has understood the level of hazard and risk as part of the assessment. The amendment is not in the end necessary although I can appreciate that it is hard—certainly at the initial stages—to get to grips with the way in which the system might work in future.
Baroness Hanham: The housing health and safety rating system will probably exercise us for some time. The assessment may be done potentially for the most vulnerable but there are properties in which the most vulnerable might never live. The amount of work that would potentially have to be done to every property would be to that standard, which might not be a necessary standard. We are trying to tease out whether the standard will have to be the most extreme in every case, whatever the scoring system, or are there opportunities for people who are less vulnerable and who will be perfectly happy to occupy a property that has not been done up to the highest levels of safety and healthy existence? That was the purpose behind the amendment. My query is whether that is the case. Will everything have to be done to the most extreme standard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the best way in which I can help the noble Baroness is to rehearse the argument in the following terms. The local authority

147
environmental health officer will carry out an inspection and come up with a score, which they will take away, reflect on and make a decision on what to do. The local authority will not try to get work done on the property for no particular or good reason. If no one vulnerable is living or is likely to live in the property, gold-plated work to the property, as it were, is unlikely to be undertaken. To use a phrase that is often employed in your Lordships' House, the remedy would be proportionate to the problem and relative to those most likely to live in that property. If a group of healthy, fit and active students is involved and the hazard that is there is not so extreme as to produce vulnerability to them, clearly that would colour the view of and judgment made about the most appropriate action to undertake when the environmental health officer thinks about what he or she has seen with regard to making sense of the hazard and coming up with a risk assessment. I hope that that helps.
Baroness Hanham: It does. I shall consider what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Local housing authorities to review housing conditions in their districts]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 11, I point out that there is an error in the Marshalled List. Clause 3 ends, so to speak, after Amendment No. 13. Amendment No. 14 is in Clause 4.
Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 35, after "to" insert "assess progress towards meeting targets relating to house condition or decency set by the appropriate national authority and to"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment to Clause 3 concerns local housing authorities and their duty to review housing conditions in their districts. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce the review of housing conditions and to make sure that information collected is used. The amendment aims to make an explicit link between house conditions and decent home standards. However, the Bill provides no mechanism to require local housing authorities to measure their progress towards achieving the decent home standard in the private sector. Currently, there are no data on the location of non-decent homes occupied by vulnerable people. I shall speak about that matter again in a moment.
The amendment addresses both issues and would generally alert local housing authorities to the need to work towards the decent home standard in the private sector. This is a very important area because three-quarters of all properties that do not meet the decent home standard are in the private sector. Although the Government moved some time ago to set targets for the decent home standard in social housing, it was only in 2002 that the public sector agreement target was extended to include a reduction in the proportion of
148
households on benefits living in the private sector in non-decent homes. The target was 43 per cent in 2002 down to 30 per cent in 2010.
That indicates why this is rather an important amendment. If we are going to tackle the problem of non-decent homes in the private sector, local authorities will have to collect the facts and figures. I hope that the Minister will understand that. Later, I shall move another amendment which is also important in trying to deal with decent home standards in the private sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I have two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Having discussed a little the intent of the new rating system, we now move on to how local authorities will go about putting it into place. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are similar in attempting to ensure openness and transparency in the process, allowing all those concerned to see on an annual basis what the local authority is doing on an annual basis.
Amendment No. 12 would ensure a local authority made public the report on housing in its area. Therefore, a review of housing should take place and there should be a degree of public understanding, knowledge and scrutiny of what the local authority is doing. That seems important given some of the things that have been discussed. It will be a big change, and with it will come a comprehensive analysis of a range of issues associated with housing in a given area.
Given the fundamental nature of the change and its significance, it is important that the review be published and available for inspection and subject to proper public scrutiny. Perhaps the Minister can helpfully tell us what information will be in the public domain, as the Bill now stands.
Not only should the authority make clear what it has done to review its stock; it should also make perfectly clear what its intentions are. Amendment No. 13 would complement this transparent process by ensuring that a local authority published all this information in an annual report.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I support the amendments just spoken to. I declare an interest in that for nearly 10 years I was vice-president of Neighbourhood Energy Action, as it was in those days, and is now National Energy Action. During that period, I was president of the Scottish sister organisation. Both have done an enormous amount of work, particularly in the provision of assistance to the less fortunate in insulating homes which in most cases were desperately in need of it.
Perhaps I may say something about the relationship which has existed. It has been an all-party campaign over the years. In Neighbourhood Energy Action and in Energy Action Scotland, we have had excellent support from governments of both parties. That highlights the non-party attitude taken by both governments. I hope that that will continue, as I am sure it will. I know that the Government do not wish to

149
create legislation that is going to be an embarrassment either to local authorities or to those in the private sector who provide homes for the less fortunate and who do all they can to try to comply with various regulations.
As regards this legislation, these organisations are concerned about one or two matters. For example, they are anxious that the regulations include a requirement for a heating system which is economical and efficient and capable of heating the whole dwelling to a comfortable level in normal weather conditions and at affordable cost to the occupant. Some of these measures may be easier to state than to achieve. We hope that these points are being taken into consideration by the Government in preparing the legislation. They also believe that any property to which this part of the legislation applies must achieve an SAP rating of no less than 65.
I have seen some of the homes before and after they have been treated by the charities and provided with insulation and improvements. Very often it is the elderly who live in these houses, but there are also people with young families. The properties tend to be smaller so that a large number of them are occupied by elderly people who are not in a position to carry out the work for themselves.
I hope that all these points will be taken into consideration by the Government. I know that these amendments have been tabled not to try in any way to get something from the Government which they do not want to give, but as constructive proposals to try to ensure that the people at the sharp end receive the benefit of the improvements made. I hope that the Government consider what I have said as being helpful.
Baroness Maddock: I support the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I am a vice president of National Energy Action. It is my intention later in the Bill to discuss the fact that we have different standards for different types of homes. I hope that we can reassure the noble Lord by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has an amendment dealing with decent home standards, particularly as regards energy. We raised this matter on Second Reading. I support the noble Lord in all the work he has done in the past.
Lord Rooker: I was almost going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that I expect to have quite detailed debates on energy and heating during the course of the Bill, but not today. That is not to devalue at all what he said; I certainly pay tribute to his work and that of all those involved in the energy action organisations. As he rightly said, the issue has always been an all-party one. I have spoken in many groups myself, sharing platforms with colleagues from other parties when I was a humble Back-Bencher and, indeed, a campaigning Front-Bencher. It is more difficult now as a Minister, being expected to have all the answers.
The clause is an important part of the Bill. It replaces, with modifications, Section 605 of the Housing Act 1985, which had its origins in the Housing Act 1969. It provides part of the strategic context for the work that local
150
authorities need to do to tackle poor housing conditions in their area. Subsection (1) places a duty on local authorities to keep the housing conditions in their area under review, with a view to identifying any action that they ought to take under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2). The provisions are those in Parts 1 to 4 of the Bill, together with those in other legislation relating to demolition, clearance and renewal.
As introduced in the other place, Clause 3 replicated the requirement in the 1989 Act to review housing conditions annually. There was some misunderstanding in the other place about what was meant by that, and we amended the clause to reflect more closely the current approach to local housing strategies, which local authorities are now expected to update periodically to cover a three-year to five-year period. The requirement in Clause 3 to keep the housing stock under review remains important, but the obligation to do so annually was out of kilter with that approach to strategies.
The purpose of the clause is to ensure that a local authority maintains a current awareness of the state of the housing stock in its area, so that it can come to a well-informed judgment on the action that it needs to take. The purpose of the clause is not to require an authority to produce reports at particular intervals, although we expect them to keep records which can be made available.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to insert into Clause 3 an extra duty on local authorities, when they are reviewing housing conditions in their area, to have regard to the decent homes targets or any other non-statutory targets set by the Government. As many colleagues will be aware, the decent homes standard and associated targets for both socially rented and private sector stock are important policy issues for the Government, and are vital in ensuring that the overall objective of housing policy—that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home—is met. However, the standard and targets are non-statutory. The basis on which they are being delivered is through the public sector service agreements between the Treasury and my department—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Flowing from that is a framework of policy guidance and financial support to local authorities, to enable them to deliver.
The guidance that we have issued to local authorities on the decent homes target already sets out in detail the monitoring requirements that should be undertaken at local level to ensure that various milestones towards meeting the targets will be achieved. For private sector housing, we are asking local authorities to undertake periodic stock-condition surveys, to assess progress in making decent the homes of vulnerable households. As one of the noble Baronesses said, the biggest percentage of non-decent homes in the country is in the private sector. Local authorities are also required for the purposes of best-value indicators to measure progress in improving housing conditions in their area. Such progress will be monitored closely by my department, working with the government offices and the Audit Commission to ensure that the targets are met.

151
In the light of that very substantial policy framework for delivering decent homes which already exists, it would not be right to make the amendment to Clause 3. The framework is non-standard, and the Government do not intend to change that. I do not want to open up another debate at the moment, as I have no doubt that we will come to it later. However, we do not want to open any door to a fourth way for local authorities, people who might want to kid themselves, or people who are lying through their teeth to local authority council tenants about there being a fourth way—extra money—to meet the decent homes standard. There are only three ways, as everyone knows. They are: large-scale voluntary stock transfer; private finance initiative, in which the houses or homes remain under the ownership of the local authority; and arm's-length management organisations, again at which point the houses or homes remain in the ownership of the local authority.
Those are the three ways. There is no fourth option. I want to get that on record, for the avoidance of any doubt in future with campaigning noble Lords or noble Baronesses who might have other views. I have to make that clear, because I was at a local authority on Friday and was handed a leaflet—not by the authority, but by some of the local people campaigning—that said that there were four ways for decent homes, one of which was for them to remain council tenants. People can remain tenants in homes with ownership by the council, but there is no fourth way. I want to make sure that there is no back door to a fourth way. I hope that that is useful for further debates on the Bill.
Amendment No. 12 attaches to the duty to review housing conditions a requirement to publish a report of the review. Those reviews are ongoing, however. The amendment also asks authorities to publish details of the action that they propose to take, and details of their intentions as regards any discretionary licensing. The amendments somewhat miss the point. Clause 3 is a strategic rather than an enforcement provision. In respect of discretionary licensing, Clauses 55 and 77 already make substantial provision, including consultation before the designation of additional or selective licensing. Amendment No. 13 adds a requirement for local housing authorities to publish an annual report in relation to review of housing conditions. It is not clear whether that is the report already referred to in Amendment No. 12.
As I said, local-authority housing strategies are now on a more statutory basis following the Local Government Act 2003. Section 87 of that Act enables the Secretary of State to require an authority to have a strategy in place, to require it to produce a statement and to influence the content of that statement. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, through the government offices, works with local authorities to ensure the production of "fit for purpose" housing strategies which are current for at least three years. The plans are expected to include effective delivery of decent homes—now extended to the private sector, which is absolutely crucial because of the large number of vulnerable people involved.
152
Given the fact that the debate is a precursor to others, certainly so far as insulation and energy are concerned, I hope that the noble Baronesses will not press their amendments.
Baroness Hanham: I hear what the Minister says. As he got to his feet, it occurred to me that the housing strategy was applicable to the issue and that we needed to take note of it. None the less, the reviews will not take place very quickly, simply because of the extent of the work that will be required and the number of environmental health officers who will need to be employed.
Perhaps I should declare my interest as a member of the local authority for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Having been chairman of the housing committee, I remember the condition surveys that used to have to be undertaken, and the fact that they were lamentably slow. That was in an authority that was really well funded and resourced. One could see that, whether the issue had priority or not, it could be a slow job, especially in areas where property is in relatively poor condition anyway. It would seem sensible that there should be some review of what was being undertaken and why, if there were so many properties to be dealt with that there was some slowing down. We were interested to know how many properties were being surveyed, what the outcome was and, if there were targets, whether they were or were not met. That was the purpose of the amendment. I hear what the Minister says, and we may or may not return to that at a later stage.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: As usual, the Minister gave a full and clear explanation of how the Government will monitor progress towards a decent home standard. I particularly spoke about a decent home standard in the private sector because of the issues that we are talking about. I had no intention of raising the fourth way, but perhaps we will do that another time. As the Minister said, decent homes and the warmth and thermal capacity of a home are very important and I am sure that we will return to those issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Inspections by local authorities to see whether category 1 or 2 hazards exist]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert "or a number of electors to be determined on the basis of the size of the parish"
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple, straightforward amendment that would give a group of electors living in a particular neighbourhood or area a route to make an official complaint. We believe that there needs to be some safeguard, otherwise an individual bearing a grudge might well make repeated complaints. The amendment takes that into account by allowing a certain proportion of local residents to come together and act. It is important that when things

153
are being done in their name—as will be done under these clauses—people should be encouraged to become involved in their neighbourhoods and in the state of local housing. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: It is a simple, short and clear amendment, but I have to disappoint the noble Baroness—I will not be able to accept it. I hope that I have sufficient reasons to explain why.
Clause 4 replaces with modifications Section 606 of the Housing Act 1985. That section places a duty on the proper officer of a local authority to make a report to the authority if he considers that a dwelling house or a house in multiple occupation is unfit for human habitation or that an area should be dealt with as a clearance area. It also requires a proper officer, as distinct from the authority itself, to inspect such a property or area in response to a complaint by a justice of the peace or a parish or community council that the property is unfit or the area should be cleared.
We introduced amendments in the other place to set out the meaning of Clause 4 more clearly. In particular, they reduced the prominence that it appeared to give to complaints made through justices of the peace and parish or community councils, and gave more emphasis to the day-to-day responsibility of authorities to determine whether an inspection is necessary. That responsibility arises both in response to complaints and as a follow-up to their reviews of housing conditions in their area under Clause 3.
Clause 4(1) now requires a local authority to consider whether to inspect a property in its area to establish whether or not there is a category 1 or category 2 hazard. A duty to consider arises either from the authority's review of housing conditions under Clause 3 or for any other reason. Under subsection (2), where a proper officer of an authority has received an official complaint from a justice of the peace or a parish or community council that a category 1 or 2 hazard may exist on residential premises, or that an area should be dealt with as a clearance area, the proper officer must inspect the premises or area.
Inspections of premises under Clause 4 must be carried out in accordance with the regulations referred to in Clause 4(4). Where, following an inspection made as a result of an official complaint, the proper officer is of the opinion that a category 1 or 2 hazard exists on residential premises, or that an area should be declared a clearance area, subsection (6) requires him to make a report in writing to the authority without delay, which must be considered as soon as possible.
Amendment No. 14 adds an unspecified number of elected members to those who can make an official complaint. It is not clear who determines what the number will be or what the criteria are. Aside from that, we do not believe that this addition serves any practical purpose. Authorities will generally investigate all complaints as a matter of policy. There is a potentially long list of worthy people we might add to our list.
We admit to other misgivings about trying to introduce a political dimension to the issue. We should trust authorities to exercise sensible discretion when it
154
comes to complaints. People will not be slow to use this process, whether they be parish councillors, district councillors or members of the other place. In this case, we do not see the justification for adding Amendment No. 14 to the Bill. Authorities will generally take all reasonable steps to investigate all reasonable complaints as a matter of council policy.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. The wording of the Bill is odd. It effectively says that an official complaint can only be made by a justice of the peace or a parish or community council. Any other complaint is presumably not an official complaint, which can therefore be ignored by the health or housing authority if it wishes.
Perhaps this is where the difficulty lies, because if someone makes a complaint, one would expect it to be taken seriously. However, why does the Bill then introduce an official complaint? In order to get a justice of the peace to do anything about it, someone will have to get the justice of the peace or the parish council involved.
The phrasing of the amendment may not be ideal, but an official complaint has to be able to be made by a residents' association or a group of electors. I can think of a house in my borough that was a disaster zone for a number of years. It was not a matter of official complaints—complaints were falling out all over the place. It is important that people feel entitled to complain. They will, regardless of the Bill, but the wording of the Bill is infelicitous.
Lord Rooker: The language of the clause came from elsewhere. It replaces Section 606 of the 1985 Act. I do not know where that section came from, but I have already referred to a 1969 Act. It is probably old language, because, while there might be 8,000 to 10,000 parish councillors in the country, huge areas of the country are not covered by parish councils. Most big cities are not parished—I think that they ought to be, but they are not. However, that does not stop complaints being made, and any good local authority—do not forget that local authorities are checked over by the Audit Commission these days—will have a complaints policy. If they do not, they should, and I cannot imagine a local authority without one.
Complaints that are reasonably made about houses and conditions in their areas will generally be investigated as a matter of policy. I am quite happy to get a note on this matter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The language is probably an ancient throwback to previous legislation, which has been transferred from one Act to another. As I said, parish councils do not cover the whole country, so it would be quite wrong to disadvantage people who might not be able to make a complaint just because they do not have a parish council.
Baroness Hanham: I would be grateful if the Minister would look into it. I do not think that my amendment is correct. I am trying to ensure that anybody has a right to make an official complaint

155
while trying to protect against people being awkward and difficult. It may be that subsection (3) needs to be removed unless there is a very good reason—which the Minister looks as if he might have.
Lord Rooker: Official complaints, as defined in the Bill and elsewhere, are meant to be rare. Ordinary complaints—there are several categories, including dire complaints and urgent complaints—are complaints none the less. There is no reason to believe that they will be devalued simply because there is a process for making an official complaint.
The noble Baroness should look at subsection (3)(a), the first part of the subsection that she wants to amend: justices of the peace are all over the place. Although I do not want to encourage people to knock on their doors, there are a lot of JPs in the country and all areas are covered. However, that relates to an official complaint. It is intended that that will be a rarity, as opposed to ordinary complaints. Ordinary complaints are not devalued because they are not official complaints.
Baroness Hanham: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but the more I look at the clause, the more concerned I get. It includes districts and parishes, but what on earth will happen with boroughs? I declare an interest as a justice of the peace. I do not want people running around making official complaints.
We should come back to the clause. It is rather bitty, and we might make it better at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert—
"(8) The authority must make available to any interested parties upon written or oral request, any report made to them under subsection (6)(b)."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 15 is sensible and reasonable, and I hope that the Minister will agree. If a local authority conducts an inspection to determine whether a category 1 or 2 hazard exists and concludes that the area in question should be dealt with as a clearance area, local people have the right to be made aware of such a decision. Perhaps it is just my reading of the Bill—I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on the matter—but I cannot see how such a decision would be communicated to people who might have a vested interest in it.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are also sensible and reasonable. The essence of the amendments is to provide for greater openness and clarity, and I know that those things are close to the Minister's heart. It would seem rational that, were a local authority to make a slum clearance or demolition order, the grounds on which the decision was made should be made available to any interested party.
The amendments would not compel the authority to make its decisions public—that might involve additional time and money—but would make it
156
necessary for it to do so on written or oral request. I am sure that the Minister will not disagree with those sentiments. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said. On the face of it, what he asks for is not unreasonable. However, I shall go through Clause 4 and its operation, because I think that, having listened to what I have to say, the noble Lord will probably think that we are acting entirely reasonably.
Clause 4 requires the proper officer, as distinct from the authority itself, to inspect a property or area in response to a complaint from a justice of the peace or a parish or community council that the property is unfit or the area should be cleared. We had some discussion about the history of that, and I shall come to my view on that in a while. If, following an inspection carried out as a result of an official complaint, the proper officer is of the opinion that a category 1 or category 2 hazard exists in any residential property in the district or that an area should be declared a clearance area, subsection (6) requires him to make a report in writing to the authority without delay, and subsection (7) requires the authority to consider the report as soon as possible.
Amendment No. 15 would add the requirement that, where the report of an inspection that follows an official complaint recommends that the area should be declared a clearance area, the authority must make the report available, on written or even oral request, to any interested parties. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made a plea for local people to know. That is fine, and I have no doubt that local authorities, acting in the way anticipated in the clause, will have to advertise the action that may be taken and the reasons for it. My question is this: to whom precisely are the reports to be given? In the context of the noble Lord's amendment, who is an interested party, and how would the authority determine that? There are no clues in the amendment. Should an authority be responding to an oral request? How is the person who requested the report to establish that the request has been properly made?
Obviously, we appreciate the case for openness, although it is arguable that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ought to be the conduit for the release of information by central or, as in this case, local government, but why specifically these reports? We need to consider carefully what is likely to happen in practice. First, official complaints are likely to be few. There is no evidence that authorities receive many of them now. A question that almost came up in the debate was why the concept of an official complaint had been retained. The answer is interesting. Apparently, during consideration of the draft Housing Bill, there was no such provision. The Government were persuaded in the other place that we should retain the procedure.
My noble friend Lord Rooker put his finger on it: the provision has been there for many years. It was in the 1969 Act, I think, and my guess is that it probably goes back to some of the early legislation about fitness

157
of premises and properties in the early 20th century and maybe even slightly before that. On a personal note, I have a feeling that it is probably because of the unique role that magistrates at one point had in considering the fitness of premises that it retains a place in the legislation. I can remember, as a housing activist and housing adviser in the early 1980s, using magistrates' courts as a means of taking enforcement action against reluctant landlords. Perhaps part of that procedure involved the concept of an official complaint, so that the information that the magistrate received led to an action. There was, perhaps, an obligation on the local authority further down the line to take action in some way. I think that that is where the legislation is coming from.
We were persuaded to retain the provision. It is a historical hangover, but it may have some use. In the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, described, it is likely that the local authority would want to ensure that local residents were well informed. However, we must consider carefully the terms on which reports should be requested, who should have the right to request them, the circumstances in which they can be requested, and how the requests would be properly made and recorded. I am concerned by the notion that detailed information should be supplied simply on the back of an oral request, when that is somewhat informal.
The occasions on which a proper officer will recommend that an area be declared a clearance area are, in the circumstances that I have outlined, likely to be extremely rare. A clearance recommendation presupposes that a large number of properties have been inspected following an official complaint. It is far more likely that the authority itself will initiate the action, leading to a clearance declaration, as part of the review under Clause 3. Clearance declarations follow the procedures set down in Section 289 of the 1985 Act, as amended by this Bill. If they proceed, the owners and occupiers of the property affected must be consulted. There is an obligation in the legislation, which was enacted by the noble Lord's party when it was in government. On balance, we consider the requirement to make such reports available unnecessary and difficult to operate in the circumstances suggested by the noble Lord, although we appreciate the spirit of openness that lies behind the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are similar in their intent. One relates to the making of demolition orders, the other to the making of clearance orders. Again, the question arises of whom the reports should be made to. Who is an interested party? How do we define that? How is the local authority to determine it? There is also the vagueness of the oral request and the way in which such a request is logged and made clear in the local authority.
I recognise the case for openness. I understand the spirit in which the amendment was moved. We believe that the concept of openness is carefully enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with which local authorities must comply. I am not persuaded that anything further is needed given the general legislation to which I referred and the requirements in the
158
1985 Act for notice of demolition orders to be given. We think—and I am sure that the noble Lord will agree, particularly as his party put it in place—that that legislation is clear and easy to operate through the local authority. Having heard that explanation I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. Part of his answer related to the Freedom of Information Act, so it will be difficult to deny people access to the information if they want it. Some of the decisions will be controversial; for example, planning decisions where people are concerned about what is happening to properties next to existing properties. These days, people want openness and the most information possible to be made available on planning decisions.
I can see that some of the decisions will be controversial. I understand the Minister's point on magistrates. We have moved on a great deal and most of the action will be taken by local government under this part of the Bill. The Minister accepted that there should be openness. We are suggesting that the information should be available to those who request it. It would probably be a job to prevent that anyway under the Freedom of Information Act. As the Minister went along with what we were saying I do not understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. It would probably be a job to refuse it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was trying to set out for the noble Lord the practical circumstances in which this situation might occur. I am not convinced that the noble Lord's suggestion adds anything to what would be expected of the local authority in any event.
Lord Hanningfield: Therefore the Government could accept the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord invites me to accept the amendment on those terms; I am not minded to do so. If he tables a similar amendment at a later stage we will ensure that we can describe to him, in even more detail if he wishes, exactly how the local authority would be expected to operate in those circumstances. I invite him to reconsider the woolliness of his proposition, because the questions I posed back to him about who an interested party might be and whether we should accept mere oral requests for detailed information would probably trouble some local authorities—perhaps not his own because it is not a housing authority, but certainly the district authorities that operate within Essex County Council.
If the noble Lord is prepared to think about the operability of his suggestion—and I am certainly prepared, in offering explanations at a later stage, to consider the obligations on the local housing authority over and above those in the 1985 Act that I described—perhaps we will reach an amicable score draw on the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may say that, if he tables another

159
amendment, we would find it helpful if he could explain how his proposals fit in with the technical and detailed freedom of information provisions under which local authorities have to provide for requests for information. It would be helpful to these Benches to understand how the two might lie together. The Minister referred to that, but there might be considerable practical difficulties in operating separate systems.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I find the amendment not only woolly but almost undeliverable. It would make available to any interested party—and we are talking about clearance areas, which are always controversial—reports that would probably cost a great deal of money to draw up. What about the financial impact on the local authority if hundreds of people want information? As worded, the amendment means that the local authority would have to give any report to any interested party. Who will decide who is an interested party? That is a potential conflict. Or how does one prove that an oral request by telephone was made? The amendment's intention is good, but not only is it woolly, it would be damaging to the Bill.
Lord Selsdon: I am confused, but happy to be confused at a higher level. It is easy to define interested parties under law. It is easy to consider what currently happens in the planning world. When a planning application is made, an announcement is made and interested parties can consider it. Little notices go up on lamp posts and residents' associations or interested parties often get together and may define themselves. It is only a question of defining "interested parties", which would not be difficult.
Lord Hanningfield: We seem to have had a great deal of debate on the issue. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, local authorities have to respond in considerable detail to planning applications. Many planning applications are controversial, particularly when one wants to build on areas and neighbourhoods where people do not want building. Planning authorities receive hundreds of requests for information and detail about planning applications which they cannot refuse. This would be no different.
I accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I thank the Minister for his answer because it offered a way forward. He rightly said that I am involved in Essex County Council and that it is not the housing authority. Between now and further stages of the Bill, I would like to consult my colleagues on housing authorities in local government and see if we can come back with a better suggestion. The Minister said that if we talk to local government about it we might come back with a solution that we could all accept about how and to whom the information will be made available. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Category 1 hazards: general duty to take enforcement action]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert—
"(h) serving a deferred action notice under section 86 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (c. 53) (unfitness for human habitation etc: party to improve enforcement procedures) as specified in the Housing (Fitness Enforcement Procedures) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/2885)."
The noble Lord said: Both Amendments Nos. 17 and 20—which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock—should be seen as consequential to the removal of Clause 50. I will therefore comment on why we believe the clause is unnecessary. The minded-to procedure was introduced by the last government as a measure of deregulation. Its repeal is now proposed by the present Government as a measure of deregulation.
The procedure was introduced under Sections 81 to 86 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 as a deregulatory measure to save costs and avoid formal regulatory action being taken when it could be avoided. It was the answer to widespread concerns by landlords that local authorities were proceeding immediately to service of formal notice.
Under the minded-to procedure, before serving a formal notice the local authority must serve a notice of its intention to do so and give the landlord the opportunity to object and make representations. This includes a right for the landlord to appear in front of an officer appointed by the local authority to make representations before any informal action is taken. This procedure can be overridden in urgent cases.
Experience has shown that the procedure has worked well. It removes a source of friction between local authorities and landlords. It gives the landlord an opportunity to negotiate with the local authority. More time may be needed to do the work or it may be agreed that substitute works are satisfactory or indeed a particular item may not need to be done at all. In the majority of cases in response to the minded-to notice the landlord has given an undertaking to do the work so as to avoid service of formal notices.
The landlords' association in Leeds—the Leeds Property Association—has had direct experience of the operation of the procedures and they have worked well in practice. The ODPM has argued that the enforcement concordat provides an alternative, but that is only guidance from central Government and not binding in law. In any case, particularly in relation to HHSRS there will be a mandatory duty under primary legislation to serve notices. There is a mandatory duty to serve notice where a category 1 hazard exists, under Sections 5(2) and (3). The retention of the minded-to procedure would allow less formal procedures to be adopted in the first instance.
The serving of a formal notice attracts a fee of up to £300. The imposition of fees of this magnitude will lead to hostility between landlords and EHOs. The

161
responsible landlord will say, "If you had only written to me or telephoned me about this I would have dealt with it straightaway". This is the very reason that the minded-to procedure was instituted in the first place.
7 p.m.
The Bill rightly contains, in Schedule 5, Parts 1 and 2, a consultation procedure to enable representations to be made before an HMO licence is issued, varied or refused, Why, therefore, cannot a similar procedure be retained for the service of notices especially those under Part 1 of the Bill, in respect of the HHSRS. If there is no preliminary procedure a landlord served with a notice may well have to make a protective appeal to the residential property tribunal if he contests certain aspects of the notice. There are strict time limits for such appeals. Although there is power for the tribunal to extend the time for appealing there is no guarantee of this. Unnecessary appeals may be needed simply to protect the landlord's position.
Formal service of a notice automatically sets the landlord in confrontation with the local housing authority, whereas the minded-to procedure enables good relations to be maintained so that the landlord can work with the authority to tackle a problem. If a landlord fails to take remedial action the option of serving a formal notice remains, although in most cases that would not be required. Abolishing the minded-to procedure is an unnecessary piece of heavy-handed regulation that is not conducive to creating a constructive atmosphere in which landlords and local authorities can co-operate.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 21 are consequential to the removal of Clause 50. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I have also put my name to the amendment and to the question whether Clause 50 stand part of the Bill. I have also put my name to Amendment No. 20, which is exactly the same as Amendment No. 17, but to a different clause.
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and, indeed, we have both been heavily lobbied by the Residential Landlords Association, which makes some important points. If we try to regulate the private sector we need to work with landlords. I am sure that the amount of bureaucracy with which local authorities will have to deal as a result of the Bill will be greater. Therefore anything that we can do to cut down on that bureaucracy is important.
We know that the minded-to procedure has worked and I know that the Government believe that the enforcement concordat provides a good alternative. It was part of the explanation that we were given at a session with the Minister and departmental officials. Nevertheless I should like to hear a little more from the Minister about why he thinks that it is a reasonable replacement for the minded-to procedure that has
162
worked so well. I hope that he can persuade me that the new procedure will work. Otherwise, we should pursue this matter on behalf of landlords.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 5 imposes a general duty on a local authority to take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to a category 1 hazard existing on residential premises. Authorities may select the appropriate enforcement action from the options provided in subsection (2). It operates somewhat like a menu. If the intention behind Amendment No. 17 is to retain the minded-to procedures—which is the intention of both noble Lords—the amendment is defective. The amendment attempts to add deferred action notices under Section 86 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to the menu of options open to an authority with housing responsibilities to deal with a category 1 hazard. Deferred action notices are in fact provided for under Section 81 of the 1996 Act. Section 86 deals with what are known as "minded-to" notices.
This is a pre-notice procedure in which the authority must give the reasons for its proposed action and it allows the person served with the notice the opportunity to make representations. We have consulted twice on the repeal of the minded-to notices—first, as far back as 1998 in a paper on changes in principle to the fitness standard and again in a paper in 2001 on the detailed proposals for the HHSRS procedure. At that point there was broad support to remove them. I am aware that there are still those who would retain those procedures.
Repeal of the minded-to procedures is in part a deregulatory measure. It was seen as costly and bureaucratic and a potential delaying tactic by owners who wanted to stall the improvement of their property. It is unnecessary where informal procedures are already in place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, we have encouraged authorities to sign up instead to the enforcement concordat. The great majority have done exactly that. The concordat commits authorities to good enforcement practice, including consultation with those affected by their enforcement powers, providing information and discussing compliance failures. The minded-to procedures are unnecessary because of the success of the concordat. This is why the Government have long advocated their repeal.
I should declare an interest because I have a feeling that in my earlier life in the Local Government Association I was partly responsible for encouraging the development of concordats. I recall that I may even have attended the signing ceremony in March 1998—although I should not wish to be pressed on that. I certainly remember the concordat process and I had the impression at that stage that local authorities preferred the concordat—with its degree of informality, its pre-consultative format and an agreement to engage with those affected by enforcement action—rather than having to go through what was sometimes seen as the activation of a pre-enforcement process being used just to delay appropriate enforcement action.

163
For those reasons, we feel unable to accept Amendments Nos. 17, 20 and 21, which have a similar effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, wanted to be persuaded. Perhaps I should make a final point. Over time we have encouraged local authorities to sign up to the concordat. We have been impressed by their coverage. The statistics suggest that some 96 per cent of all central and local government organisations with enforcement functions have adopted the enforcement concordat. So its coverage is almost universal. As a result of that success we do not think that the minded-to process has any great merit and we want to see this element of deregulation because it reduces bureaucratic burdens on local authorities. That would be to local authorities' benefit and would reduce burdens on them because we want them to act in a more precise way. It is perhaps ironic that both opposition Front Benches are urging us to retain something which we see as a bureaucratic burden. We are arguing for its removal because what local authorities have done has worked so well, particularly through the operation of the concordat. We want to see the application of that rather than a bureaucratic straitjacket.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, believes that that would provide a necessary protection for landlords. I do not believe that he is motivated by that spirit because usually he sees enforcement as being important in certain circumstances. We certainly take that view.
We would like to rely on the enforcement concordat, but we do not think that the pre-enforcement minded-to approach is necessary. We congratulate local government on the progress it has made in ensuring that the concordat works effectively.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for giving the detailed information about the way in which the enforcement concordat works. If he had not done so I was about to ask him whether he had some figures. In the light of his remarks, I am satisfied that the situation will be satisfactory. The issue was raised by landlords. Obviously some landlords still prefer the old system, but I am satisfied by the Minister's remarks.
Lord Hanningfield: As the noble Baroness said, the matter has been raised by landlords' associations as they are concerned about the processes. I totally agree with most of what the Minister has said because there has to be the ultimate sanction of enforcement. One wants to try to do remedial works as quickly as possible with the minimum of fuss. It is best to let them happen rather than go through lots of bureaucratic procedures. We shall analyse what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Category 2 hazards: powers to take enforcement action]:
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
"REASONS FOR DECISION TO TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
(1) This section applies where a local housing authority decide to take one of the kinds of enforcement action mentioned in section 5(2) or 7(2) ("the relevant action").
(2) The authority must prepare a statement of the reasons for their decision to take the relevant action.
(3) Those reasons must include the reasons why the authority decided to take the relevant action rather than any other kind (or kinds) of enforcement action available to them under the provisions mentioned in section 5(2) or 7(2).
(4) A copy of the statement prepared under subsection (2) must accompany every notice, copy of a notice, or copy of an order which is served in accordance with—

(a) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act (service of improvement notices etc.),

(b) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act (service of copies of prohibition orders etc.), or

(c) section 268 of the Housing Act 1985 (service of copies of demolition orders),

in or in connection with the taking of the relevant action.
(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) the reference to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act includes a reference to that Part as applied by section 27(7) or 28(7) (hazard awareness notices) or to section 39(7) (emergency remedial action); and

(b) the reference to Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act includes a reference to that Part as applied by section 42(4) (emergency prohibition orders).

(6) If the relevant action consists of declaring an area to be a clearance area, the statement prepared under subsection (2) must be published—

(a) as soon as possible after the relevant resolution is passed under section 289 of the Housing Act 1985, and

(b) in such manner as the authority consider appropriate."

The noble Lord said: The amendment responds to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Clause 5 places a general duty on local authorities to take action in respect of category 1 hazards. The local authority must take the most appropriate of the courses of action available to it. Under Clause 7, which provides powers to take action in respect of category 2 hazards, they may take one of the available courses of action.
In their 8th and 10th reports the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed concerns that the absence of a duty on local authorities to give reasons for deciding which form of enforcement action to pursue under Clause 5 or 7 fails to comply with Article 6 of the convention on human rights, on the right to a fair hearing, with Article 8, on respect for private and family life, and with Article 1 of the First Protocol 1, on the protection of property.
The amendment aims to give effect to the Joint Committee's recommendation by placing a duty on local authorities to prepare a statement of their reasons for their decision to take the course of action on which they have settled, and to provide a copy of that statement with the notices, copies of notices and copies of orders that they are required to serve under the enforcement provisions of Part 1 of the Bill and the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act.
We believe that the new clause responds positively to the Joint Committee's concerns without placing local authorities under a significant additional burden. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Guidance about inspections and enforcement action]:
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 42, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: The thrust of these amendments is to tease out a little more about guidance for the enforcement and inspection regime and the resulting costs to local authorities.
Subsection (1) states:
"The appropriate national authority may give guidance".
It is clear that guidance does not have to be given, which is why we suggest in Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 that it "will" give guidance. The appropriate national authority would therefore be under a duty to give guidance rather than merely having the power to do so.
Amendment No. 26 would add paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h). Paragraph (e) would make transparent the training expected of environmental health officers. It is clear what the roles to be undertaken under the new system will require but one ought to be specific about what is required of local authorities rather than the rather vague provision in the Bill as it stands.
Paragraph (f) is proposed because certain specifications are expected of local authorities. Paragraphs (g) and (h) also add to the guidance. We are trying to expand the degree of guidance needed so that the time and cost implications for local authorities are much clearer and more quantifiable. We want the situation to be clear so that authorities know what the costs are, and so that the Local Government Association can make representations to the Government for proper funding.
Amendment No. 27 would ensure that any guidance issued under this section is properly scrutinized by both Houses of Parliament rather than simply being published by the Government.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 38 would provide an avenue for a local authority to seek suitable guidance in regard to the issuing and contents of prohibition orders from the appropriate national authority.
We are attempting to probe the Government's thinking a little on the system that the Bill envisages. It would surely be preferable to have a system that is easily understood, with uniformity throughout the country. There appears to be nothing at present that
166
restricts one local authority from interpreting this part of the Bill significantly differently from a neighbouring local authority. Circumstances will obviously change from area to area and, indeed, from district to district whatever the Government do. Surely allowing each local authority recourse to the national authority is a sensible step. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I regret that my response to the amendments will be a lot longer than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. He said that he was probing the Government. I am all in favour of spending time on the early parts in the hope that we can avoid later amendments. One of these days we might even be able to miss out a stage.
Clause 8 enables the appropriate national authority to give guidance to local housing authorities on the exercise of their functions under Part 1. Our intention is that the guidance will fall broadly into two categories: guidance about the way in which properties are inspected and the way in which hazards are assessed, using the housing health and safety rating system; and guidance about the way in which authorities, when they have established that a hazard exists, can use the enforcement duties and powers provided in Part 1. Those relate to the use of improvement notices, prohibition orders, hazard awareness notices, demolition orders, clearance and the use of emergency measures.
Amendment No. 24 would place the appropriate national authority under a duty to give guidance, which we think is unnecessary. I can assure Members of the Committee that we intend to issue that guidance. It has already been made available in draft.
On Amendment No. 25, we are not sure what the difference is. Noble Lords will be aware that precursors of Amendment No. 26 were debated thoroughly in the other place. There was a Division, but the argument is obviously not convincing so I shall try again—hence the extra time that it will take.
Amendment No. 26 adds to the topics on which guidance may be given. We are not convinced that the additions are necessary. More that that, all but the reference to fire safety, which is important, are entirely inappropriate in guidance about the use of the enforcement tools available to authorities. It is the case that authorities need to ensure that their officers are appropriately qualified and experienced to carry out their work on behalf of the authority. Authorities will also need to consider the costs of enforcement action to themselves as well as to property owners.
We suspect that Amendment No. 26 reflects continuing nervousness over the change to a risk assessment system. But we should not have too many qualms about current competence and experience of environmental health practitioners. I have heard no criticism of those professional officers. They are highly respected and regarded by all sections of society. They have an extremely interesting job, given the range of things in which they can become involved. The rating system requires a change of approach by local authorities. But the housing health and safety rating

167
system is essentially a tool to assist professional judgment. It makes transparent the process environmental health practitioners already go through in judging fitness.
They are already trained in the use of risk assessment methods. The Housing Minister in the other place, Keith Hill, referred to an account of their members given by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in their response to consultation on the enforcement guidance. The CIEH pointed to environmental health practitioners',
"experience in risk assessment procedures and ability to take an holistic view of the health, safety and welfare of occupiers alongside traditional building and means of escape defects".
I doubt very much that we are talking here about the need for new qualifications. However, we shall ensure—we have made a commitment on this—that the rating system is implemented smoothly. To achieve that we shall ensure that there is adequate training in the system, and my officials are currently discussing with the Local Government Association and others the kind of training that will be required.
Subsection (1)(f), which Amendment No. 26 would insert into Clause 8, appears once again to be an attempt to write a regulatory impact assessment into the guidance. We do not believe that that is the function of guidance.
I am aware that some local authorities have suggested that inspections may take longer than at present. If so, we are not sure whether that reflects the complexity of the rating system or shortcuts that are taken now in the fitness inspection. What is certain is that inspections are likely to vary considerably in length, both in the field and back at base. Most dwellings, even really had ones, will not be riddled with serious hazards. They are likely to contain one, perhaps two, although there may be less serious problems as well. Some may well require considerable attention. Surely that should not be so, if a building is to be made safe for people to occupy.
On new subsection (1)(g), which would be inserted by the amendment, it is not clear in what circumstances authorities may need to compensate landlords. Landlords will have a right to appeal the improvement notices and prohibition orders for which the Bill provides, before they take effect—or, in the case of the emergency measures, after the measures have been taken. Compensation may well be an outcome of an appeal in some such cases. I suggest that compensation should be dealt with on appeal. I cannot agree that compensation should be a matter for government guidance under Clause 8; nor can we see that compensation is a likely outcome for a landlord who has kept his tenants in conditions so hazardous that a local authority has felt compelled to take enforcement action.
We must be sensible about this. The vast majority of landlords are good, decent property owners, providing a really good service for their tenants. Others sometimes deliberately keep tenants in hazardous conditions and ignore their complaints. Where enforcement action is taken in those circumstances, compensation should not be on the radar.
168
We take far more seriously, of course, any concerns about fire safety. Fire is one of the 29 hazards dealt with by the rating system. There will be guidance on hazards from fire. It will cover the causes and preventive measures. It is not necessary to single out fire safety on the face of the Bill. All the hazards will be spelt out in the regulations which prescribe the housing health safety rating system method under Clause 2.
We want local authorities to prioritise action against all serious hazards. In the case of houses in multiple occupation covered by Part 2, they will be required to do so following an application for a licence. I promise that we shall emphasise that in the guidance that we issue to authorities.
It would be inconsistent with a system of risk assessment to prescribe specific means of dealing with hazards. However, the technical guidance to be issued under this clause will recommend that there should be adequate means of escape from fire from all parts of a building. In some houses in multiple occupation, sprinkler systems may well be required. That does not mean that authorities will require such systems in all houses in multiple occupation, but it does mean that it will be appropriate to fit them where the risk justifies it.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that the technical guidance under Clause 8 will deal comprehensively with fire and other hazards, and I believe that the elements of the amendment are either misplaced or inappropriate in the circumstances.
On Amendment No. 27, Clause 8 enables the appropriate national authority to give guidance to local housing authorities on the exercise of their functions under Part 1. I am certainly willing to take this amendment away. We shall, of course, lay a draft of the guidance before Parliament and we are willing to consider further whether the guidance should be made by affirmative resolution. I shall bring forward a suitable amendment to provide for that, if that is the final decision.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that very full and detailed reply. He referred to many areas covered by my series of amendments. However, he did not mention the cost at all. That needs to be assessed. He mentioned such matters as training for officers, but there will be some costs to local authorities. Local authorities will want to ascertain what the costs will be as that will be part of the bid in the revenue support grant for local authorities. We shall read the Minister's reply, and we may return to some areas later. However, perhaps the Minister could give his views on where the money will come from. The more we talk about it the more it looks as though it will cost money and that money has to come from somewhere.
Lord Rooker: I had not actually finished my reply. I gave way, but I had not yet reached Amendments Nos. 35 and 38. I was making a concession. I moved back from the Dispatch Box and the noble Lord must have thought that I had finished. I shall not be accused of missing out amendments, although I do not have the full answers to the money issue. It is a little early in the Committee stage for us to come forward with the

169
money for this. I am not saying that I shall be able to do so tomorrow, but if I can give an indication of the figures tomorrow, and if it is appropriate, I shall do so. I shall be brief, as I understand that other noble Lords have not entered the Chamber to speak on the Housing Bill.
Amendment No. 35 would enable a local authority to seek the guidance of the appropriate national authority on any of the requirements of this clause. The appropriate national authority fully intends, using its powers in Clause 8, to give comprehensive guidance to local authorities on the exercise of their functions under Part 1. I suggest, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 38 would appear to be intended to require the appropriate national authority to give guidance specifically on whether an undertaking, such as I have described, has been breached. Guidance will cover the full range of local authority functions, so we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
It is a massive, bold commitment on behalf of the Government. The Government are committed to meeting the local authority start-up costs. That is fairly significant. At the moment we are discussing with the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health what costs will be covered. Our estimate at present is some £5 million. That may not sound much, but we are changing the situation. Professional officers are already in place undertaking many of those functions. There is a new system and training will have to be undertaken for that new system, but our estimate is about £5 million. We are in discussion with the Local Government Association. There is a well defined procedure for new burdens on local authorities. I understand that the new burdens requirements are quite rigorously enforced so that local government is not short-changed. As I say, the present estimate is £5 million.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply to that long list of complicated questions. I am pleased that he acknowledged that the Government will meet the start-up costs of approximately £5 million. There will be ongoing revenue costs and no doubt we shall come to those later in considering the legislation. I shall analyse the Minister's replies. I believe that we shall require further discussions as the Bill proceeds. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Finance Bill
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I shall also be addressing the issues raised by the report of the Economic Affairs Committee on the Finance Bill 2004 and of course I shall respond to any points made on those issues in any concluding remarks.
Since 1997, Britain has sustained growth through two economic cycles. In addition, this period of sustained growth has been combined with low inflation, low interest rates and the lowest levels of unemployment for a generation. Over 1.8 million jobs have been created, while claimant count unemployment has fallen by more than 800,000, remaining consistently below 1 million since February 2001.
In his Budget speech in March the Chancellor of the Exchequer renewed the Government's commitment to monetary and fiscal discipline and economic stability. The Government remain on track to meet their fiscal rules over the next five years.
The Government are also making savings on debt interest and unemployment, helping us to meet our fiscal rules, keep taxes low and spend more on vital services. These strengths mean that the Government are in a position to invest more—not less—in public services that matter most to the people of this country. Those areas will enable the United Kingdom to grow and prosper in the global economy of the future. The Finance Bill builds on our successes, it strengthens and modernises the economy and helps to prepare the United Kingdom for the challenges of the future.
The Government are committed to delivering world-class public services, offering opportunity for all. We will drive forward with investment in essential public services, while continuing to strengthen the United Kingdom economy, to support a fairer society with stronger communities and to promote stability and prosperity around the world.
Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that current spending will rise by an average of 2.5 per cent in real terms across 2006–07 and 2007–08. In this spending round, three-quarters of spending will go to vital front-line services. So while overall spending rises by just 2.8 per cent, departmental spending—spending on vital services—will have a real terms rise of 4.2 per cent over the next three years. UK education spending will rise to 5.6 per cent of GDP by 2007–08 from 5.4 per cent in 2004–05. We will invest more in our children to build on our improvements to the United Kingdom's education system, including a new determination to make pre-school provision for the under-fives as well as childcare available to all.
The five-year settlement announced in the 2002 Budget for health and the increased resources announced in the spending review this year mean that overall health spending will grow to £92 billion in 2007–08, compared

171
with £33 billion in 1996–97. We will also continue our long-term investment in our infrastructure, particularly in transport and housing. The housing budget in England will rise from £5.9 billion this year to £7.2 billion by 2007–08, a 4.1 per cent annual real terms rise. That will fund a major programme of investment in affordable and social housing in order to tackle the long-term under-investment and neglect of housing. That is vital to economic prosperity and our quality of life.
Spending on transport will grow on average by 4.5 per cent in real terms over the three-year period from 2005–06 to 2007–08. This is an ambitious programme of investment and reform that will deliver greater opportunities, expand choice and help reverse the legacy of under-investment in public services.
The Government's spending plans will help to equip Britain to meet the global challenges of the future. Productivity is the key to delivering sustained and balanced growth across the United Kingdom. In order to raise productivity levels, the Government will continue to promote competition within the economy, to support business and entrepreneurship and to raise the United Kingdom levels of skills and training.
Alongside the spending review the Government also published a 10-year investment framework for science and innovation, with the aim of making Britain the best location for science and innovation in the world. So we will not cut the science budget but increase it in average annual real terms by 5.8 per cent, a doubling of cash spending on science since 1997. We have set ourselves the ambitious target to raise overall research and development spending in both the private and public sectors from 1.9 per cent of national income to 2.5 per cent by 2014.
The Finance Bill builds on our successes in supporting economic stability and sustained economic growth. It introduces a number of new measures to support entrepreneurship and businesses. Clauses 38 to 46 will continue the Government's reform of corporation tax, extending corporation tax relief for the expenses of managing investments to companies with investment business, providing greater certainty for companies in relation to their expenditure.
Clauses 93 and 94 introduce further improvements to the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. Clause 141 will strengthen the research and development tax credit, widening the definition of "qualifying costs" to include costs of computer software, water, fuel and power directly employed in research and development. Clause 142 will encourage investment by small businesses by increasing the rate for first-year capital allowances for small businesses' spending on plant and machinery from 40 per cent to 50 per cent for one year.
An important part of creating a fair society is to have a fair taxation system. The Government are determined to close down the opportunities for tax evasion and to ensure that everyone pays his fair share. The Finance Bill includes a number of measures to deliver that objective. Clauses 306 to 319 provide new disclosure obligations on promoters who market certain tax schemes, ensuring greater transparency in
172
the tax system and reducing the number of contrived tax schemes used to avoid tax. Clause 19 introduces a parallel disclosure measure to help counter the avoidance of indirect taxes.
In order to discourage the self-employed from incorporating solely for tax advantages, Clause 28 introduces the non-corporate distribution rate of corporation tax, ensuring that when profits are distributed to non-company shareholders, some or all of the company's profits are charged at a minimum rate of 19 per cent, thereby protecting low rates of tax for those companies that are investing in growth.
As a part of an enhanced strategy to combat spirits fraud, in Clause 4 the Government introduce duty stamps for spirits from 2006. Clause 84 introduces an income tax charge on previously owned assets in order to reduce unfair tax avoidance through the use of trusts.
There has been some criticism of the length of this year's Finance Bill. Yet the Government's pension simplification proposals, which make up some 170 pages of the Bill, actually remove over 350 pages of complex legislation and sweep away nearly 1,000 pages of guidance. Clauses 149 to 284 constitute a radical simplification to one of the most complex areas of the tax system. They introduce a single set of rules for all tax privilege pension schemes; they streamline the registration process for new pension schemes; and they allow for greater flexibility for around 15 million pension savers.
This is a modern and progressive Finance Bill. It is realistic about the challenges this country faces in competing with the world economy. The measures to create fairness in the tax system and in the wider economy will ensure that more people will be able to benefit from our economic strengths. The Bill maintains the principles of stability and economic growth which underpin an enterprise economy that supports fairness and opportunity for all to enjoy increasing prosperity. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for introducing the Bill. We welcome the opportunity to debate the Finance Bill and the report of the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee, which considered the Bill. I pay tribute to those noble Lords on the sub-committee who produced a valuable report in the necessarily short timescale.
The fact that your Lordships' powers are limited on money matters will not diminish the relevance of our debate. We can demonstrate, as the sub-committee has demonstrated, that we have relevant expertise to contribute. I particularly look forward to the contributions of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and my noble friends Lord Wakeham and Lord Northbrook, not to mention that of my noble friend Lady Wilcox, who will be winding up for these Benches. I also look forward to the three maiden

173
speeches. We are indeed fortunate in having the noble Lords, Lord Bhattacharyya, Lord Giddens and Lord McKenzie of Luton. I know they will agree with me in a couple of hours' time that it really was not too difficult after all.
There is a lot to debate on the Finance Bill, and I will start with the Budget from which the Finance Bill derives and the Chancellor's economic management. Last week, when we debated the spending review, I was somewhat taken aback by the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I had been,
"scratching around at the margins rather than even attempting to attack the Chancellor's record".—[Official Report, 12/7/04; col. 1040.]
I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats deserve that, but I put on record again our view of the Chancellor's performance. This applies to the Budget, the spending review, the Finance Bill and every interference in the economy that emanates from the Chancellor's office.
The proportion of GDP taken by public spending has been rising fast and is set to exceed 42 per cent in 2007–08. Big government is not in dispute, but this Government have gone beyond big; they are fat, and that is not healthy. Last week's spending review was an admission of inefficient spending. We applaud the belated attempt at efficiency outlined in last week's statement, but we have no confidence that the head count savings will be realised, because the Chancellor has absolutely no track record in delivering any of the many reductions in civil servants that he has promised in previous years. He does have a track record of presiding over public services, which have demonstrated massive reductions in efficiency according to all studies to date, including those of No. 10 Downing Street and the Office for National Statistics. If the subjective judgments apparently favoured by this week's Atkinson report are ever allowed to gain currency, that may well allow the Government to paint a different picture in future, but we do not believe that any rational assessment of quality gains could outweigh the truly massive decline in measured efficiency over the past seven years.
I could talk about the loss of the savings culture; the regulatory burdens on business; competitiveness; the fall in productivity growth and so on. I do not have time this evening to lay out the full charge sheet, but I do not want the Minister to be under any illusions about our view of the Chancellor's stewardship.
Last week, the Minister ducked two of the questions that I put to him on the Budget and the effect of the spending review, so I will put them to him again. First, I ask again whether the golden rule will be met over the current cycle, which runs to 2005–06. The Minister replied last week on the Chancellor's sustainable investment rule, but I hope that he will be able to reply on the golden rule tonight. I hope that he will also deal with whether the golden rule will be affected by Network Rail coming on to the Government's balance sheet, as well as the effect on tax receipts of the extra pension contributions that have recently been reported.
174
Secondly, I ask again:
"Will the Minister assure the House that these spending plans will be delivered without the Chancellor raising taxes or national insurance over the whole period to 2007–08".—[Official Report, 12/7/04; col. 1038.]
Our analysis is that he will find it difficult, if not impossible, to do so. The Minister replied last week in terms of assumptions about tax rises, but that is not what I asked. I asked for an assurance. My question has even more relevance given the refusal by the Paymaster General last week to give my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin that assurance.
These matters of the economy and the dangers that lie within it are of greater significance than the contents of a single Finance Bill. I cannot remember ever seeing a three-volume Finance Bill. There are 637 pages—328 sections and 42 schedules. A massive amount of secondary legislation is necessary to put the Bill into effect. The Minister might doubt that it is three volumes, but I have it here. That is probably a record, although I do not intend that as praise.
I have been trying to reflect on why the Chancellor has produced these massive Finance Bills year after year. It seems to be symptomatic of a Government whose first instinct seems to be to get themselves involved in the minutiae of life in this country. This is a Government who do not content themselves with principles; they try to micromanage everything, which is why the public services have been weighed down with instructions and targets, and it is why businesses are regulated to distraction. It is why Finance Bills find more and more areas in which to intrude, and in so doing create yet more complexity and more regulatory burdens. Those are all signs of fat government.
Our feelings about the Finance Bill are not those of anger; although I know many who are affected by the Bill feel that way. Rather, we feel the greatest sorrow that so much should be inflicted on individuals who should be left to get on with their lives, and on businesses that should be left to get on with wealth creation. My noble friend Lady Wilcox will be talking about the Government's attacks on small businesses and on the spirits industry. I shall confine my remarks to a few other areas of the Finance Bill.
The Finance Bill sets up massive anti-avoidance reporting requirements. Of course, they were not worked out in advance, which is why the first set of draft regulations produced universal condemnation from the practitioners who must deal with those regulations at the sharp end. We have no time for those who abuse our tax system, but these new laws run the risk of making ordinary commercial life uncertain, and compliance will be burdensome. I hope that the Government will at least take on board the entirely sensible recommendations of the Economic Affairs Committee in this regard.
The so-called simplification of the pension provisions is far from simple and was not consulted on in advance. In response to industry concerns, the Government modified some of the worst aspects during the passage of the Bill in another place, but it is undeniable that the provisions are complex, particularly in transition. The new pension rules have some undesirable features, and I

175
shall single out one, which is the technical rules for valuing final salary scheme pensions, which will be treated much more favourably than those for money purchase schemes. This benefits public servants in particular, and will accentuate a "them and us" divide, given that the effect of the Government's general policies towards pensions is to drive private sector employers into defined contribution schemes. As the CBI's pension strategy group reported earlier this week, the gap between public sector pensions, which taxpayers pay for, and other pension arrangements is causing growing resentment. The Government will come to regret that.
The 70-odd pages of the Bill devoted to stamp duty land lax tell us several things. First, they tell us that the Government introduced this new tax last year before they had worked it out properly. Secondly, they tell us that this tax will continue to be administratively burdensome and costly in compliance terms. Thirdly, they tell us that the law of unintended consequences is alive and well, and this tax has already distorted pricing in the housing market around various trigger points.
My right honourable friends in another place fought valiantly, but unsuccessfully, to improve the Bill in various ways, including modifying the worst aspects of the pre-owned assets and trusts rules. They tried and failed to get some certainty about fuel duty in an era of volatile prices, although I note that today the Chancellor has at least conceded that the autumn hike will not be implemented. They sought, to no avail, to restore some credibility to savings by reinstating tax credits for ISAs.
The Finance Bill before us is a monument to the intruder state and produces no net benefit for the life of the country.
Finally, perhaps I may say a few words about the role of your Lordships' House in scrutinising the Finance Bill. We strongly supported this innovation—and I have already paid tribute to noble Lords who worked on the sub-committee—but there was one very black spot: namely, the lack of full co-operation by the Treasury, which is well covered in the sub-committee's report.
It is well known that the Chancellor does not want our House to go anywhere near his Finance Bill. It is clear that civil servants in the Treasury effectively withdrew the usual full co-operation that your Lordships' House expects. It is not clear whether the Chancellor encouraged or merely allowed his civil servants to behave in this way. Either way, it is a matter of the gravest concern and really has to be sorted out.
Related to this is the Government's response to the report. I searched through the report of the Finance Bill proceedings in another place to find what the Government had to say about the sub-committee's report. I found nothing, though Members on the Benches of Her Majesty's Opposition and those of the Liberal Democrats clearly found the analysis and evidence useful. Of course we have not had a formal Government response to the sub-committee's report to consider today, and so we cannot debate it in those terms.
176
I believe that these issues must be addressed when your Lordships' House comes to decide whether to make this new sub-committee a permanent part of our universe.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. It is a trifle bizarre because the relevant document shows that he will introduce the debate and then, on the following line, it states that I am to introduce it. I am not going to behave as if I am introducing it. I can tell noble Lords—all of whom, I assume, are like me and want to go home—that I have no intention of speaking a second time at the end of the debate.
Perhaps I may follow my noble friend and begin by saying a few words about the economy. In my judgment, the economy is in better shape now than I have known it in the 50-plus years that I have been a professional economist. This is a source of concern because there then follows the sad possibility that the result may well be large-scale unemployment of economists.
But—and this is not for the faint hearted—it is a dangerous thing to say because the record of economists when they are optimistic is pretty poor, to the point of being disastrous. Just before the stock market collapse of 1929, one of the world's greatest economists predicted that the great crash would definitely not happen. I can give many other examples. My own favourite is that, one or two days before the 1967 devaluation, I said on the BBC that the value of the pound would definitely be maintained. So, in saying that things are good, I appreciate that this might be the end for our economy.
In saying that the economy is in good shape, I am not remotely saying that there is no room for controversy. Speaking personally, I would favour a degree of fiscal tightening coupled with a modicum of monetary easing. But that is a technical point. I think that most economists would agree that the Chancellor's position, the position that I have just mentioned and that of several other economists are all within what we might call the compass of reasonable discourse. I think that is a fair way of putting it.
Turning now to the report of the sub-committee on the Finance Bill, I can reassure your Lordships that we have done exactly what we were required to do. We have stayed within our terms of reference; we have not strayed into any party political wrangling; and we have impressed all interested parties but one—the Treasury. Given that we have got "As" for everything that we have done and a "C" from only one body, I prefer to concentrate on all the "As".
Certainly all the experts agree that our dispassionate approach, based throughout on evidence, is precisely the right way for the Finance Bill to be scrutinised. Many of them have said to me—and I agree with them—that it would be a welcome development if the other place adopted our approach. It might also please the Chancellor because, apart from anything else, if it did adopt our approach, our contribution might

177
become irrelevant. But I am absolutely certain in my own mind that what we did, and what your Lordships asked us to do, is the correct way to move this subject forward.
I shall say a few words on the report itself even though, as always—naively and pathetically—I assume that all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate have read every word our report and the three volumes of the Finance Bill itself.
Before I do so, however, I greatly welcome the fact that three maiden speeches are to be made in this debate. It is an honour for me to have chaired a committee which has attracted three such major figures to address your Lordships on the topic before us. Certainly this is the last time that I shall be addressing your Lordships as the chairman of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee, and it may well be the last time that I shall be addressing your Lordships as the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee—it depends on the timing of our next debate. I very much look forward to the three maiden speeches.
Turning to the report, I must, as always, thank our clerk, Robert Preston, and our two specialist advisers, Mr Leonard Beighton and Mr Brian Sheppard, who are retired senior officials of the Inland Revenue, for all their work. As opposed to the Economic Affairs Committee and other committees of your Lordships' House, when we are carrying out this kind of scrutiny we rely enormously on the expertise of our advisers, as well as on external people. It is not something I feel enormously confident about without proper back-up. On the assumption that we do go ahead and make this a permanent part of our proceedings, we must find the funds to have the scale of expertise that we had this time.
Given the compressed amount of time we had available—and I thank all noble Lords who took part—it became a full-time job. Even then, we could look at only five topics. Last year we looked at three or four. I cannot remember why we chose the five topics; it may have been the chairman's whim. We looked at the tax and VAT avoidance schemes, about which I shall say something in a moment; and we looked at pension schemes. I was a little puzzled by the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on this issue. I know that she will have read our evidence, and overwhelmingly all the outsiders said that they thought the simplification was a simplification and that they totally approved. So I am slightly surprised at her intervention suggesting that it was not and that people did not approve; they certainly did.
We considered the issue of small business taxation. I think the noble Baroness is right that the law of unintended consequences is working there and it was interesting to see how the relevant matters emerged. We considered stamp duty and land tax, to which I shall return; and then we came—this was definitely the chairman's whim—to the duty stamps for spirits, and I shall say a word on that in a moment.
If I were asked why we chose those topics and whether there were rational grounds for doing so, I suppose I could say that two or three of them were very important and the others were at least interesting. That is not bad.
178
Let me take a little time on the issue of tax avoidance schemes. I knew very little about the subject beforehand. I knew there were such things, but I had no idea of their scale and the appalling behaviour of major firms in our country in devising these purely artificial schemes, which bear no resemblance to the businesses concerned and what they are about. This is not a party political point, but the one thing I am absolutely certain about is that any government would wish to remove that artificiality from our tax system, if for no other reason than that the ordinary people in this country—I include myself in that—pay the full tax on everything they earn. To discover, as we did only the other day, that leading professional footballers of a club I support were actually paying less tax than the average wage-earner on their so-called outside earnings simply will not do. For the tax system to work, it requires the support of the general public.
We raised the point that in trying to deal with the reporting, you could end up, in the early stages, with over-reporting. We have no doubt about that. As at least one former Chancellor will be addressing us, perhaps I may say that what tends to happen is that, on the whole, you go in blind and for a bit of overkill. I know that we are not in this business to be loved, but what struck me is that no one ever says how right we were and that they will now do as we say. Despite the fact that the Treasury will swear blind that it has not read a word of what we have said, it responds to matters of that kind. I am at least confident that although in the early stages there will be over-reporting of the registry, the system will enter an equilibrium that will work. I think that genuine people, who simply want to make sure that the system works properly in their ordinary businesses, will be reassured. So I am not worried about that, apart from in the very early stages, when there will be difficulties.
I am certain that the Chancellor needs to go beyond just recording these artificial schemes; something needs to be done about stopping them. I think that some of my noble friends will have something to say about that.
There are two other topics on which I want to speak briefly. I did not realise before we started that one of the problems with the stamp duty land tax was, again, tax avoidance. Partnerships were being artificially created in order to avoid paying stamp duty land tax. It is a very good example of how the bad drives out the good. Legitimate partnerships are, quite rightly, concerned that they should be correctly treated but, if people are inventing artificial partnerships as a tax avoidance device, it is not in the least surprising when the Treasury reacts by saying, "We are not going to have it". There are ways in which one can distinguish the genuine from the fictitious. It is a good example of why we were right to look at this issue; most of us knew nothing about it until we did.
On the point about spirits, my noble friend Lord Moser, who is a great figure in the field of statistics, impressed on us the total inability to reach any agreement on the scale of the problem. We were all quite shocked by the fact that the range was not between one number and plus or minus 10 per cent—

179
we had a range of several hundred per cent between the least and the most. That is also illustrative of why this is worth doing. As I understand it, from what we have been told recently—perhaps my noble friend the Minister will tell us more about this when he replies—the Government have approached the industry and are considering a rather different way of getting into the same area without quite going down the road of enormous compliance costs. If that is happening—I know that the Government would not dream of saying they were making any changes because of us—that reassures me to some extent.
I have gone slightly over time. I reiterate that I think we have done a useful job; and if we can find 12 good men and women and true for next year to put in this much effort, I very much hope that we will continue to do it. I look forward next year to sitting on the Back Benches and contributing to such a debate again.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Bhattacharyya: My Lords, it is a great honour to address the House for the first time. When I was a small boy, I visited the House with my father. I wandered around in wide-eyed amazement at the splendour of the place. I never dreamt that one day I would be a Member. One did not see a non-white face. Today, I feel much more comfortable. A confident nation has nothing to fear from being inclusive.
I must thank noble Lords from all parts of the House and the officers of the House for the warmth of the welcome I have received. My supporters—my noble friends Lady Dean and Lord Corbett—and my mentor, my noble friend Lord Haskel, have been especially welcoming. With support like this, the errors from now on can only be mine.
Over the past few weeks, the debates in the House have impressed me with their breadth and incisiveness. The report before us is a good example. I commend my noble friend Lord Peston and the Peers on the Select Committee for the diligent work that has gone into producing it. I thank him for it, and for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on such an important topic. But first, I would like to introduce myself.
I am a Bengali, born in Dacca to a liberal Hindu family, in what was then part of an undivided India. At partition, my family became refugees. We made a new home in Bangalore. My father was a scientist, and he became a professor of chemistry at India's first research institute.
Industrialisation meant that engineering was vital to the new nation and, like many youngsters, I wanted to be an engineer. To gain experience, I was sent to England, to Joseph Lucas, one of the world's greatest centres of electrical engineering, to do my graduate apprenticeship. On completion, I was fortunate to be awarded a Lucas fellowship at Birmingham University, completing a Masters and a doctorate.
I agree with what the Prime Minister said yesterday in all but one thing: the 1960s were a great time to be a student. As the saying goes, it was a time when sex was safe and flying was dangerous. The original intention was for me to be trained in England and to
180
return to India to run one of our major family organisations. England, however, was far too much fun—a time of flower power, social innovation, Mini cars and miniskirts. Life was so exciting. It was great at Birmingham to play cricket all day and then do my research on the night shift. I suspect that my cricketing days are the reason my knees are not quite as good today as they should be.
Watching the game was not always quite such fun. I went to Lords to see England play India. I am afraid that I failed the test named after the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Before I could open my hamper, Typhoon Tyson and Freddie Truman had put India to the sword. The scoreboard, at one time, read nought for five. Yes—five wickets down for no runs scored.
I have lived very happily in Moseley in Birmingham for more years than I lived in India, with my wife and three daughters. I am still enjoying life in England, and still learning.
Entering the 1970s, I felt that large sections of our industry lacked the intellectual horsepower needed for success. That was underlined by Monty Finneston producing a devastating report on the engineering sector. He identified the polarisation between industry and the universities. Universities were in splendid isolation, arrogantly labouring with an antiquated curriculum. Industry did not comprehend the intellectual rigour that was needed to propel it into the new age.
I had been giving a great deal of thought to how to develop manufacturing as an academic subject. To understand what was happening in global manufacturing, I studied the performance of manufacturing in Japan, the US and mainland Europe, and I continue to do so. Success in manufacturing involved a complex interplay of economic, technological and political factors, which were in a constant state of flux.
Over at Warwick University there was a vice chancellor with very innovative ideas. Jack Butterworth—later to become Lord Butterworth, an eminent member of the Conservative Benches—was a real visionary. He knew that Warwick could be established as a leading player only by doing something different, and he invited me to join him. I had the opportunity to create a new type of centre, bringing together the best of industry and academia on a greenfield site. I was the director and the first professor of manufacturing in Britain when the Warwick Manufacturing Group was established in 1980. Looking back, that was one of the triggers that propelled Warwick University to the top level of universities.
In fact, 1980 was not a good time to be starting a manufacturing group of any kind. British industry was in the pits. It was tough. I had very few resources and the whole idea of a university working that closely with industry was against the grain.
Meanwhile, the first Thatcher administration grasped the nettle of tackling our industrial relations problems. Legislation quickly followed that led to the deregulation of our markets. In many parts of the country, market

181
reform was very painful, but it was an essential precursor to enhancing the competitiveness of our firms. Those changes improved the environment in which companies operated, but they exposed the failings within companies. Managers had no hiding place and no more excuses about poor industrial relations. Their products had to stand or fall in the open market.
The product of the Warwick Manufacturing Group was in great demand. We were in the thick of the reform process, working with firms big and small to improve their management and their technology. We learned about how to turn around and restructure businesses successfully, and how to raise the skill level of existing staff and create an environment where they could exploit bright young graduates.
The first stage was to keep the firms alive. The next challenge was to make them sustainable. Sustainable success means that companies need to be open to new ideas and to generate a constant flow of new products. That requires research and development. The flow of in-company research and development had dried up, jettisoned in the struggle to survive. We realised that to restart in-company research and development, firms needed a helping hand. We created a demonstrator for the automotive sector. That gave students access to industrially relevant research and state of the art equipment and it gave firms access to a constant stream of new ideas.
When the Prime Minister opened the Advanced Technology Centre at Warwick in January 1990, it was the first of a kind—a new type of research-driven partnership between a university and industry. Today, the Warwick Manufacturing Group, which I lead, is among the largest of its kind in the world. We are proud to work with numerous firms and governments in Asia, Africa, North America and mainland Europe.
At home, the structure of the economy has changed over the past 25 years. Today, small firms play an increasingly important role. The report that we have before us makes some very important points about the burden of tax collection on small companies. I share the views of the Select Committee when it identifies, in Chapter 4 of the report, the issues that face small firms.
Successive Finance Bills have grown increasingly complex. Unlike individual taxpayers, small firms do not have the option of the Inland Revenue doing the calculation for them. They have to self-assess. The Inland Revenue should have a set of simple regulations, which would, of course, be had news for accountants. I am in complete agreement with the Select Committee when it states:
"Finance Bills need to strike an acceptable balance between the protection of revenues and the imposition of compliance costs on the taxpayer".
Gordon Brown has done many things on the fiscal front, and not just for small businesses, to make Britain an even better place to do business. Those improvements have now developed a momentum of their own. For example, my home town of Birmingham has changed beyond recognition in the past few years. Today, the city is a place of which we
182
are all proud. I still cannot forget seeing the President of the United States walking along Gas Street Basin to have a pint in a canal-side pub. At one time, a canal-side walk would have revealed nothing more than an old pram and a rusty bike.
As a past board member of the regional development agency, I have seen how regeneration lifts up areas such as the Black Country, enabling them to share in our economic success. In Coventry and Warwick shire, where Warwick University is located, we have effectively full employment for the first time in a generation.
We do not live in a totally free-market society. In a mixed economy, improvements in education and training, science, health and infrastructure obviously require government action. We all know about the huge investments in education and health, but extra spending on science and technology, coupled with tax credits for corporate research and development, is now starting to have a major impact. I was pleased to see that commitment maintained in the Chancellor's spending review.
Governments will always claim kudos for improvements in the economy, but it is important, too, that we have a growing sense of self-confidence and pride in our nation. We should not want to be a nation that wins a cup every now and then: we should aspire to be good at everything that we do. That must include test match cricket and, in that sport with a larger ball, taking penalties.
Finally, I concur with noble Lords who have undertaken scrutiny of the Finance Bill. Their work has great value, and serious consideration should be given to placing the sub-committee on a permanent footing. I know that maiden speeches are meant to be non-controversial, but I think that the Government should want the House to debate and scrutinise important parts of their programme, and would help to make such a process possible. There is nothing wrong in the Treasury having that confidence.
I commend the report to the House and look forward to participating in the important work and debates of this Chamber.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, on an outstanding maiden speech. I do so with the knowledge that too, have migrated to Warwickshire, but only from Aberavon which is not quite as far as his own migration, originally from Bengal.
There are many other reasons why I welcome his speech. He is a distinguished academic and entrepreneur, who did not disclose all the aspects of his skill as a cricketer. He is certainly a very enthusiastic cricketer. On one occasion he had the privilege of playing against Don Bradman's team in Calcutta, when they were on their way back from the United Kingdom to Australia. That is an additional, formidable achievement.

183
More seriously, there is his reputation for the achievements of the Warwick Manufacturing Group. I have been told that he had a desk, a chair and a secretary—and nothing more than that—when he started his academic career there. He has now transformed it into a business with an annual turnover of some £80 million. The university owes him a great debt for that.
Finally, I do not think that he disclosed his Brahmin origins. Brahmins are said to turn into either teachers or preachers. He seems to me to have had a marvellous blend of success in both respects. So we salute a Brahmin who is now a Brummie, who played against Bradman—that is a remarkable feat. We very much look forward to hearing from him again in debates of this kind, and others, in the House.
I have intervened, again, on a Finance Bill with some hesitation, because it is now 21 years since I have brandished a Budget box with authority and my knowledge is getting pretty rusty. I do so particularly, to follow the example of my noble friend Lady Noakes, to welcome emphatically the report that is before us from the economics committee. It is a most important contribution to the work of the House. I like to think that, had I been in the Treasury, I should have been rather more welcoming of it than appears to be the case now. I look back with some guilt on the lack of enthusiasm that I displayed towards the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee of the other place, which was invented at about the time I went to the Treasury. So we have to have some sympathy with the Chancellor, but he will get used to this committee. I certainly hope that we shall renew it when this one finishes its term, particularly because the style, which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, commended, is exactly the kind of style with which Parliament of both Houses should be considering legislation of this kind and, indeed, many other issues. I admire the extent to which my right honourable friend in the other place, Oliver Letwin, manages to achieve that style.
We live in a society where there is now a very large degree of common ground between the parties. Many of the reforms enacted by the Thatcher government which were denounced at the time have been accepted as the foundation for the work of this Government. There is a great deal of common ground, and one of the oddities is that, as a response, the major parties have indulged in excessive product differentiation of a striking kind. That is not the right way in which to consider the sort of issues that we are considering today.
I am glad, therefore, that the Chancellor has done so much to build on the foundations which we laid, but am worried at the extent to which he seeks to erode them. I must list some shortcomings about his performance to which one must draw attention. My noble friend Lady Noakes spoke of the "fat government". That is carrying the metaphor a shade further than "big government". The Chancellor undoubtedly demonstrates a tendency towards obesity, both of paper consumed and language deployed. I am struck by the fact that my first Financial Statement and Budget Report—the Red
184
Book, as it was then known—contained only 33 pages, was for sale at the cost of £1.25, and weighed only 68 grams. However, the latest Financial Statement and Budget Report costs £45, contains 296 pages and weights 1.12 kilos. That is obesity on a substantial scale in terms of paper generated. The public spending review has been transformed in a similar way.
I turn to the scale of Finance Bills—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will have heard this argument previously. I pleaded guilty to an average of 98 sections and 15 schedules and my pages were on average just short of 100. However, the Chancellor's average is 141 sections but he has far exceeded that this time. His average is 30 schedules but this time he has 42 schedules. His obesity tendencies are expansive and continuing.
The Minister succeeded in giving the Chancellor a legitimate alibi in relation to pension simplifications. One must acknowledge that that is a step in the right direction, although there is no doubt that it is less than perfect. I also acknowledge that there is a real need to continue to tackle the problem of tax evasion, which is the most elusive topic. He was right to try to tackle that, although I shall return to it in a moment.
One final mitigation is that when we were in the Treasury, we succeeded in repealing certain taxes, such as capital transfer tax, development land tax, investment income surcharge and national income surcharge. We are well rid of those taxes.
Another demonstration of obesity is the hugely self-praising style of the language in all that the Treasury produces. The chapter headings of the spending review are all written in the most self-congratulatory fashion: "Stability, security and opportunity for all", "Efficiency", "Better public services", "A stronger, more productive economy", "A fairer society with stronger communities", and "Global security and prosperity". Heaven on Earth! The final capping for the dossier—inevitable these days—is an immensely fulsome foreword by the Prime Minister, which really should be avoided. The language and style are much too full of such self-congratulatory content.
To become rather more serious—these are serious points—the Chancellor no doubt will have noted in the magazine Prospect that he was selected as one of the 100 most intellectual people in this country. I hope that he will also have noticed the comments by one of his colleagues in that league, Samuel Brittan, who said in the Financial Times last week that the Chancellor's insights were,
"delivered in an unappetising mixture of Labour-speak and management consultant jargon. They have no grace or magnanimity towards predecessors, but assume that the world began in 1997. Then there is the continuing misuse of the word 'investment' to describe",
any form of public expenditure. He continues:
"I wish somebody would tell the chancellor … that self-praise has a bad odour".
That is a fair judgment on the style with which the Chancellor has approached many of these matters.
Apart from the volume of legislation, I commend the move towards simplification in the pensions field. That is in line with the task that I have been carrying

185
on, thanks to the Chancellor; that is, the tax law rewrite project. I very much welcome his continued commitment to that. I am, however, sad that he is not prepared to take it further by responding more positively to the proposals of the Budd committee of the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year to establish a tax structure review project directed to examine the shape of taxation, quite apart from the language of it. That is the kind of work that could be carried forward successfully if we were allowed to maintain our economics committee in this House. Better still, that committee could work in partnership with the comparable committee in another place.
I draw attention to one aspect of the Bill on which the committee focused; namely, Clause 28 and Schedule 3, which involve the corporation tax zero rate. The Chancellor has allowed that to survive for only 12 months. A large amount of the material is there directed to try to repeal that mistaken attempt to shape the economy with the encouragement of smaller corporations. If the Chancellor is to produce proposals of that kind, it surely makes more sense to consult about them more fully, otherwise to resist the temptation. The committee quite rightly concluded that,
"the government, by its rhetoric, (including the reference to incorporation being undertaken 'often as a result of marketed tax avoidance schemes') presented the proposals as a part of the anti-avoidance strategy."
The committee goes on to say,
"We understood the argument of the private sector that the mischief to which the measure was directed was actually no more than a natural reaction to a tax incentive, which had been deliberately introduced."
That is illustrative of the kind of mistake that can follow from over enthusiasm.
I hope to summarise my message to the Chancellor from now on. It will be the same as my message to both major political parties and indeed to the Liberal Democrat Party. It is a six-word election manifesto which I would like to see us all fighting in the next election: For God's sake leave us alone!
8.26 p.m.
Lord Giddens: My Lords, let me begin by expressing my profound sense of privilege on becoming a Member of this House. I am very conscious of the wealth of knowledge and expertise that exists in the Chamber. It is indeed a somewhat daunting environment in which to speak, yet it is also a most friendly and welcoming one. I should like to express my thanks for the helpful and courteous attitude everyone here has displayed towards me.
It is very fitting that I should begin my contributions here by commenting on a report from a committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Peston. He and I share a similar academic background. I am by training a sociologist and political scientist. I was for some years a member of the Faculty of Economics at the University of Cambridge. If I wanted to be a bit mischievous I could say that Cambridge is our leading provincial university.
186
Subsequently I became director of the London School of Economics for a period of some seven years. My noble friend Lord Peston taught at the LSE during the early part of his career and he had a remarkable track record there.
It has been said that the haggis and tax law have much in common: they both involve bloody processes, the end results are a mystery and those of squeamish disposition should not get caught up in the making of either. I am pleased that my noble friend and his colleagues have proved themselves to be unsqueamish, at least as far as tax regulation is concerned. I should like to congratulate them on their report, which contains a great deal of value.
As they point out, this is only the second time that a House of Lords Select Committee has looked in depth at a Finance Bill. I echo its hope that consideration might be given to establishing such a procedure and the sub-committee itself on a more permanent basis.
Nothing divides political opinion more than the level of taxation appropriate to a society. However, the passions roused by this issue could direct attention away from other aspects of taxation which are just as significant. Indeed, I would make the case that a new approach to taxation, or, more accurately, to its implications for behaviour, is one of the distinguishing features of the progressive approach to politics that I represent and to which I have tried to contribute. Unlike the traditional Left, a modern, progressive approach—the third way, if you like—is concerned in a central fashion with economic dynamism and job creation.
Unlike the traditional Left, such an approach emphasises the fostering of an enterprise culture, entrepreneurism and risk-taking. We need risk-takers not only among those who run businesses, but also in the labour force because of the need to respond to high levels of technological change. Unlike the Right, however, a progressive approach regards social protection and social justice as not only compatible with these emphases, but as inherent in them.
When appropriately structured, taxation plays a key role in pursuing such objectives. Taxation and different tax regimes can have a crucial impact on economic dynamism and on social citizenship. We should always be seeking to structure the tax system in such a way as to maximise wider economic and social benefits.
In recent years, we have seen how successful such an approach can be. For instance, tax credits such as the working families' tax credit have simultaneously helped to promote entry to jobs and to alleviate poverty. Micro-credit has been deployed with great success, to allow people without financial resources to start their own businesses. Fiscal incentives have been used in conjunction with venture capital to encourage small-business start-ups in poor areas. As a consequence, as my noble friend remarked, we have an economy that is strong and stable, yet in which there is increasing investment in public services, along with reductions in levels of poverty.

187
Enterprise must go along with citizenship, however. The report has an important section on tax avoidance, especially the problem of dealing with what are called,
"sophisticated and aggressive tax avoidance schemes".
Abusive tax avoidance is an issue of core importance today, on a national as well as an international level. Tax-avoidance schemes currently cost the Treasury £13 billion a year in lost income, money that could and should be spent for public purposes. It is good to see new steps being introduced to counter the effects of the tax-avoidance industry. Many of those in that industry, in reacting to the Bill, claim that proposals for the prior disclosure of tax-avoidance schemes add to an already demanding framework of legislation. Parallel legislation in place in the US, however, has already led to the closing of 29 types of abusive tax shelter.
Of course there will always be tussles between the promoters of tax planning and the revenue services, but we should not accept the idea that individuals or companies will seek by hook or by crook to escape paying as much tax as they can. We want more entrepreneurs, yet we should expect and ensure that they behave as responsible citizens. Aggressive tax-avoidance schemes are of a piece with a decline in ethical standards that has afflicted major areas of business in recent years, with results about which we all know. Enron had 881 offshore subsidiaries and paid no taxes at all in the US during four of its last five years. Anyone who paid one dollar of taxation in that time was paying more than a corporation ranked high in the Fortune 500.
Abusive tax avoidance is by definition not illegal, but its consequences for public life and business ethics are as far-reaching as practices that are. Franklin Roosevelt's economic adviser, Henry Morgenthau, once pointed out that if taxes are the hallmark of a civilised society, as I believe that they are,
"too many citizens want civilisation at a discount".
Such a comment applies with even more force today than when it was originally made.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. A speech of any kind in new territory is always a bit of an ordeal, but he can be assured that we listened to him with interest and approval. As the director of the London School of Economics, he has obviously been at the very forefront of our national life. That in itself makes him one who will always be listened to with interest whenever he makes a contribution in this House. However, among the many notable things that he has done is to be a Reith lecturer, which is an indication that he has been able to contribute to our understanding of the world as it is, as well as the world as it ought to be. It was a distinguished maiden speech, and we look forward to hearing from the noble Lord on many future occasions.
188
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is standing down as the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, which we of course regret. We have benefited greatly from his chairmanship but, fortunately, we know of his continuing interest in economic affairs, so he will remain an undiminished intruder in such debates. We welcome that.
What we have seen in the past few years is the surprising economic stability of this Government. That has had a particular effect on house prices. For the first time ever in our memory, people assume that stability will continue for ever. Once people make that kind of assumption, which is a novel one that has never been made before, they feel secure. Even if their income varies a bit, they feel that there will be stability every year.
Turning to the work of the Select Committee, last year a committee of the House of the Lords reported on the Finance Bill for the first time, and we carried out a similar task this year. We had to consider the technical aspects of tax—clarification and administration—but not of course the rates or instance of taxation, which are matters for the House of Commons. We understand that. Our particular advantage has been that we have Members with considerable experience and expertise. They have occupied positions of relevance and so they have a sense of perspective. That is what gives them something extra compared with the House of Commons.
This means that the House of Lords can make a useful contribution to the debate. That is shown by the unanimity of the committee, which extended to all its decisions. We do not have the same responsibility as the House of Commons, but the views of our committee should be of some use. The House of Commons finally decides the matters in the Bill, but some input from here can be welcomed. Now that the hereditary Peers have been reduced in number, the House of Lords cannot be assumed to be just another interest group. Our work has been to examine whether the legislation can be as effective as one would wish, not to pursue any particular aims of our own.
The House and the committee will be sorry that my noble friend Lord Barnett is not here to take part in this debate. He is making slow progress in recovering from his fall nine weeks ago in this Chamber, and I am sure that the House will wish him an early recovery. His contribution to the work of the committee has been valuable.
The task of the committee was to ensure that the Finance Bill measures prove workable and effective when implemented. We sought to answer the question, "Will they protect revenues without imposing disproportionate compliance costs on taxpayers and their advisers?". Once again, we had to be selective as to the topics that we chose. We examined them and decided to focus our efforts on a few areas which we thought were causing particular concern and where we thought our efforts might be most valuable. We had limited time in which to make such decisions, because they can come only after the publication of the Finance Bill.

189
The areas that we dealt with included countering tax avoidance, simplification of the taxation of pensions, small business taxation, stamp duty, land tax and duty stamps for spirits. Concerning the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, we noted the view of many of our private sector witnesses that the definitions of tax planning arrangements are so wide as to require the disclosure of normal tax planning as well as of the sophisticated and aggressive avoidance schemes to which my noble friend Lord Peston rightly referred.
Those schemes have expanded and they must be dealt with. It is becoming increasingly difficult to deal with the machinations of people who get substantial sums of money out of their efforts in this area. The way that the Bill targets such measures can lead to a significant risk of over-reporting, with a need for updated draft regulations to be introduced as the schemes develop. We trust that the concerns that we expressed in our report will be taken into account.
The problem of over-reporting arises when people feel that to be on the safe side they had better report almost everything. Were they to do so, it would place an enormous burden on the Revenue, which could not cope with that amount of information. We wanted the adoption of a de minimis rule in the direct tax provisions on broadly similar lines to those in the draft VAT regulations and comparable United States tax law. We took evidence from the United States Internal Revenue Service, which was helpful.
We also considered that there were good grounds for looking again at the appropriateness of the five-day time limit for filing details of certain notifiable tax arrangements. Five days is not enough; the advisers need more time than that. We suggested an extension to 30 days. Preparing a case of such importance demands a longer period than was envisaged. We recommended that the draft regulations relating to the disclosure of direct tax avoidance arrangements should, in line with the regulations for VAT avoidance schemes, be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The spirits industry particularly interested me. The Treasury concern about fraud in the spirits industry is a matter of obvious interest. The solution set out is for duty stamps for spirits to be introduced in 2006. There was a need for considerable consultation on the matter. That is something that rather saddens me about the whole Finance Bill: there should be wider consultation. I understand that there are certain areas in which it is not possible to have consultation because people will take avoidance measures, but there are areas where we can. Where we can, we must—that is the message that we should send out.
The problem was the cost of compliance with the measure which represented—and still represents—a considerable burden. Whether the cost of compliance is reasonable depends on the extent of the fraud. If the fraud is greater, compliance costs can be expected to increase.
190
In that context, we were particularly disturbed at the statistical range in the Government's figures. What kind of value was set on the fraud that we were trying to deal with? Customs and Excise estimated the fraud at £600 million a year and on an upward trend. The National Audit Office examined the figures given by Customs and Excise and suggested that the amount should be expressed as ranging between £330 million and £1,060 million. The Joint Alcohol and Tobacco Consultation Group widened the range to between £10 million and £1,060 million. We cannot deal with taxation if we have figures as wide apart as that. If the agencies cannot get the figures, they must consult more and investigate more. On the other hand, we could have such a minimal tax that it would not make too much difference and then increase it as we became more aware of the amount of fraud involved.
Whatever the estimates, one cannot engage in anything other than minimal compliance costs without a more definite assessment of the amount of fraud. It will be essential to narrow the differences between those estimates. The outcome should be reflected in the continuing discussions with the industry on the implementation of the provisions. I do not know why the consultation could not go on until a solution is reached that could be put before us.
We hoped that the consultations would result in an outcome that properly reflected the interests of the smaller producers and importers, particularly as it is they who would suffer most. They have real concerns that their livelihood could be put at risk. In such matters, legislation should be in draft, and a two-way dialogue with those involved should be arranged at the outset.
We have had two years of making a contribution to work on the Finance Bill. Obviously, we respect the position of the House of Commons on taxation. We do not go beyond our remit, but we feel that through the efforts of the committee we can be of help in achieving a better Finance Bill.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, first, I congratulate the two maiden speakers who we have heard so far on their excellent contributions. I look forward to hearing them speak in future on financial matters. I also look forward to hearing the third maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, in due course. I declare an interest as director of a fund management company set up in 1996.
Once again, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his committee for the splendid, detailed work that they have done in producing their report on this year's Finance Bill. How well they made use of the little more time available this year.
I would like to endorse in particular three of their comments in the abstract at the front of the report. The first, which I have made frequently in the past and which was made by my noble friend Lady Noakes and

191
my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, was about the length of the three-volume Finance Bill. In the committee's words,
"We noted the length of the Finance Bill and the increase in complexity and compliance costs for taxpayers and their advisers inherent in many of its provisions. One means by which a balance between the protection of revenues and the imposition of compliance costs may be found is, wherever possible, by exposing legislation in draft and encouraging a two way dialogue with those involved".
I agree entirely.
The second comment that I endorse, also discussed by my noble friend Lady Noakes, is the committee's reservation about the lack of assistance from the Treasury. When it wished to see the Treasury a second time to give officials the opportunity to respond to the points put to them after their initial explanations, the Treasury would respond only in writing. According to the report they did not give substantive answers to several questions.
Will the Minister use his best endeavours to persuade the Treasury in future to give a second face-to-face meeting that might even save it time in responding to the committee?
Thirdly, along with other noble Lords I endorse the recommendation in the final paragraph of the abstract that the sub-committee should be made permanent, although, sadly, if agreed it would no longer be chaired by the noble Lord, Lord, Peston. I speak for all noble Lords interested in financial matters when I thank him for all his work in chairing the committee.
I wish to focus on two areas of detail in the Bill. One is covered in detail in the Select Committee's report and the other is not. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am focusing on small business taxation, as I have raised the topic before in the House. For those unfamiliar with the topic, the story goes as follows: since 1997 the Chancellor has encouraged the incorporation of businesses through lowering the rate of small companies' tax from 23 per cent to 20 per cent, in 1999 creating a starting rate of 10 per cent.
Edward Troup, tax adviser at Simmons & Simmons, told the Treasury Select Committee in April 1999 that if we offered a tax rate of 10 per cent, every self-employed person would think seriously about whether he would be better off incorporated to save tax. The tax system is moving in a significant skew towards incorporation. In 2002, the starting rate was lowered to zero. John Whiting of the accountants PwC said in April 2002 that incorporation was something that taxpayers should have been thinking about, but the Budget had given it an extra spin down the income scale. That point has been proved by the figures for new incorporations. In 2002–03, 322,000 new incorporations took place; an increase of 43 per cent over 2001–02.
The next stage in the saga was the Pre-Budget Report in December 2003 which surprisingly recorded the Government's concern that,
"the longstanding differences in tax treatment between earned income and dividend income should not distort business strategies, or enable reductions by tax planning of individuals' tax liability, and that support should continue to be focussed on growth".
192
They therefore announced proposals for action in the Budget of 2004,
"to ensure that the right amount of tax is paid by owner managers of small incorporated businesses on the profits extracted from their company".
This statement has come to be known as IR591.
One of the most interesting statements on this volte-face came from Malcolm Gunn, the editor of the independent journal, Taxation, who argued in a letter to the Chancellor in January 2004 that the comments in paragraph 5.91 had been met with some astonishment and that the very corporate tax regime which the Chancellor carefully constructed was now described in the pre-Budget review as one which distorts business strategies and enables reductions by tax planning of individuals' tax liability.
I can only echo the words of the shadow Chief Secretary in another place, who said:
"The Government failed to heed warnings given at the time by everyone, including the official Opposition, that they were distorting the tax system in favour of incorporation. Unsurprisingly, the tax loss when thousands of sole traders incorporated has turned out to be far too great, so a piece of tax complexity is required to negate that".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/7/04; col. 862.]
Or let us take the words of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which, in paragraph 154, said:
"We have to say that we understood the argument of the private sector that, in a sense, the mischief to which the measure was directed was actually no more than a natural reaction to a tax incentive which had been deliberately introduced: and that on the spectrum of tax planning it tended towards the 'normal' end, albeit because of the multiplier effect, expensive in terms of revenue foregone".
In addition, the committee has serious concerns about the application of the new measure. In paragraph 144 the report said,
"We are disturbed that, so far, the Revenue have been unable to persuade the experts who gave evidence to us that applying the new measure will be as straightforward as they have confidently asserted".
The paragraph goes on to state that in one of the issues the Revenue's reply,
"underestimates the extent of the anxiety caused to affected taxpayers and to their professional advisers during the weeks of uncertainty that followed publication of paragraph 5.91".
My final comment on this subject is well summarised in paragraph 153 of the committee's report. Private witnesses perceived this provision as an administrative measure on which they would have had much to contribute had it been thrown open to a two-way dialogue rather than a one-way listening exercise by the Revenue. On the other hand, by their rhetoric, which included the reference to incorporation being undertaken often as a result of "marketed tax avoidance schemes", the Government presented the proposals as part of the avoidance strategy at the heart of this year's Finance Bill.
The other area upon which I wish to focus is the individual savings account. The Government introduced ISAs in April 1999 to increase the number of people with savings. Yet the limit they allowed of £7,000 per year was more than 35 per cent lower than

193
in the previous administration. By 1997 savers were able to take out general and single company PEPs amounting to £9,000 each year and a TESSA of effectively £1,800 per year. The ISA allowance was also made more complex with maxi and mini ISAs being introduced. However, overall it was more than could have been expected from previous Labour Governments.
Two measures have been announced to restrict the benefits of ISAs. First, for the equity ISA since 6 April this year investment managers may no longer reclaim the 10 per cent tax credit on dividend income. This acts to reduce the attractiveness of equity investments within ISAs to basic rate taxpayers. As the shadow Paymaster General at the time said:
"The equity ISA tax credit does benefit the many not the few which is the point of the argument about seeking to retain the 10 per cent".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/03; col. 212.]
In addition the Chancellor has confirmed that the annual limit for ISAs will be reduced by another 20 per cent to £5,000 with effect from April 2006.
The Government have urged people to save and to make adequate provision for their retirement, admitting that the basic pension is not enough. ISAs should be at the centre of their strategy to encourage long-term savings. This is not the time to undermine them. Pensioners have already been hit by the ACT abolition, which has deprived pension funds of £5 billion a year. Now the Government will take in an extra £250 million per year by getting rid of the tax credits. How much of a tax break will be saved by cutting the ISA limit from £7,000 to £5,000?
The Government are not sending a good signal about encouraging savings by those two measures. That is reflected in the decline in the savings ratio since 1997. In the years from 1998 to 2003 the household savings ratio has never been higher than 6.7 per cent. In the previous six years to 1997 it was never lower than 9.3 per cent. In March, the shadow Chancellor said:
"If the Government do not do something to improve incentives to save, the stability of the economy will be threatened by excessive debt".
In summary, I believe that those two areas of the Budget send out the wrong message to small businesses and savers respectively, both of which are important for the economic health of the country in their different ways.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, express my strong support for the work of the Economic Affairs Committee. I congratulate the members and the staff on their work, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston, who has been a driving force behind it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, he set the right style. I also hope that the sub-committee on the Finance Bill will become permanent after the two-year trial period which is shortly to end.
194
It is a pity that your Lordships' House is inhibited from debating and scrutinising the nation's finances. In recent years your Lordships have been able to be complimentary about the work of the Treasury, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury team. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh reminds us whenever he has the opportunity, inflation is low, interest rates are low, and we are spending far less money on debt interest and unemployment pay. He reminded us about that again this evening.
I understand that the Parliament Act restrains us from amending the Finance Bill, but it does not preclude us from scrutinising it. I am well aware that there is a difference of opinion between the Treasury and your Lordships' House about where the line is drawn. I was interested to learn that the Select Committee had decided to look at tax avoidance as part of its scrutiny of the Finance Bill—and quite rightly. The committee looked at the mechanics of tax avoidance, not at the tax rates.
I noted that the Revenue has accepted some of the Select Committee's recommendations. Those are recommendations that would save the Inland Revenue from being swamped with useless information. The Revenue would thereby get better-focused information about those various schemes. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I found myself in almost entire agreement with Ministers and with the committee in their determination to protect the vast majority of compliant taxpayers and the integrity of the system by supporting the Government's efforts to stop avoidance and evasion.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Giddens that for taxpayers to be compliant they have to perceive the system as fair. As the Minister explained, part of that requires providers of artificial tax planning schemes to report them to the Treasury. I welcome a disclosure regime that requires accountants, bankers and lawyers to provide details to the Government of tax avoidance schemes that they sell to clients. The committee spent some time differentiating between ordinary tax planning and artificial schemes. So it must have been with some disappointment that they learned last week that a scheme—the relevant discount securities scheme—which the Revenue shut down a year ago as artificial, was allowed by the special commissioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, spoke of the practitioners being taken by surprise by the regulations. I imagine that they were taken even more by surprise by this allowance by the special commissioners.
I realise that the Minister cannot comment on that, as there could be an appeal, but it indicates how difficult it is to legislate against tax avoidance. As I understand it, a scheme such as this one uses artificial contrivances, to use the Minister's words, within the United Kingdom. Other schemes contrive to use our globalised economy to avoid tax, even though there is no commercial loss. In addition, there is the whole issue of using domicile to avoid paying tax. The possibilities are worldwide, way beyond the resources of the Inland Revenue alone to regulate, to manage and to control in a proportionate way.

195
In view of that and the expansion about which my noble friend Lord Sheldon spoke, it occurs to me that perhaps the Select Committee should have considered other measures; for example, a cultural change as well as a regulatory change. Before your Lordships dismiss that, with a world-weary sigh, perhaps I can remind your Lordships that cultural changes are taking place before our very eyes—in government, in the Treasury and in business. Take charitable giving. The Inland Revenue and the Treasury are encouraging a cultural change. They are encouraging the giving campaign. They are offering more tax breaks to encourage charitable donations and setting higher targets for aid to the third world. If that is not an effort to encourage a cultural change in charitable giving, what is it?
What about the cultural change taking place within business itself? Not a week passes without some encouragement to business to become more socially responsible. I am sure that noble Lords' mailbags are full of invitations to conferences, meetings, discussions and seminars about corporate social responsibility. Mine is. I am aware that many think that that is just another soft issue that gets in the way of increasing shareholder value—it is a nuisance. But possibly an equal number now think that that is central to the confidence and trust that people have in a company's products, services or brand.
The recent corporate scandals in Europe and the United States have encouraged that cultural change. Several surveys show that most managers feel that corporate ethics is an important or an emerging issue for their businesses. Indeed, there are now several awards for the integrity of social and environmental reporting. In May 2003 the Department of Trade and Industry's Forum for the Future, reported that a business with strong social responsibility will often be more successful in generating economic value added for reasons rooted in business strategy. Is that not the Government encouraging cultural change? Business leaders themselves are calling for that. Last week, in an article in the Guardian, entitled "Capitalism is a danger to itself", Sir Evelyn de Rothschild called for a new emphasis on ethics from inside corporate boardrooms as an alternative to more public oversight, which he found less desirable. He said that that was especially so in the financial services sector.
I think that all those matters are signals of cultural change in business and in government and a cultural change that does not question the legality but questions the ethics of business activities. My question is whether the Treasury and your Lordships' committee would consider tax avoidance as socially irresponsible when the culture is moving strongly towards social responsibility in business. After all, what could be more socially responsible than paying one's taxes in a fair way?
Perhaps the scene is already being set. The Inland Revenue itself is becoming much more open about tax. The Government have quite rightly introduced the pre-Budget report so that the Chancellor can flag up tax changes so that they can be discussed. The Treasury trusts the public not to take undue advantage of that opportunity for consultation and discussion so
196
that there is every opportunity to get the practical issues ironed out. Indeed, your Lordships' Select Committee drew attention to this in its report about small companies and dividends.
So, where do we go from here? Many of these tax avoidance schemes, for small companies, for large companies, for personal tax, for VAT and for income tax are marketed by what are called "business service companies". Tax advice is a growth business. However, most of these companies also offer advice and consultancy to the public and private sectors on corporate social responsibility—on business in the community. They advise on preparing a social set of accounts as well as financial accounts.
Of course, however widely one interprets the purpose of business, the making of money has to be there somewhere. But these business services companies are in a privileged position. They can afford to be a little more forceful about the ethical responsibility that goes with the privilege. A cultural change here would certainly assist with protecting the integrity of our tax system. So I ask the Minister: why not have a go?
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt for one second. It may give reassurance that in fact David Varney, who was appointed on 1 October as the new head of the integrated Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue, is currently chairman of Business in the Community.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. Before I sit down, I add my congratulations for my noble friends who have made their maiden speeches and who are about to make maiden speeches. Their knowledge and experience of manufacturing, economics and industry will be of great value to your Lordships' Houses, and they are most welcome.
9.6 p.m.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, in making my first contribution in your Lordships' House, I too would start by taking the opportunity to thank noble Lords for the kind welcome they have given me to this wonderful place. I should also like to place on record my thanks to all the staff and officials for their courtesy and assistance in helping me to understand the procedures and facilities of this House. I am grateful for the professional and gentle way they have already redirected me on a number of occasions to where I should have been heading, with a quiet reassurance that I will get the hang of things soon.
The opportunity to serve in your Lordships' House is an immense privilege. I was particularly pleased also to be able to take the title "of Luton". Luton has been my home for 32 years. It was there that I first became actively involved in politics and a councillor and, for a time, leader of the council. Living in Luton has given me the opportunity to engage with and learn from a host of individuals from our diverse communities, sharing friendships and obtaining insights into a range of aspirations, fears and cultures in a way which has enhanced my life immeasurably.

197
My professional life, mostly spent with Price Waterhouse, has given me the opportunity to live and work in several different countries, from one of the richest, the US, to perhaps one of the poorest, Vietnam; from a highly sophisticated market-driven economy to an emerging market economy with still a very rudimentary legal and commercial infrastructure. But each in its way facing the challenges of operating—for them—appropriate tax regimes and safeguarding the revenues they determine should be collected.
Hence I turn to the matter before this House. I would like to speak on the provisions in the Finance Bill requiring disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, especially those relating to direct taxes. As other noble Lords have indicated, this was clearly one of the key topics examined by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs. That the Bill includes such provisions is something I welcome.
While the Select Committee was properly concerned with seeking to be satisfied that the primary legislation and related regulations were workable and effective, its unequivocal endorsement of the disclosure approach is to be commended. The regulations in their final form are a sensible advance on the original drafts and validate the process of dialogue.
If anyone has any doubts about the appropriateness of this legislation, they need do no more than read the evidence given by the deputy chairman of the Inland Revenue, to which my noble friend Lord Peston referred earlier. The deputy chairman described the proposals as "proportionate". That is certainly not an overstatement of the case. Examples were provided of the kind of artificial, aggressive, tax avoidance schemes that these disclosure requirements would help to counter. For just two schemes, the "gilt strip" and the so-called "tax efficient off-market swap", he estimated that as much as £1.2 billion could have been lost to the Exchequer.
Of course, the disclosure requirements do not of themselves make anything taxable. They give the Revenue authorities early warning and fair notice of what might otherwise be marketed in secrecy, and what might otherwise take years for them to discover and seek to counter. It will also deter some from buying into these schemes. The disclosure requirements, however modest, represent an additional weapon in the armoury of the Revenue authorities and will help, at least to an extent, to adjust what is undoubtedly not a level playing field.
That is not because of some intellectual deficit on behalf of the Revenue; it is just that some taxpayers and their advisers are able to marshal a range of resources and expertise, which is difficult for any taxing authority to replicate. This situation is not unique to the UK. The major accounting and legal practices—big firms certainly, although I am not sure whether they would like to be described as fat—have at their disposal individuals with expert knowledge of all the world's major tax and legal systems. They can call on industry knowledge in all key sectors. They can
198
access specialist knowledge on sophisticated financial instruments and have developed a significant capacity to unbundle and recast those to obtain tax advantages.
I was interested to read the reference in the Revenue evidence to the proposed avoidance intelligence group, which will, I hope, act as some counterweight to all of this. The challenge that it faces is formidable; I wish it well.
The Select Committee report distinguished between the contrived artificial tax avoidance schemes, which it recognised as being the extreme of the spectrum of tax planning, and ordinary tax planning arrangements. That raises the question of where the ordinary stops and the extraordinary begins. Where should that line be drawn? That is a conundrum with which I have wrestled from time to time. It would not be unreasonable for the line to be where those in another place with responsibility to determine these matters would have intended it to rest, had they had the opportunity of reviewing the full combination of circumstances and arrangements that might have been entered into.
But for so long as the UK tax system remains largely, if not exclusively, based on form over substance, that alignment of what the law actually provides with what was intended will continue to take place generally in retrospect by way of detailed anti-avoidance legislation, with consequent losses to the Exchequer in the interim. These disclosure requirements will provide some opportunity to make this alignment sooner and more precisely than might have otherwise been the case. It is important that the opportunity leads to action. In this regard, and in the absence of a general anti-avoidance provision, it is a necessary measure. It remains to be seen whether it is ultimately a sufficient measure.
I am aware that matters of supply are dealt with in another place, but as these disclosure measures will help to protect revenues, perhaps I might take the opportunity to express the hope that we will continue to see in Luton the significant levels of investment in our schools, health facilities and the regeneration of our town, including its transport infrastructure, from which we have benefited since 1997.
Finally, perhaps I may say that I have enjoyed every moment of my time here so far. If our deliberations touch the lives of people in a positive way, this is an endeavour of which I am happy to be part.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, when I came to the debate this evening I thought that probably the pleasures of my day were more or less over. I have spent the past two days congratulating graduating students at Brunel University and I have shaken more than 2,000 hands; there are another 1,000 to go tomorrow. However, I was wrong; this has been an excellent debate. Any debate which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, opens and closes will be, by definition, a quality debate.
We have heard three outstanding maiden speeches, which we have all enjoyed. As a former chairman of the Royal Commission on the reform of this House, I

199
cannot imagine another legislature in the world that could produce new members of the quality of the three new Members we have heard this evening. It is something that those who may be taking up the issue in the years to come will perhaps think about.
This House produces first-rate speeches and it is my particular pleasure, of course, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, on his excellent maiden speech. I have no doubt that he will speak on many subjects. If he continues to speak with the clarity, the sincerity and the obvious knowledge that he has, he will be a welcome addition to your Lordships' House. He has a lot going for him. He is a chartered accountant—that cannot be too bad to start off with—and he is from Luton. I have a kind of connection with Luton in the sense that my father was the last general manager of Vauxhall Motors before it was owned by General Motors. We have to go back a long way—it was not too long after the First World War that that happened—and I remember in 1939 going back to Luton when my father was recalled to the army as a former territorial, the war starting and my father taking the salute. He did not have a uniform even, and he was there raising his flat cap as the troops marched past. I was a small boy standing nearby. So I have the greatest affection for anyone who comes from Luton. Of course, the radio doctor, who was a distinguished member of our party, was the Member for Luton at one time, but that is also a long time ago.
I also know—I shall not pursue this further—that the noble Lord worked in Vietnam in his youth. I have also worked in Vietnam. I suggest that perhaps we ought to reminisce over a drink in the bar rather than mention it here today.
I am a Member of the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Select Committee and I wish to concentrate on our report. A number of noble Lords have already said that they think the experiment was a success; that we have done a good job; that we have not conflicted with our terms of reference and so on. They have also said—which I was certainly going to say—that a great deal of that credit is due to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He has been an outstandingly good chairman. If I may say so, he has a rather individual style of chairing a Select Committee, but he has a very successful way of getting the best out of everyone on the committee. I have enjoyed being with him. The only time when he is not very convincing is when he says that he does not know anything about the subject. He did not fool most Members of the committee with those kind of remarks. Nevertheless, it was a great pleasure to serve on the committee with him.
If there was any cause for our success in writing the report, other than the noble Lord, Lord Peston, next on the list would be the quality of the evidence given to us. I thought that the government officials who gave us evidence were absolutely first class. They made a powerful case for the changes, but also showed the depth of study that had gone into the subject before they had given the advice to Ministers which had resulted in the changes we were considering. Knowing that was a comfort to all of us.
200
It reminded me of when I was a junior Minister in the Treasury, under my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, who has already spoken. We were very concerned at the inward-looking nature of the Inland Revenue in those days, and we tried to get a non-executive element into it so that it would grow up a bit more aware of what was going on rather than being so concentrated. I think that the changes that have occurred in the past 20 years or so have resulted in a stronger, better and more knowledgeable Inland Revenue. I am saying that because not everything I say about it will be nice.
The outside witnesses were also very expert and excellent. If I had a criticism, it was that I sometimes felt that some of the witnesses understood the problem that the Government had but were unwilling to accept the remedies that they were proposing or to offer any alternatives. However, mostly they were excellent.
I think that our work was valuable—we worked jolly hard to complete our report before the Finance Bill left the Commons. I confirm what has already been said—at no time in our work did party politics play a part. If anybody had tried to make party political points in the committee, he would have had short shrift from his colleagues. Nor did we stray from our terms of reference, steering clear of rates of tax or their incidence.
Four of the five clauses that we examined were designed to protect the Revenue, and the fifth was designed to simplify the tax position of pensions. We had no difficulty with any of the Government's objectives, and we believe that they deserve credit for tackling them.
However, all those clauses raised a fundamental question that goes right to the heart of taxation policy in this country. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, touched on this in his speech, and so did one or two others. How complicated do we make our tax laws to make sure that we catch every last penny of every bit of tax from everybody who might be tempted to take some sort of unfair advantage at the expense of putting the rest of the taxpayers under an intolerable burden of complication? Getting that balance right is at the heart of what officials have to advise and what Ministers have to do.
My experience, over many years, has been that the tendency in the Inland Revenue has been to want to get the tax system absolutely fair. As a result, it has at times been more complicated than perhaps it needed to be because of this desperate concern, which I admire, to get taxation.
We were impressed with the evidence on the Government's improvements to the taxation of pensions. We felt that the clauses on tax avoidance were very important, but said that we thought that some of it was too complicated and led to a lot of uncertainty for taxpayers' advisers. The Inland Revenue's revised regulations came out just before our report; it knew perfectly well what we would say in our report, and I think that we are entitled to take some credit for the fact that our discussions with it might have had a little influence in that direction.

201
I do not think that I need to go on. The tax measures for small companies were a good example of where the Government should have said, "Look, we got it wrong. We're just going to put it right". The complications that they have brought in to justify carrying on are a good example of additional complication which is really not necessary and which does not make that much difference.
However, by and large, I hope that we were fair and reasonable about the proposals. We supported what the Government were trying to do and I hope that our contribution to the debate was useful to those who have to make the final decisions.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is a more than usual pleasure to speak in this debate. We always have these debates at the end of the Session, and I think it is fair to say that the participants increasingly fall into the category of "the usual suspects". It is therefore a great delight to have not one but a hat-trick of maidens—to mix my cricketing metaphors—this evening. We have greatly enjoyed them all.
I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, about the regeneration of Birmingham. In a previous existence, I was involved in the early stages of the redevelopment of what is now Brindley Place. The change in central Birmingham in the past 20 years has been phenomenal. It has been a classic example of a public and private sector joint initiative in its various ways. I suppose that it is an early example of the third way, which I hope will please the noble Lord, Lord Giddens.
All three maiden speeches were exceptionally erudite. It is slightly unusual, however, for Members of your Lordships' House to use their maiden speeches effectively as auditions for their membership of the Economic Affairs Select Committee or its subcommittee on the Finance Bill, but we will let them off this time.
I neither propose nor have time to make a speech on the general economic situation. I shall deal mainly with the report of the sub-committee. We on these Benches have major questions about the Government's ability to meet their efficiency targets. I am just glad that I am not in the shoes of Mr Oughton, who has the terrible responsibility of carrying them forward.
The work of the sub-committee this year, like last year, has been concentrated, hard and detailed. We received a large number of expert submissions. We spoke to a number of expert witnesses, all of whom had devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to producing their evidence. The committee was absolutely in their debt, because it was dealing with very detailed matters, on which it is fair to say that none of us have great or immediate expertise. Our witnesses guided us through it and we felt that we ended up with a reasonable understanding of the issues. We are grateful to them, as we are to our advisers, our Clerks and our Chairman, who has taken us through the remarkably difficult
202
business of getting the sub-committee working. It was a difficulty not of his making, but one through which he guided us with his usual charm and persistence.
I shall mention a number of issues that demonstrate some of our specific and more generic concerns about the measures and processes of the Finance Bill. On the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, all members of the committee agreed that those provisions were sound in principle. The problems with which we and the experts were grappling were problems of definition. There was a lack of clarity about exactly what was going to be covered, or what the Inland Revenue wanted covered, by the disclosure provisions. Although achieving that clarity was going to be difficult, we felt that it was not impossible. Indeed, it will have to be achieved at some point. We felt that more work should have been done before the legislation was set in stone.
There is a danger of over-reporting with the current provisions, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it may be a temporary problem. It is a real concern, however, in the short term. Some of the detailed provisions—for example, the five-day reporting period—were simply silly. They should have been changed and, with more time, I think they would have been. The key question for this series of provisions is how effective they will prove to be, but only time will tell. We certainly wish them well.
The non-corporate distribution of profits was a textbook case of the unintended consequences of a tax change undertaken for perfectly understandable and good reasons. However, having got it wrong, we feel that the simpler thing might have been simply to reverse it, rather than to end up with this rather complicated scheme under which a certain proportion of profits, if undistributed, are not taxable. We had great fun thinking about the owner of the milk float or the taxi who would save his profits to invest in this new piece of capital equipment. At the end of the day, the argument that capital allowances might be a more effective way of dealing with that won out. The general principle demonstrated was an unwillingness on the part of the Treasury to admit, except through the most gritted of teeth, that it had made a mistake, to own up to it and reverse it.
The final specific issues to which I should like to refer both demonstrate the case for taking a bit more time. On stamp duty and land tax, we asked people, having looked at them, how they had fared over the winter when they were introduced. The general impression was that they had just about muddled through. However, there should have been no need just to muddle through, if a bit more time and care had been taken. The strain that muddling through put on both business and the Revenue was, in my view, unacceptable.
As a number of noble Lords have already explained, the starting point of the issue of duty stamps for sprits—namely, the scale of tax evasion that the measure was seeking to counter—was completely in dispute. The answer to the question of whether this was a proportionate measure for dealing with the issue

203
depended on whether you were looking at the bottom end or top end of the estimate scale. If the problem was at the bottom end of the scale, the measure was clearly disproportionate as it could cost the industry more per annum than the Revenue saved. My own guess—for what it is worth, from causal observation and knowing a bit about the structure of the industry—is that the reality is at the bottom end of the estimates. That makes me doubly sceptical about the measure.
We were particularly concerned that the proposals that the Government had brought forward would hit smaller businesses in this sector particularly hard. We were also concerned that there appeared to have been little or no high-level consultation between Customs and Excise and the DTI.
Finally, I was completely unimpressed by the argument that the industry was going to benefit by freezing the duty. Certainly since the days when I was a Customs and Excise official in the mid-1970s, there were arguments about the elasticity of demand for spirits. From time to time, there was a decision by the Chancellor to freeze duty on spirits, purely because the advice he received was that an increase in duty at that point would be counter-productive. I suspect that that is the advice that the Chancellor is getting now. Therefore, it is unsustainable to argue that this freeze is to help them deal with the problem.
The Finance Bill failed the length and complexity test: it was too long and complicated. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, that there needs to be more exposure of drafts and a greater dialogue with all those concerned. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in his description of the deterioration of the Financial Statement and Budget Report from a short, clear, precise and purely factual document into a flaccid spun document that makes it very difficult to get to the reality of what is happening.
Finally, there is the question of the role and attitude of the Treasury and the way in which it dealt with our queries. The report is, as always, very mild mannered and gentlemanly, as one would expect. By refusing to answer our questions fully, far less to come back to the committee, the Treasury showed a pig-headed and pathetic attitude. What is it scared of? What does it think the committee was going to do, other than to improve the quality of the legislation? That flows from a basic lack of understanding about the way in which the House of Lords and our committee work. As other noble Lords have said, we work in a non-partisan and meticulous way. That is the way in which the House of Lords works when it is at its best. A failure to understand what we are trying to do—to improve the quality of legislation—lies at the heart of the Treasury's difficulty.
I hope that our work on the report has had some effect. For the first time our colleagues in the other place have referred to it, which suggests that at least somebody has read it. There is even a slight glimmer that one or two people in the Treasury may have noticed and responded to it. I therefore hope that the
204
sub-committee is put on a permanent basis and that the House has a continuing role in improving the quality and effectiveness of our taxation legislation.
9.36 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to wind up for these Benches. Like my noble friend Lady Noakes and others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the report of the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee, and I pay tribute to noble Lords who worked on and produced this valuable report in the short timescale that was allowed. We have heard from many of those noble Lords tonight.
To use a cricketing metaphor, three maidens bowled us over, as they say. It was marvellous to hear three maiden speeches this evening. It was particularly good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, with whom I worked previously when I was chairman of the National Consumer Council. He condescended to come and join us and then beat us all to death for being so slow and lackadaisical. He was absolutely marvellous to work with. I am sure that if he continues as he started tonight in this House, he and the other noble Lords who spoke this evening will be a wonderful asset.
Indeed, it is very nice for us to discuss a Finance Bill in this House and to have so many noble Lords speaking from the Labour Benches. We have sometimes had the Minister here all on his own. It is very nice indeed to have him here tonight with a bit of company.
While your Lordships' House is unable to scrutinise the legislative aspects of this Bill in its normal fashion, that does not prohibit noble Lords from passing on their expert thoughts and comments on its bulky content. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, the sheer size and length of this year's Finance Bill will have had the alarm bells ringing throughout the land, from small businesses to the private investor—individuals who are simply trying to earn a living in our already overburdened and overregulated business and corporate environment.
I turn to some of the finer detail of the Bill. It does nothing but increase the complexity of compliance costs for taxpayers and their advisers. I am sure that we all agree that Finance Bills must strike an acceptable balance between the protection of revenue and the imposition of compliance costs on the taxpayer. Sadly, the Bill fails to achieve that.
Virtually all experts agree that the background to the Finance Bill is the Chancellor's need to raise taxation sooner or later in the face of a current structural deficit of some £35 billion. In addition, there is a black hole of an estimated £13 billion arising largely from what the Institute for Fiscal Studies assesses as over-optimistic projections for corporate tax revenues.
The tax take is going up by nearly 8 per cent this year to £31 billion, after a 6 per cent increase last year and before a further 8 per cent increase next year. Our country's people and businesses face major tax

205
increases now and if Labour were to win the next election, who knows how much more they will face afterwards? All this is before the detail of the Bill is unleashed on the unsuspecting taxpayer. Our taxes have been rising steadily under Labour even before this Bill. The net effect of the previous seven Budgets and Finance Bills equates to an extra £5,000 per household per year. I wonder how many people believe that they would have got better value for money if they had kept that £5,000 under their own control to spend on their families as they saw fit in the light of their own circumstances rather than having it forced on them by Nanny Brown Knows Best with 60 silent tax rises in seven Budgets and this year slipping in six more.
In this Bill there is a new tax on small companies, a tax on UK businesses for transfer pricing, a tax rise on red diesel, a tax hike on other road fuels, a new tax on trusts, a tax on the whisky industry and a sixfold tax rise on company vans. Is that what the Chancellor has in mind when he talks about creating an enterprise economy?
In this evening's debate there has been a number of powerful and constructive contributions. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe welcomed the simplification in the pension field, although regretted so far the lack of a tax structure review project. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, was looking for wider consultation on the Finance Bill particularly as regards the whisky strip stamps on which I shall comment in a moment. My noble friend Lord Northbrook spoke about small business taxation incorporation. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke about something rather revolutionary—cultural change rather than so much regulatory change. I am with him on that. Corporate and social responsibility is very close to my heart. I set up and chaired the Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee for Cadbury-Schweppes plc. We believe that it has not done anything to hurt our profits so far. We are very pleased at how it is performing. I would certainly encourage the Government to listen to the noble Lord and to encourage that in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, spoke about a better and more knowledgeable Inland Revenue. My noble friend Lady Noakes and I were very pleased with that and had a little smile. It was not so many years ago that she and I were both co-opted on to the Inland Revenue with the new idea of non-executives to shake them up. So we were very delighted to hear that our noble friend believed that things had gone well. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was concerned at the Government's ability to meet their efficiency targets. He spoke of tax avoidance and definition, undistributed profits and the mistake of the Inland Revenue. He commented on the whisky strip stamps.
I shall quickly comment on those two areas myself, small business taxation and whisky strip stamps. The Government have introduced a 19 per cent minimum rate of corporation tax on distributed profits. In summary, the measure effectively withdraws the benefit of the zero-rate band from those small companies that pay all their profits to their shareholders. That typically includes the large
206
population of owner-managed companies where the owner is the sole shareholder and needs to withdraw most or all of the profit from the company in order to meet living expenses. This step will obviously be felt most keenly by small businesses who in many cases have to make do without expert tax assistance.
Indeed, there is significant concern among the business community about the complexity of the new rules for the calculation of corporation tax. Estimates based on Inland Revenue data suggest that 40 per cent of small companies might be affected by this measure in any one year. That could equate to about 332,000 owner-managed companies who simply do not have the time or the resources to be able to manage with such added complexity.
We have already referred to the whisky strip stamps. I fear that the idea that the introduction of pre-paid strip stamps on bottles of whisky is the most effective step in combating fraud is misguided, as the noble Lords, Lord Sheldon and Lord Newby, argued. To base a decision on the significantly conflicting evidence on the extent of the problem is a grave and worrying development. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise put the figure of fraud at £600 million in 2001–02 and on an upward trend; the industry itself believes that the figure is between £160 million and £200 million with a downward trend. Noble Lords will be aware that the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee published a report on its own inquiry into this proposal. The report said:
"The differences in the estimates of spirits fraud are so fundamental—the estimates do not overlap even marginally at any point in their ranges—that the Government cannot logically make such an important decision as the introduction of strip stamps based on figures which may be flawed … the Government appears to be reacting in response to what is an unconfirmed level of fraud, with the possibility of major implications for the industry".
That is a serious concern, and your Lordships will agree that there is no basis for making substantive policy decisions.
Furthermore, how do we know whether that rather antiquated system—or, as the Scottish Affairs Committee called it,
"a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem"—
will actually work to combat fraud? I would have thought it a relatively easy operation to produce counterfeit stamps. Indeed, I hazard a guess that some ingenious person is more than likely working on it already.
It has been a good debate. Unfortunately, we do not have time to explore many of the key aspects of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Noakes and I have tried briefly to highlight our remaining concerns. Much of what the Bill introduces will add more bureaucracy and complexity to a financial and business environment already groaning under this Chancellor's fixation with micro-management and regulation. Where the Government had a real opportunity to simplify, they have increased complexity; where they had a real opportunity to alleviate, they have burdened. That is a great failure of the Bill. As my noble

207
friend Lady Noakes said, the Bill is a monument to the intruder state and sadly produces no net benefit to the life of this country and the life of our people.
I end by agreeing with the Labour Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Peston—an economist and the distinguished chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee's sub-committee on the Bill—who said that he feared that this might be the end. I fear he could very well be right.
9.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I always enjoy these debates, but I enjoy them particularly when there is an opportunity for us to listen to three such distinguished maiden speakers as we have heard tonight. When the Prime Minister made his modest attempt to raise the proportion of Peers supporting the Government from 29 per cent to, I think, 31 per cent, there were the usual cries about stuffing the House of Lords with "Tony's cronies". However, I hope that everyone here will agree that, in addition to the quantity, which we certainly needed, we have the highest quality that could conceivably be imagined. I am enormously grateful to all three noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, not only made a nonsense of the Tebbit rule on cricket, but brought expertise in manufacturing, as both a teacher and a practitioner. That will be of huge value to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, brought us a rational approach to taxation that I found very refreshing. He rejected the dogmatism of the Left in favour of economic taxation designed to support economic dynamism and risk-taking. He rejected the dogmatism of the Right in defending the role of taxation for social protection and, above all, he offered us a moral basis for taxation and equated it with a civilised society. I agree very much with that, and am grateful to him for what he said. I do not know Luton as well as some people, but the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, has distinction in local government and in accountancy. His contribution made the best of both those distinctions.
In one way, however, I am disappointed in the debate, because, in past years when I have occupied this position, I have had an opportunity to discuss wider issues in Finance Bills and in the economy. However, this year and last, it was decided by the usual channels that the Finance Bill would be debated together with the report of the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee of this House. I am not one to attack that decision, but the result has been that some pages of outline that I prepared for what I was going to say have been left blank. There has been no debate about public services this evening, and no debate about productivity or enterprise. I can simply remove those pages, put them away and save your Lordships' time. However, I would like to have discussed those matters, because some things need to be said in more detail than I used in my opening speech.
Even on the basic issue of the state of the economy—of macroeconomics as opposed to taxation policy—very little was said. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes,
208
made a valiant attempt to attack the Government on their economic policy, but not by going so far as to say that it was not working. Instead she said that perhaps at some time in the future it might not work. That is a somewhat defensive position for her to take. I remember her making it clear to me that she was not criticising the economy in the short term but in the medium term. I have listened to these debates for seven years now. Rather than saying that there is no jam today people always say that there will be disaster tomorrow. It never happens. Let us see.
On the golden rule, the economy and the Chancellor are on track for both of the fiscal rules. The Budget calculations show an £11 billion margin and there is a £53 billion margin before we reach the 51 per cent under the sustainable investment rule. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said that there were over-optimistic projections of tax revenue. As is well known, the National Audit Office has audited the assumptions behind the Budget, which are reflected in last week's spending review statement, and it has approved them. Certainly, on any estimate from independent economists the projections are on the cautious side rather than in the other direction.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Wilcox, both talked about the risk of tax rises in the future. The spending plans announced last week reflect the 2004 Budget public finance projections and they have been audited as being fully affordable.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, who also contributed to some extent to the debate on macroeconomic issues, talked about the decline in the savings ratio. I think that I have said this to him before, but I must point out that savings ratios are high at times of insecurity and high interest rates. The savings ratio has gone down because of low interest rates and a greater degree of security, but at the same time net assets have risen and household net worth has increased by 50 per cent since 1997. In terms of economic stability, that is an important point.
Points were made from the Opposition Front Bench about tax ratios—what they call the tax burden. The tax ratio was lower in 2003 than it was in 1997–98. It is expected to rise as the economy recovers from the recent global downturn, but it will still be lower than the heights reached in the early 1980s. It was 38.9 per cent, for example, in 1984–85. This is a relatively lightly taxed economy. Our overall tax ratio is well below the average both for the EU 15 and for the EU 25.
I turn now, since there is no further criticism on macroeconomic policy to defend, to the issues in the Finance Bill to which the committee referred. I must say before I go any further that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has achieved something in that every speaker who has referred to it has asked for the continuation of the committee that he chaired in future years. I think that he is well aware that the Treasury would not welcome that. It must be observed in fairness that he has secured the confidence of those who have spoken in the House.

209
The first and most important issue is tax avoidance. That issue is one of those on which noble Lords—I cannot remember which exactly—said that they agreed with the Treasury's objectives on all of the five issues that the committee considered. Certainly, my noble friend Lord Peston referred to the size of the problem of tax avoidance. In fact, my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton beat me. I wrote down "gilt strip" and "off-market swap", which are tax avoidance measures that I had never heard of. Clearly, we are learning something tonight.
It is an enormous problem, and it needed to be tackled. We recognise that there is a risk of over-reporting, a point made by my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Sheldon and by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. That is why we are working with business on the regulations and guidance that will give effect to the provisions in the Finance Bill on tax avoidance.
My noble friend Lord Sheldon thought that there was something wrong with the five-day notification period. It is a notification period for products that are already on the market or are available to be sold or marketed. There is no reason why they should not be available for reporting within one day—let alone five days—of going on to the market. He criticised the lack of the affirmative resolution procedure for the prescribed descriptions orders. The prescribed descriptions order reduces the tests. In other words, it is limiting, whereas the VAT order, which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, imposes additional requirements. That seems to be a reasonable balance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, puzzled me by talking about a new tax on trusts. There is no new tax on trusts. The changes in trust legislation are designed to help small trusts; they are not an additional tax.
On the issue of non-corporate distribution, my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya went so far as to depart from the principle of non-contentiousness—very, very marginally—by saying that there was a degree of uncertainty about the Government's policy on the matter. I think that it is recognised that there has not, in fact, been a policy change. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, described it as a mistaken attempt, resulting from over-enthusiasm. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, went so far as to say that we should reverse the zero and 10 per cent starting rates. The zero and 10 per cent starting rates work. They have worked for a larger number of people than are affected by the 19 per cent charge on non-corporate distribution. The introduction of those starting rates was followed by Internet-based, mass-marketed incorporation schemes that were designed only for tax saving. It is those schemes that will be eliminated by the Finance Bill.
Several noble Lords referred to the stamp duty land tax. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in what was only a glancing reference, neglected to mention the fact that it has worked well since December 2003. I
210
think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, used the words "muddling through", but there has not been any evidence of distortion in conveyancing markets. The vast majority of transactions have been unaffected by the changes. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that this is another example of outrageous tax avoidance via partnerships. I notice that the defence of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was not very robust.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, raised the issue of payable tax credits on ISAs. It was never intended that ISAs or their predecessors—PEPs and TESSAs—were going to continue for ever. There has been a reduction from £7,000 to £5,000, but it will take place in 2006 not in 2000 as originally intended. In any case there are so many additional offers, including child trust funds, stakeholder products and the advantages of pension simplification, that that criticism does not hold water.
The references to spirit duty stamps puzzled me. My puzzlement is because I am also a statistician of a sort: a practical statistician rather than an academic statistician. The scale of evasion—in other words of illegality, of fraud—is by definition what we call an unknowable statistic. The calculations made are based on a comparison of the answers to the question in the general household survey, "How much do you drink?", with the amount of spirits on which duty is paid. If we search our consciences, whether we are talking to a doctor or to an interviewer, any of us will tend to underestimate rather than overestimate the amount we drink and therefore the estimates of fraud are likely to be too low rather than too high. I am insulting noble Lords; I can see that everyone is very shocked.
My noble friend Lord Sheldon and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggested that there had not been consultation on compliance costs. Consultation started in 2001 and took place on the options again in 2003; and a third set of consultations took place between last year's Pre-Budget Report and the Budget. With a central estimate of fraud at £600 million and the highest estimate of compliance costs at £50 million this strikes me as rather a good deal.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, the Minister has either answered or dismissed many of the questions that we asked the Treasury. Does that make it doubly sad that the Treasury could not give us the answers if they were so simple?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I followed my noble friend Lord Peston, who refrained from the kind of debate we had last year about the Treasury's attitude towards the Select Committee. I thought that it would be an advantage to your Lordships if I did not enter that debate. I could say many things on the subject, going back to the Commons' resolutions of 1671 and 1678, but if the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, will forgive me, I am not going to do that this evening.
I accept that the committee reported and that it is proper for me to respond to what it said, which is what I have been doing tonight. It would be better for all of us if we left it at that.

211
I turn to pensions. What the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, called so-called simplification did not meet with the agreement of other speakers. If 170 pages of text replace 350 pages of primary legislation and also replace many thousands of pages of guidance, that cannot be called so-called simplification; it is real simplification.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, described that as a legitimate alibi for a part—I accept that it is only a part—of the length of the Finance Bill. I rest my case on his remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that we were favouring public sector final salary pensions. I thought that the consensus was that the 20:1 factor had been accepted as being broadly accurate for both final salaries and defined contribution schemes and that any alternative put forward—and there were alternatives put forward—had been resisted as excessively complicated.
The National Association of Pension Funds said that there had been a good consultation with the Revenue and the Association of British Insurers described it as a very thorough and constructive consultation process.
So, on nearly all of the issues we have some worthwhile contributions from the committee, to which I have attempted to respond. I have discovered that it was the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who said that he had no difficulty with the objectives of the five topics that were covered. Of course, legitimate points were made by those who gave evidence to the committee.
I shall finish with a word about Finance Bills, particularly in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, to whom we all defer, because of his experience in the Treasury and as Chancellor and because of his sterling work on the revision of tax legislation. Yes, of course there has been an increase in the sheer volume of the Finance Bill. We can see it there on the Table. Yes, there has been an increase in the length of the Red Book. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, objected to what he called the self-congratulatory wording of the Red Book. I shall not attempt to give an aesthetic criticism of it, but I notice that the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have talked about the wording of it rather than attempting to rebut the facts in the Red Book.
When this party was in opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, from the Opposition Front Bench used to take the Red Book every year and he would tear it apart. He would take it line by line, page by page, table by table until the Treasury spokesman for the Conservative government could hardly bear it. When we have an Opposition who are able to do that, when we have a Treasury which makes it possible by the degree of inaccuracy and over-optimism that was at
212
times expressed in Red Books under the previous administration, then my task will be a good deal more difficult than it has been.
However, this evening it has been my privilege to listen to and congratulate three excellent maiden speakers. It has been my privilege and my pleasure to be able to respond, as far as I can within reasonable time limits, to the concerns of the Select Committee and it has been my privilege to present a Budget which is a tribute to the guardianship of our economy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over a period of seven years.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Finance Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Finance Bill 2004: Economic Affairs Committee Report
Lord Peston rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs on the Finance Bill 2004 (First Report, HL Paper 109).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I did not realise that I was to speak again. I add my voice to that of other noble Lords and say what an excellent debate we have had. I particularly thank those who made their maiden speeches. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs on the Finance Bill 2004 (First Report, HL Paper 109). (Lord Peston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Protection Agency Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.

Public Audit (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Northern Ireland Orders Grand Committee
Tuesday, 20 July 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): As we rarely debate orders in Grand Committee, it may be helpful to say a word about the procedure for today's Grand Committee. Our proceedings are essentially the same as those of the House. Noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be reported in Hansard.
As we are in Committee, Members may speak more than once on any Motion.
I should perhaps make it clear to noble Lords that this Committee is charged only to consider orders, not to approve or disapprove them. The Motion to approve will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
The main difference between our proceedings and the proceedings on the Floor of the House is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any Motion on which agreement cannot be reached should be withdrawn.
Perhaps I may also remind noble Lords that if a Division is called in the Chamber, this Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Official Report of the Northern Ireland Orders Grand Committee

  Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  It is a matter of regret that this legislation is not being considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we all hope that the ongoing review process will lead to a speedy restoration of the devolved institution. However, good government and the provision of public services in Northern Ireland must continue and therefore it falls to Parliament to consider the issue before us today.
  The main purpose of the draft order is to authorise the balance of the 2004–05 main estimates, which is in addition to the vote on account that was approved by Parliament in March. The vote on account, amounting to approximately 45 per cent of the total provision for the 2004–05 financial year, enabled funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of this financial year until the main estimates before us today could be presented and considered.
  GC 64
  The balance of the 2004–05 main estimates contained in the order amounts to some £6 billion resources and £5.5 billion cash. When added to the vote on account, it will take the total amount authorised for 2004–05 to £11.3 billion resources and £9.9 billion cash. This reflects the outcome of the 2003 priorities and budget process announced by my honourable friend in another place on 13 January 2004.
  That outcome evolves through a process involving widespread consultation with a range of local organisations including city and district councils, voluntary and community organisations, the business community and trade unions. In addition, as part of the consultation process, my honourable friend met with the main Northern Ireland political parties.
  I can therefore assure your Lordships that the spending plans before us today reflect the priorities of the local community in Northern Ireland. The order also seeks to authorise the excess resource amount in both the 2001–02 and 2002–03 financial years. The matters have been the subject of consideration and of subsequent report by the Public Accounts Committee. The report which was published on 25 May 2004 recommended that the excesses should be authorised by Parliament by means of excess votes.
  Considerable detail regarding the sums sought is set out in the documents supporting the 2004–05 main estimates and the statement of excess for 2001–02 and for 2002–03. Copies of these supporting documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
  The introduction within each estimate provides a brief description of the nature of expenditure covered by the estimate, while the Part II subhead detail provides a breakdown of the proposed expenditure by functional area, with the associated cash requirement for the whole estimate. Comparative figures for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 financial years are also provided at Part II. I commend the order.
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I am the first to admit my ignorance of the details of public accounting, and I shall leave that matter to others more expert than myself this afternoon. However, there are a number of issues to which I suggest Members of the Committee should pay attention when we discuss the draft Northern Ireland budget for the six-month period and onwards—for the second time in the year.
  It is the duty of government to deliver competent and efficient administration to the part of the country or the nation for which it is responsible. This Government have been responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland for seven—approaching eight—years, I regret to say. They have had a number of complicated issues to face, over many of which we have been in agreement and support. However, we have now been without Stormont and the Assembly for nearly two years—and I agree with the Minister when she regrets that. I regret it very much and believe that the situation would be very much more

  GC 65
  satisfactory were it to be being discussed by the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont. However, there is a duty of care on the Government.
  It is right to note, as my honourable friend David Lidington pointed out in another place, that the Auditor General for Northern Ireland indicates that the,
  "quality of government services in Northern Ireland too often lets down the people who are using them and who are paying for them through their taxes".
  The system of public administration in Northern Ireland was described as,
  "disastrously fragmented. Almost every body in GB that carries out any function of government is duplicated on a tiny scale within Northern Ireland and that is an impediment to clarity and an enormous inefficiency".—[Official Report, Commons, Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 8/7/04; col. 009.]
  On a Starred Question from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, not long ago, I supported him and challenged the Government on this issue of wasted money. I believe that the Government are now guilty to a considerable extent of maladministration in terms of waste of public money in many different areas. Northern Ireland is grossly over-administered.
  The Government referred some time ago to a review of public administration, which was to set out plans to reduce the amount of administration in Northern Ireland—hence, the costs—to increase responsibilities on local authorities and to reduce the layers of government. If I am right, that was nearly two years ago, and we have still heard nothing from the Government on the matter.
  Furthermore, we have had the situation of absenteeism, which has now grown disastrously in the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. I believe that the cost of absenteeism in 2002–03 was £39 million of public money. Would the Minister at some stage tell me what the costs for 2003–04 are and whether anything has improved? I would also like to know where the reform of public administration has got to.
  Another major issue affects this budget, on which I should also like answers—that is, the NIPSA strike. The civil servants or any other employees normally go on strike only as a last resort. Having spent 30 years of my life in the manufacturing industry and having started on the shop floor and worked up through not the union but similar movements, I know the effect of poor leadership and low morale on the workforce. It leads to frustration and to wanting some way out and some form of recourse.
  The Northern Ireland Civil Service is in that situation, which is why we have the strike today. As I understand it, it is not getting any better; it is spreading and getting worse. Later today, we have an order regarding vehicle testing, which is bound to affect the overall budgets and finances of the Northern Ireland economy. We are an exporter. There are large hauliers hauling goods across Europe and bringing them back. Even if this order is accepted, it will cause huge difficulties on the continent if those hauliers are stopped regarding their necessary documentation. I
  GC 66
  wonder how many of the officials in France and Germany will understand about an order passed today. That is the situation only for the hauliers.
  We also have the farming community, which has suffered enough in the past few years. I declare an interest here: I have a farm with tenant farmers who are dependent on the grants that they are not being paid. At the end of June, the agricultural industry and the farmers were owed £20 million. This weekend's Northern Ireland newspapers led me to understand that farmers are extending their borrowings with the banks, which is costing them more interest. Will the Government underwrite that interest and those loans? What recourse will the farmers have on account of the money that they will lose as a result of this strike?
  Finally, I do not wish to quip, but I could, about the efficiencies in the planning authority, which is also going on strike as of this week. That will affect the whole of the construction industry. It will affect future housing, future roads, future construction plans and a large amount of the cash flow and turnover in the Northern Ireland economy.
  I am making a case today that the administration of Northern Ireland is far less than satisfactory. Once upon a time we had a health service of which we were very proud. Now, our health service is probably as poor as anywhere in this country with seriously ill people waiting to get beds, hanging about on trolleys in hospitals that are dirty and maladministered. We had an education system of which we were proud. Will the noble Baroness the Lord President give me an undertaking that she will not continue the move on the education system for the sake of some Labour Party dogma?
  At this stage of the debate on the Northern Ireland budget, I put to noble Lords that the Government are doing a poor job, have done a poor that is getting worse and the effects of maladministration, which have now spread into a serious strike within the Northern Ireland Civil Service, will affect a very fragile economy very seriously.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: In considering this budget order it necessary to put it in its context. In so doing, I shall echo some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The condition of public finance in Northern Ireland is a cause for concern, while the infrastructure of the state apparatus is, in some respects, bloated, unwieldy and not fit for purpose. By contrast, since the Belfast agreement the private sector has seen a buoyant revival.
  Compared with a decade ago, the city of Belfast has been transformed beyond recognition. If that economic development is to be sustained and further progressed, it requires to be complemented with a modernised government machine. In that regard, things have changed little in the past 10 years and in some respects may even have deteriorated.
  When I moved to Northern Ireland in 1991, it was essentially a public-sector economy and society. I described it as more collectivist than Stalinist Russia, more corporatist than Mussolini's Italy and more

  GC 67
  quangoised than the Britain of the two Harolds. Apart from the welcome resurgence of a prosperous private sector, little has altered in the mean time.
  For example, as this budget order shows, there is a massive underspend of some £400 million of which £220 million is for capital projects. A supercharged investment board was created a year ago to offer strategic guidance in that vital area. What has it been doing all year?
  Another symptom of the bureaucratic malaise that infects government in Northern Ireland is seen in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, alluded. It was a report on the excessive and growing recourse by government to commissioning outside consultants. The report identified an increase in expenditure from £10 million to £18.6 million during the past five years—a rise of about 80 per cent. However, that seriously underestimates the situation, which is itself a grave cause for concern.
  As my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland pointed out, the report presented a very incomplete picture. He said:
  "If one tries to piece together some of the evidence one cannot actually get to the actual expenditure on consultants".
  By way of illustration, my noble friend said:
  "In 2001–02, it was certainly in excess of £34 million … but the worst element of all in this is that in 88 of the 100 cases studied in this report, there has been no proper evaluation about whether there was any benefit in these consultants being hired".—[official Report, 8/7/04; col. 915.]
  Thus, a double cause of concern is revealed by that NIAO report. On the one hand, it points to excessive reliance on outside consultants, poor procurement and a cavalier disregard for the DFP's guidance; while on the other, it shows up the inadequacy of the NAIO itself in being unable to come up with a comprehensive analysis of the full extent of the employment of consultants. Who will audit the auditors?
  Why are highly paid civil servants fearful of taking decisions that they are paid to take without calling in consultants to cover their backs? How has that lamentable state of affairs been allowed to come about? Has there been any attempt in Northern Ireland to undertake a Gershon-type efficiency saving exercise in the Civil Service, as there has in Great Britain?
  Northern Ireland, with 1.7 million people, is roughly the size of one and a half English counties, yet that budget far exceeds anything comparable in England and Wales. That is partly be due to the working of the Barnett formula, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself has repeatedly pointed out, is long past its shelf life and needs urgent reform. After all, happily, Northern Ireland is no longer the poorest region in the UK.
  Secondly, the cost of security is disproportionately high for readily apparent reasons. However, even allowing for that, there can be no doubt that government costs are far too high. In that regard, I note that the costs of the moribund Assembly are estimated to rise from £33.7 million to £47.2 million per annum in the coming year. We hope that the
  GC 68
  Assembly will be restored in the autumn, because devolution should ultimately bring down the size of the budget. Initially, and not least because of the necessity to create no less than 11 government departments to accommodate the d'Hondt formula for the allocation of ministerial portfolios, devolution increased costs. In the longer run, however, I believe that, as local Ministers have to make hard choices between competing demands and have perforce to prioritise public expenditure, costs will fall.
  Under direct rule, Northern Ireland politicians of all shades, both here in Westminster and locally, are just part of the claimant culture to which, in its turn, the Civil Service and its mode of operation respond. It is an unhealthy situation, with totally inadequate political scrutiny and public accountability. Let us restore the devolved institutions and slim the budget and the bureaucracy.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: Many Members of the Committee will recall that on 8 July, when the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intervened on the Question of my noble friend Lord Smith about consultants, he gave us a sample of the literature that he had been receiving. Although I have taken the lectern, the sample, I have brought would have sufficed.
  I do not complain about getting the literature because it proves to us what we are lacking with the Assembly not functioning. As we open the post day by day, all these letters from various departments in Northern Ireland are a steady reminder to us that the Assembly is not functioning and that it ought to be. Reference has been made to the possibility of a resumption in the autumn. If there is no resurrection of the Assembly in the autumn, I do not think that we can carry on scrutinising like this. I have been trying to scratch about as best I can and it is very difficult. There is a democratic deficit. The Minister has told us about the consultation that has taken place to put this budget together. But I cannot measure the quality of that consultation. I am sure that it is there but I cannot measure its depth and quality. If we are to be back again, we will have to find other ways of doing this.
  For a start, I find this document very difficult to fathom. I set about it by looking at the Barnett formula and seeing where that takes us in terms of the numbers because I cannot prove that it works. I cannot prove that what is in the document and what the Barnett formula produces match. I am not clear about what is paid for by UK taxpayers as a whole and is not covered under the devolved budget. I do not know how that fits with the Barnett formula. I also do not know how supplements from the European Union fit in. They are, to use the term, additionality. I cannot see how the big picture fits with what I see in this book. Indeed, in the book it is difficult to fathom what is different from A to B and occasionally C. It is designed to confuse. I would like to think that the starting point, the fundamentals, were clearer.
  When I spoke in March, I referred to an area that I know a little bit about, Northern Ireland railways. I said to myself, "That's enough of that, pick something else to look at next time. See if you can get to something else in

  GC 69
  depth". But I regret to say that I must return to the railways because I referred then to a debate that appeared to be going on in Northern Ireland about the non-core railway, which was Whitehead to Larne and Ballymena and Londonderry.
  What I did not know then was that a book was to be produced by the Railways Review Group A Position Report on the Future Investment Needs of Northern Ireland Railways. It is the least glossy of any of the documents that have come out of Northern Ireland. It is only 30 pages. However, page 30 refers one to a consultants report, which is obtainable at www.translink.co.uk—and all sorts of other things. That gives one another 220 pages from Booz Allen Hamilton. I have that in my paperwork here. Amazingly, there has also been a report on the railways in the Republic of Ireland by Booz Allen Hamilton. That report was over 400 pages. So there are well over 600 pages of consultants' report on the railways of Ireland.
  Sadly, however, this modest 30-pager talks of the closure of railway lines in Northern Ireland and yet—this must be true because I read it in the consultants' report—Londonderry is the fourth city of Ireland. The railway line we are talking about would connect the second city of Ireland with its fourth city.
  Looking at the report produced by the same consultants in the Republic, they talk about a feasibility study to look into the possibility of extending the railway from Londonderry to Letterkenny, which would be a costly venture. The consultants say that they have consulted with DETR Northern Ireland and Translink NIR, which suggests support. Yet those same folk are putting out these closure proposals. That is not joined-up government in any shape or form. It is time, as a piece of detail, for acts to be got together and acknowledge that the best option would be to return both of these railway lines. Indeed, the capital costs would be a mere fraction of what is to be carried forward in budget expenditure from last year to this. As I have said, that is an important piece of detail.
  I know that some people are not too happy about cross-border bodies, but it is quite interesting to note, in terms of dual economy, that when we have Waterways Ireland, quite frankly it would make incredibly good sense to have "railways Ireland" as well. We should bear it in mind that the rail network in Northern Ireland is much smaller than that in the Republic, but they have so much in common when compared with anything in England, Scotland and Wales.
  I want to talk next about European money. Several references are made to European funds from the various agencies throughout Europe in the budget document. What I cannot fathom is the approach to reconciliation. The last page of the yellow section of the book refers to the income coming from Europe in respect of the various funds while expenditure is set out on the red pages. It is impossible to reconcile the two figures, although that may well be quite proper given
  GC 70
  the timing differences. But no attempt has been made to reconcile that. I cannot prove that the European moneys received will match the moneys paid out.
  Several fortunate areas of European funding have grown out of the misfortune of Northern Ireland such as, for example, the Peace II EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation moneys. Much of that is spent on those people desperately searching for peace, many of them involved in voluntary and local community groups. Amazingly, peace money is also used to buy double decker buses in Belfast, but we shall let that pass by as one of those strange things that happens in government. I should have thought that the genuine expenditure of peace and reconciliation moneys is all about peace and reconciliation. However, I am worried about how the micro-economy that has built up over recent years will cope if, as a result of the addition of poorer states to the European Union, it is not possible to fund it in the same way. Questions arise over whether the peace and reconciliation funding programme will be slimmed down. There are concerns about that.
  On any basis, the figure of £11,783 million is a large sum. I am concerned about best use of money. My noble friend Lord Smith has spoken about the various organisations in Northern Ireland, whose acronyms are NIA, NIB, NEC, NID, NIE, NIF, and so on, with the list going round several times because there are so many. Does every such outfit have human relations consultants, treasurers and staff to produce glossy books? Is there no possibility of economising on these establishment costs?
  Perhaps we should consider benchmarking. The three largest counties in England are Essex, Kent and Hampshire, each with a population of around 1.2 or 1.3 million. The combined population of the neighbouring counties of Hampshire and Dorset is similar to that of Northern Ireland. The population of Hampshire and Dorset is around 1.63 million while that of Northern Ireland is around 1.69 million. The education budget for Hampshire and Dorset is £803 million while Northern Ireland's is £1,300 million. Of course, if a devolved government want to spend more money on education, they can, but I still wonder how those figures can be matched.
  Lord Kilclooney: Has the noble Lord looked at the difference in birth rates?
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I have not; I have looked only at the populations. Perhaps one can look at the figures in all sorts of ways. I accept that the comparison is totally imprecise. For example, the education budget of Northern Ireland includes libraries, but that constitutes quite a small proportion—around 4 per cent of each school's budget. Even deducting the budget for libraries, there is a huge difference. Perhaps it will be possible to look at the numbers and reduce the difference, but I guess that the figure for Northern Ireland will still be substantially higher, and that may be right. But I want to know whether such matters are looked at.
  We are all concerned about due economy. Regardless of that, post enlargement there might be less European money. We should be looking at

  GC 71
  opportunities to reduce expenditure in Northern Ireland, because an absence of European money would result in the collapse of certain areas of the Northern Ireland economy, particularly those paid for under the European Union Peace and Reconciliation Programme. Although the Assembly is in suspension, it is important that the matter is looked at carefully. By looking at some of the ways in which Northern Ireland is operated, with a view to sharing costs of producing glossy books, accountancy and treasury posts and clerkships of organisations, there could be due economy and money could be released to enable frontline work and essential voluntary and community work to continue.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I agree almost entirely with what has been said already. Pending the possible reconstruction of the governance—not government—of Northern Ireland, a reduction in the vast number of departments and the thinning out of the number of curious bodies already referred to, which seem to be without visible means of support, we will remain in financial trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has highlighted much of the wasteful expenditure. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity will be noted by other regions of the United Kingdom, which will cast envious glances across the Irish Sea and wonder how we have got away with it for so long. The inevitable result will be that Her Majesty's Treasury will start to pay heed to this drain on UK resources. We must be careful.
  I am not critical of civil servants as a body. They are bound to suffer from what I can only call the sheer stupidity and silliness of others. I implore Her Majesty's Government to institute a sound administrative structure for Northern Ireland on the grounds voted upon in 1979 by 14.5 million United Kingdom citizens. When some of us were bold enough to inquire why the structure was not proceeded with, the answer was, "Because, Jim dear, it was not enough". Perhaps it was not enough and the United Kingdom electorate's appetite for constitutional government was not satisfied, but they should remember—they probably now remember in hindsight—that the alternative to "not enough" was bound to be nothing, which is precisely what we have now. We will continue to have nothing until we stop playing games that are designed mainly—I have to say, perhaps uncharitably—to keep the news industry happy. We must have summits, get-togethers, departmental heads and so forth, yet it all amounts to nothing. It is a con job, as the news industry knows well, although it exploits it and uses the fodder handed out to them—who can blame them?
  I implore Her Majesty's Government. They have exhibited a good deal of realism in their thinking on various other national and international policies. Surely, it is not asking too much for them to look again at what was voted upon by the United Kingdom electorate in 1979 but rejected because it did not go far enough, with the inevitable result that we got nothing.
  Lord Hylton: I wish to raise an issue that affects all departments of government, whether those devolved in theory or those that have never been devolved. I
  GC 72
  refer to the continue existence of paramilitary groups, both those on ceasefire and those not so. I suggest that it is necessary and most desirable to have the maximum possible amount of exits and ways of leaving violence and terrorism which are open, available and can be used by those who want to do so. In brief, the object should be to deter the current rank and file of paramilitary groups and former offenders from moving into crime, as many already have done, and instead to help them in the direction of normal civilian employment.
  For some, perhaps only a tiny minority, emigration may provide a solution. For others there is the public sector, which is, after all, a very large employer in Northern Ireland, the commercial sector and numerous voluntary organisations and community associations. What are the Government doing about those possible lines of exit? Are incentives of any kind being provided for those who want to cease a life of violence? In general, what is the Government's policy and future intention?
  I wish to refer to integrated education, partly because the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council, in an Answer to a Written Question last month, told me that procedures are in place for transforming existing schools to integrated status. That in itself is good news, but have those procedures been used in recent years and what is the prospect of their being used more in the next year or two, given that there is strong parental demand for more schools providing integrated education? In view of the reducing, and already lower, numbers of pupils in secondary schools, some existing ones are functioning at about half-capacity. That surely gives scope for some move into an integrated mode. I look forward to the Government's response.
  Lord Laird: I can identify with much of what has been said, but I wish to raise a number of issues. Further to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, I wish to draw attention to the fact that we have a Civic Forum in Northern Ireland, which was suspended along with the Assembly. Expenditure on the Civic Forum in the current year was £176,000 compared to £328,000 in 2002–03. Estimates suggest that expenditure for 2004–05 will increase to over £0.5 million. One wonders how the costs of a body that is still suspended can increase threefold. It is a waste of money. When do the Government propose to disband the Civic Forum?
  The Government have said that they will refurbish or rebuild every secondary school in England and Wales to 21st century standards in the next 10 to 15 years. Will the Government confirm that they have the same plans for Northern Ireland schools, and if not, why? Will all mobile classrooms in Northern Ireland be replaced? If so, can the Government spell out exactly how they intend to do so? In my view, the only way to reform the schooling system is through public-private partnerships. What plans do the Government have to do that in Northern Ireland?

  GC 73
  The Government have completely ignored the Ulster Unionist Party's objections to the Costello report, which we consider flawed, and the result of a widespread consultation exercise in Northern Ireland considering post-primary reforms. Why are the Government determined to implement Costello when all sections of society in Northern Ireland have indicated how ill suited it is? Grammar schools are not simply opposed to any change, as the Government claim. Representatives of grammar schools have been actively engaged in proposing workable changes as alternatives to the 11-plus, something that the Government have not managed to do in detail. What specifically are the Government's alternatives? What sort of system will emerge from the proposals? What will be the admissions criteria under the new system?
  The problem of capping student numbers in Northern Ireland remains. Why is the cap unique to Northern Ireland? Will the Government tell us whether there is any financial reason why we cannot increase opportunities for participation? When will the Government end what I believe is a form of discrimination?
  I move on to a topic dealt with extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland: the problem of the funding of the railways. I am not sure that we want to be the only part of Europe where railways may be closed down. In every other part of Europe, railways are seen as part of the solution. They are being revamped and much capital funding has been going into them. I do not understand why little money has been spent on the non-core system—the system that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, described. I cannot understand why there is such haste for the consultation on the document that the noble Lord discussed. I cannot understand why, despite a lot of prompting, no one has come up with a concept to promote, especially, the section of line from Coleraine to Londonderry, as a tourist attraction. I also cannot understand why, when we are on the verge of getting many millions of pounds worth of railway stock in Northern Ireland, closing the non-core section of the network is being considered before the stock has even had a chance to show what it can do on the railway system.
  On support for individuals with educational difficulties, I have supplied some information to the noble Baroness concerning a gentleman whose case I have raised before in this place, Owen Waide, a boy who suffers from Asperger's syndrome. A satisfactory solution was found to his problem that allowed him to become part of society, but the South Eastern Education and Library Board has cut funding for that young boy and his parents, who are now back to square one. Obviously, I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to an individual case, but I have supplied her with the information and look forward to hearing her answer to that in due course.
  I raise an issue about which I feel strongly and have a fair bit of experience. That is the budget of the cross-border language body. The particular part of it in which I am interested, and of which I was chairman for
  GC 74
  four and a half years, is the Ulster Scots Agency. The Government's understanding of its priorities is haywire and more in the realm of Alice in Wonderland than of reality.
  For 2004, the desired budget for the Ulster-Scots Agency had £600,000 removed from it that was specifically aimed at continuing a very successful policy of the agency in 2003. I want to be quite specific: it was removed without consultation, discussion or agreement. When I requested the minutes of meetings that the department says took place to discuss the matter, they were not available to me. Therefore, I can only conclude that there was no discussion; I know for a fact that there was no discussion.
  Our policy, which is one in which I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be interested, was of replacing old-style murals depicting hooded gunmen and paramilitary imagery with murals celebrating historic themes such as scenes from the Great War and Ulster Scots language, culture and history. It was for the consignment of paramilitary flags to the past. It was for the organisation of family-friendly events on 11 July night, such as those organised by Mid-Armagh Community Network and the Schomburg Society of Kilkeel.
  It was for the provision of help, advice and financial support to those community leaders who want to effect positive change in their localities. It made funding available to pull the carpet from under the feet of those unsympathetic to change, by depriving them of one of their major arguments for maintaining the status quo. It was for the creation of new opportunities for Protestant and Unionist communities to explain and share their culture to and with their Roman Catholic and nationalist neighbours.
  I cannot understand what is so wrong with that policy that it did not even warrant discussion or any form of agreement with us. We were never asked about the policy. The Ulster-Scots Agency successfully implemented the policy during 2003 but had to stop it this year because of lack of funding, the money being taken out. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government are happy to pay police overtime and make compensation payments, but not to pay £600,000 to the Ulster-Scots Agency, which, if it does not have the solution to the problem, at least has a solution. No one has told me any other solution to the problem of trying to put the society of Northern Ireland back on the rails, to deal with the paramilitaries and to try to take people out of their spheres of influence. Until someone tells me what is wrong with the Ulster-Scots Agency policy and gives me a better one. I think this is a disgrace.
  But the same department that looked after the activities of the language body also looks after Waterways Ireland. Waterways Ireland had a 40 per cent increase in its budget for 2004. It has never been able to spend its entire funding in any year to date and, as I understand it, has replaced as much as £7 million in the central kitty. Yet it has had an increase of 40 per cent while we were deprived of a minute amount of money that would meet a social need in our Province.

  GC 75
  cannot understand the decision-making process. Some people with a cultural view of Ulster-Scots activities went to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and asked to borrow £100,000 for Ulster-Scots culture. After 11 months, a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and requests for rewrites, the request was turned down. I have here an Answer by the Minister to a Written Question on 14 June this year. It refers to funding for the West Belfast Festival, of which I am supportive. I have no difficulty with the festival being funded; it is not money lent, it is funding. The festival organisers submitted a request for over £100,000 on 15 August 2003. What day was the request granted? On the very same day. Yet we asked for £100,000 as a loan for Ulster-Scots culture and after 11 months it was turned down.
  What conclusion can we come to, except that the Ulster-Scots culture is not wanted on the island of Ireland? Things are slightly worse now. The North-South Ministerial Council, which has a specific remit, has been in discussions with both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. It has provided funding for an image consultant to provide a new image for Protestant paramilitary groups. I am not desperately opposed to that but this is the same organisation that presided over £600,000 being taken out of our budget, which stopped us doing socially acceptable activities during 2004. Yet it has been organising and spending resources on promoting and helping loyalist and republican paramilitary groups, including the provision of an image consultant.
  I have no doubt that the answer will be that this help is provided to the bank account that is run by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. But meetings are attended by officials of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. What remit has the Northern Ireland joint-secretary to the North-South Ministerial Council to exceed his authority and to talk to Protestant paramilitaries or to any paramilitary group? What remit has he to exceed his authority with regard to the North-South Ministerial Council, or was he acting on behalf of the North-South Ministerial Council? It is time that we had a total review, an inquiry, into exactly how these cross-border bodies have been funded and how they are totally unfair, simply interested in one side of the community and not the other.
  I am not opposed to cross-border co-operation and I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on a number of occasions. I would support much of what he said. However, if there are going to be cross-border bodies, let them not be these bodies. Let them be bodies that are there on the basis of equity, fairness and providing funding and support on the basis of all-round need, not simply skewed to the request of the Irish Government.
  Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may come back, having listened to other noble Lords. I did not want to leave your Lordships with the impression that I was in any way being specifically critical of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I was not. I was being critical of the way in which the Northern Ireland Civil Service has been managed by the Government.
  GC 76
  We have always had a Civil Service in Northern Ireland of which we have been proud and I am sure we still have that. I wanted that to be on the record.
  Lord Kilclooney: I had not intended to speak, but I found some of the comments depressing. As a one-time Minister, I have great sympathy for the noble Baroness today. She has to cover subject, after subject, after subject, the detail of which it would be difficult for her to understand. It is at present one of the most difficult portfolios to hold, particularly because of the way in which this budget is discussed in Parliament.
  There has been criticism of the Orders in Council, which is right, and there has of course been the confirmation that we have no Assembly in Northern Ireland due to the political situation within the Province. The process, for which the Minister is now responsible and must reply to, must be brought to an end. It is inadequate and unsatisfactory for everyone.
  Therefore, we look towards September, the possible resolution of the political divisions in Northern Ireland and the return of democracy to Stormont. At the moment, that does not look hopeful. The people have voted for parties of the extremes and the likelihood of an agreement emerging in September is, in my opinion, unlikely.
  That being the case, we cannot continue with a suspended Assembly. One of the items in the budget is, of course, continued payments to Assembly Members and to their staff. I have defended them on previous occasions, but they have been made for the past two years. They are indefensible in future. If there is not agreement on an Assembly at Stormont, we must face up to the reality that devolution and the Belfast agreement have failed and that Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will have to be governed from here in London on a more democratic basis, where the elected representatives are answerable for the decisions taken in Northern Ireland.
  There are hundreds of issues in the order, so the Minister cannot be expected to know them all. One of the more important is the reform of the rating system in Northern Ireland. I have spoken on the matter previously, and pointed out that Northern Ireland is in competition with southern Ireland to attract inward investment. Southern Ireland has always had, and still has, the advantage of a low corporation tax—10 per cent. In Northern Ireland, although we had the high UK corporation tax, none the less, it was possible to point out to inward investors that we had derating for industrial premises.
  But now what have we? We have the Government saying, "We are going to introduce rates for industrial premises. We are going to introduce rates for empty commercial and retail outlets". Incidentally, that move will deflate the property market in Northern Ireland as empty premises will now be sold rather than waiting for a potential tenant. So we are going to damage commercial property values in Northern Ireland and, at the same time, damage industrial investment.

  GC 77
  4.30 p.m.
  The Government have said, "While we introduce rates for industrial premises, at the same time we will initiate a reduction electricity prices for Northern Ireland". But recently the European Union, as it so often does, has rejected this initiative on the part of the Government. Thus the advantage of reduced electricity prices to balance the disadvantage of rates on industrial premises has now been lost. That being the case, since the Government's argument has now been undermined by the decision taken in Europe, I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that this matter should be reviewed before any final decision is taken. If Northern Ireland is to be put at a disadvantage in comparison with southern Ireland—not only on the issue of corporation tax, but also on energy prices and rates—then that is bad news for the economy of Northern Ireland.
  Having said that, I am not one of those who criticises the Government about everything in Northern Ireland, although there has been a lot of criticism today. Rather, I have to say that Northern Ireland is a wonderful place, even under the present Government. Things are going well. The population is increasing. I mentioned earlier the birth rate—we are now 1.7 million. Our unemployment is falling and our employment is increasing. Tourism is prospering and house prices are soaring. There is good news from Northern Ireland as well, so let us in Northern Ireland not always be seen to be complaining and bellyaching.
  Why is the population increasing? It is doing so because young people who left Northern Ireland during the 30 years of the Troubles are now coming back. In addition—although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may be shocked by this—many English people are coming to live in Northern Ireland, saying that the quality of life is far better than that to be found in many other parts of the United Kingdom. I can cite many examples of that in my own constituency because, as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I happen to be one of the rare species who is an elected representative in the House of Lords. In the constituency of Strangford, the census records that around 8 per cent of the population was born in Great Britain, not in Northern Ireland.
  One or two other issues have been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, spoke of the cost of education. He was quite right to point out that the cost of education per head of the population of Northern Ireland is much higher than it is in England. I cite the higher birth rate as one reason for that. We have more children per family than is the case in England. But there are other burdens, one of which is supported by the noble Lord; that is, that we have different systems of education. We are financing three systems of education in Northern Ireland, not one. We finance the state system, the Roman Catholic system and, increasingly, we are financing the costly integrated system. The result of all that is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, we now have schools which
  GC 78
  do not have sufficient pupils. That is because in each town we are sharing them out between different schools.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: Does the noble Lord agree that, because depopulation in some areas has resulted in insufficient pupils to support two forms of education, it presents a wonderful opportunity for another form of integrated education? In that way a small village can have at least one viable school rather than two non-viable schools.
  Lord Kilclooney: That is not practical in Northern Ireland. We have been through this throughout the history of Northern Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church requires its own education system and Unionist governments from 1921 onwards have supported that. The notion that that should be in some way removed and replaced with an integrated system is a political path which I will not go down.
  Baroness Blood: What the noble Lord is saying is completely false. We have seven new schools coming through this year, two of which are transformed schools. We cannot keep up with the demand for integrated education. In small villages Protestant and Catholic schools are dying on their feet, so they come to us and ask for an integrated system.
  The noble Lord referred to the fact that the British Government now support this move. They are supporting it after we sustained it for three years. We have had to prove the credibility of integrated education before it received government funding.
  Lord Kilclooney: That is partly correct.
  Baroness Blood: It is not partly correct, it is correct.
  Lord Kilclooney: No, that is only partly correct. I know the situation in the different towns in Northern Ireland, and we are beginning to finance three systems. I am correct in saying that, not incorrect. Those three systems are the state system, the Roman Catholic system and now an integrated system. The Government are supporting all three. That means that three types of schools are competing for children in each town and each village. In smaller villages, there is no way in which there can be three schools. It was bad enough having two. In England, there would be only one, and it would be a viable unit.
  At the moment, it is not practical politics to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church should in some way close down its schools. That will remain a separate system in Northern Ireland, and I caution anyone to suggest that we should take on the Church to close down its school system in Northern Ireland.
  On the question of roads, I must compliment the Government on the new bypasses that have been built in places such as Newtonstewart, Strabane and Omagh. However, I suggest that some thought be given to provision in Cookstown, which is one of the worst towns to get through when travelling to the west of the Province. I see many Members of the Committee nodding their heads in agreement. That requires

  GC 79
  priority attention, but it does not seem to be mentioned very often. Likewise, the road from Ballymena to Coleraine needs attention. We hear so much about the roads to Newry or Dublin, but the road to Larne, for example, carries twice as many cars as the road to Dublin. Why should the road to Dublin get priority from the noble Lord, Lord Shutt? That priority should be given to the road to Larne, which carries 16,000 vehicles per day. The Roads Service needs to give more thought to the road from Ballymena to Coleraine, and to a bypass at Cookstown.
  I support the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on the issue of railways. He mentioned something of which I was not aware and was interested to hear: that the same consultants were employed by both the southern Irish regime and the Northern Ireland Office. Interestingly, as a result of the southern Ireland part of it, the railway system is going to be expanded, whereas we in Northern Ireland are considering curtailing it. I hope that further thought will be given to the matter. The railway system from Ballymena up to Coleraine and Londonderry is vital for the second city in Northern Ireland. As road traffic increases, it is important that we have the alternative of the railway system, and I hope that no decision will be made to close that particular railway line.
  I want to see some savings in the budget. In particular, I suggest that the Civic Forum should be done away with immediately—not pending some future reorganisation of public services or government in Northern Ireland. The Civic Forum has been an absolute disaster and a total waste of money, and it is astounding that while it is suspended it is going to cost us more in the forthcoming year. That is ridiculous. It is simply a talking shop and served no purpose whatever, even when the Assembly was in session.
  Another move that could save money—the cost of a bypass somewhere, or £4 million to £5 million a year—would be the removal of the area health and social service councils, which serve no purpose whatever in Northern Ireland. We already have area health boards, and we do not need the social service councils.
  Planning is important. The NIPSA strike has been mentioned. That is a serious matter. Planning is bad enough in Northern Ireland without having a strike. People who are investing and coming into Northern Ireland will tell you that planning decisions take much longer in Northern Ireland than they do for similar projects in Great Britain. Retail outlets are horrified at the time it takes to invest in Northern Ireland, due to the delays in the planning system, which lacks resources.
  Recently I saw a case of a planning application in Armagh city to convert a room into an office. It was accepted in February, but six months later no decision has been made because of lack of resources. Now it may not be made for another few months, if there is going to be a strike. So there needs to be further investment in the planning service in Northern Ireland.
  GC 80
  One project that is coming to some parts of Ireland is the Ikea store. It has difficulties in going to the Republic of Ireland because there is a restriction on the size of stores there. It could come to Northern Ireland if we had a proactive planning service in Northern Ireland and a proactive approach by the Government. The Government's attitude is that they do not want to speak to Ikea because they do not support stores. However, there are different ways and means in which to encourage a store of that nature. People go in their hundreds and perhaps their thousands from Northern Ireland to Scotland to go to the Ikea store. It would be a very popular store to have in the island of Ireland—and one hopes in Northern Ireland. But that requires the Government to show an interest and not just sit back and take no action.
  Finally, I conclude on European Union money and the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and others. The noble Lord said that he could not understand how much money was coming from Europe and how much was being spent in Northern Ireland. However, he failed to ask the third vital question—how much in the first instance Northern Ireland is sending to European Union, before the EU sends money back and before we then spend it. The bad news is that we send more to the European Union than we get back.
  Lord Dubs: I should like to make a few brief comments. However, before I do, I should like to respond to a few things that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said.
  Noble Lords: Kilclooney!
  Lord Dubs: I do apologise, but I have known the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, a long time and old habits die hard.
  The noble Lord said that it would be a shock to me to know that the population was expanding in Northern Ireland and that people from England were moving there. Not at all. Northern Ireland is a wonderful place and I am not at all surprised that people want to live there, now that the environment is more peaceful—although not peaceful enough—and with the economy doing well. Equally, I understand about living standards there. Other costs are lower, certainly than in the south-east of England, people's disposable income is higher and therefore their living standards are higher. That does not shock me at all.
  The noble Lord referred to integrated education. He said that there were three different systems of schools and that he could not support them. First, every integrated school in Northern Ireland is full, and I understand that most are heavily oversubscribed. There is not a single integrated school in the history of Northern Ireland that has ever failed; they are incredibly successful and parents want them. I should have thought that it was right, in a democratic society, that when parents wanted the choice of a particular form of school for their children, that approach should be supported fully by the Government.

  GC 81
  Some of us in the All-Party Group on Integrated Education in Northern Ireland had a meeting with an Education Minister recently and put those various points to him. Although there is progress on integrated education, it is not moving as quickly as some of us would wish. But I dissent from the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, when he talked about integrated schools being a burden. Indeed, they are not a burden but economically successful because they are full and over subscribed. If other schools are less popular, that is not an argument for denying parents the choice of an integrated school.
  Lord Kilclooney: I must explain, because I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. I did not say that those schools were a burden; I said that the Government in Northern Ireland has to finance three systems of education there—the state system, the integrated system and the Roman Catholic system, whereas in England there is only the one system. I never used the word "burden". I am saying that we have to finance more than they have to in England, which is the simple explanation why education costs are so much higher in Northern Ireland than they are in England.
  Lord Dubs: I understand what the noble Lord is saying, although I should have thought that the reason why education costs are higher in Northern Ireland could only very slightly be attributed to integrated education. If one considers the benefits of integrated education, on which we should not spend too much time in a debate on the budget, I would say that the benefit to the society of Northern Ireland was out of all proportion to the costs of integrated schools.
  One further point about integrated education is that the Government are paying for teacher training. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which teacher training is segregated on grounds of religion—not on a tripartite system, but with a Catholic teacher training establishment and a Protestant one.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: That is not quite true. Teacher training in the University of Ulster, over which I have the honour to preside, is integrated.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: That is welcome. However, with the exception of the example given by the noble Lord, most teacher-training in Northern Ireland is segregated. It seems contrary to the principles of higher education that there should be religious segregation—all the more so because some of those teachers will teach in integrated schools. Such a division seems wrong, and the Government fund it. All that I am saying is that, if the Government fund a system, they have a little leverage on the powers that be to make some progress. That is my plea.
  My comments on the railways will be much more popular, as I agree very much with what was said. In Britain we are still suffering from the vandalism
  GC 82
  perpetrated by the Beeching cuts. There are many areas of the country where people would dearly wish to restore the railways, although they are not always able to, as some have disappeared altogether. They can be restored more economically than the old system that they replaced.
  I would hate to see the lovely railway system along the north coast of Northern Ireland closed down and destroyed. It is an asset in terms of tourism, the economy and links between the two main cities in Northern Ireland. It would be most unfortunate if the Government did not feel able to continue that system. I only wish that they would say, "Yes, we will keep them and modernise them". The superb modernised system between Belfast and Dublin is one of the best railways not only in Ireland but also in Britain. If we can have a good system there, I do not see why we cannot have a decent, modern, effective and economic railway system linking the two main cities in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach, as evidenced by the consultation documents, of thinking of closing it.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I had not intended to speak on this order, but some of the matters raised have encouraged me to do so. There has been debate on the extent to which education costs derive from the fact that we have three parallel systems. We accept that having three systems increases the cost of delivering education; we live with that.
  The education system endeavours to cater for all children right across the board, which it does with considerable success. I declare an interest as a former primary school principal, but Northern Ireland compares favourably with the rest of the United Kingdom in its delivery of education. Despite that, we are now having the Costello report imposed on us. I do not have time to go into the detail of what it entails and its impact on the education system, nor is this the place for me to do so. But it is significant that when I asked what sort of infrastructure audit had been carried out of the current education provision, from which the Costello report would have to be implemented, I was told bluntly that there had been no infrastructural audit.
  My reason for rising to my feet is that it is absolutely intolerable that we have the sort of disruption that Costello will bring to the education system in Northern Ireland. We are being told that there has been no infrastructure audit and no real thought has been given to how Costello can gel with what is currently a fairly successful system. If that is the basis on which educational planning is being carried forward by this Government, how can we have any hope of proper financial planning or use of the finite resources that are available? I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that. My question derives from the statement to the effect that there has been no infrastructure audit of educational facilities in Northern Ireland. How can one make changes without having assessed one's starting point?

  GC 83
  My one other point relates to the issue of autism, raised by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Laird. There is a gap left where the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety between them fail autistic children. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on early intervention, and I have personal experience of how that can be successful. Early intervention is working fairly well within Northern Ireland. But there is a gap, because not all children are diagnosed—identified may be a better word—at an early age. With nine to 18 year-olds, to chose an arbitrary period, there is a huge gap.
  Young people in the home, with parents who want to do the best for them, may have such behavioural problems that it is an exceedingly difficult task. There is no one for children at that age to whom the parents can turn. There are no properly trained nurses to go out to the homes to give on the spot advice on how those young people can be catered for. That is a very sad and trying situation for families who encounter that difficulty. Will the Minister indicate where, within the budgetary facilities that are being discussed here today, there is planning to provide resources to fill that gap for the nine to 18 year-old autistic young people who have been missed out in the past?
  Viscount Brookeborough: I must apologise for not being here at the beginning of the sitting. I am not going to speak about any particular subject. We come back here every year and say the same things or a variation on the same things, and, to be honest, I have not seen one single major benefit come out of our long discussions. That is not just because the Government do not listen. We inevitably get changes in Ministers and changes of emphasis, and we are always waiting for the next step forward—for September, when we either will or will not get an Assembly back.
  There has been far too much inactivity through the Ministers, who are the only people who can action anything. I am not accusing them of being useless, or of anything like that. We have had some excellent Ministers; in fact, the more excellent they are, the quicker they are moved, which is also a problem. We seriously need somebody to get a grip on the infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was saying. That is not simple, but someone must get a grip on it, stop talking about it and stop looking at it as if it were something to be handed back next week or next month. I wish those issues could have been handed back so quickly, but we were talking about "next week or next month" in 1971 and 1972, and we are still talking about it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, referred to the region being as big as Hampshire or Dorset—and there are other very big counties in England. The Committee should consider the number of health boards, education boards and cross-border groups—which I am not against; it should consider the number of cross-border organisations, such as Waterways Ireland, the Rivers Agency, the Loughs Agency and so on. I shall tell the Committee where the cost goes: it goes because nobody has settled down, got a grip on things and made a decision.
  GC 84
  There have been numerous consultations about what to do with the health service, with regard to the boards, and what to do with the number of education and library boards. We even had one on the water system, considering the issue of fluoride. To be honest, the options have been there, and the governments of the day—and this happened with the Conservatives, too, so the issue is not about Labour—have simply sidelined the issues. While they continue to do that, we will be back next year with exactly the same problem.
  With Waterways Ireland and the Rivers Agency, for example, things are in a complete muddle. I can tell Members of the Committee that, because there is an incidence of that confusion down on Lough Erne. People do not know where the dividing line is between the two bodies. I was not going to mention this matter, but now I shall: there is a jetty at the Share Centre for handicapped people, on public ground. It was put up about 20 years ago, and it is now too dangerous to use. I have been on to Waterways Ireland, which has £7 million that it did not spend, but it absolutely refuses to move on the matter. I know that that body will say that it is consulting, because it told me that, and I have goodness knows how many letters. I have been on to the Rivers Agency, which said that the matter was nothing to do with it.
  That is bureaucracy of the highest order. With Waterways Ireland in Fermanagh in particular, I know a lot of people working in that region who say that the body is simply not allowed to produce policy within the system under their present leadership. That leadership has no interest whatever in being in Fermanagh—it was moved from Dublin.
  I can promise the Committee that the expenditure that we are discussing today is controlled by bureaucracy because nobody will get a grip on things. The sooner that someone gets a grip on things, the sooner we can sort things out.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: When I introduced the counties of Hampshire and Dorset, I had no idea whether they are well or badly run. I just put them forward as a population group which is virtually identical with the population of Northern Ireland. With Dorset and Hampshire, two bureaucracies would be involved, while there is one in Northern Ireland.
  I used the example of education because it was easier to get hold of the figure. There is a £1,300 million spend on it in Northern Ireland. Yes, there may be ways in which to chip at the figure—to say that it includes this and that that is not being taken account of and that the comparative figure may be a bit more. But I do not believe that they would meet.
  I am not saying that more is spent on education than ought to be spent. It may well be exactly as it ought to be. I am saying that the only advantage of noble Lords being here today is that many of us who live in England can say, "We are looking at this Northern Ireland order but what does it look like in England? How can we make some comparisons?".

  GC 85
  I suggest that there is a comparator and that there may be areas of service in which it could be seen as a benchmark and questions asked. I suspect that the bureaucracy issue will be one of them.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Fitt: I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in his expression of optimism in relation to Northern Ireland. Prior to his speaking, I heard voices from the past, since the Northern Ireland state came into being. When the state came into being, there have been people in charge of affairs who always want to wear the mantle of victimhood. There was someone always against them.
  I have sat in previous Northern Ireland parliaments and there was a time when the Catholic minority, the nationalist minority, felt that they were the victims. Now that that has been changed, to a large extent the Unionist Party feels that it is the victim. As I have listened today, I have felt like supporting the Government in what they decide to do in Northern Ireland. The state that exists there now has not been brought about by the British Government; it has been brought about by the Northern Ireland electorate, electing people they supported. For example, no one cast a vote to send all of us here today. Those who were politicians may have been voted for, but no one cast a vote to send us here. I know that in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, there is a revulsion at the very existence of this place.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right when a few weeks ago he put all the Northern Ireland orders he had received that morning on the Dispatch Box. I find it absolutely impossible to contend with all the paraphernalia that we receive from the Northern Ireland Office. No one, and particularly an individual such as myself, could possibly deal with every aspect of the legislation contained therein. It is different for the Unionist Party. Members of the Ulster Unionist Party here have secretarial assistance.
  We criticise many aspects of what the Government are doing in relation to legislation in Northern Ireland; for example, these orders. We have a half-time Assembly in Northern Ireland. Before these orders were printed, did the Northern Ireland Office have discussions with the elected representatives to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Did it ask for their opinion? The representatives are on some sort of a wage and they can say that they were the latest people to have felt the support of the Northern Ireland electorate.
  The orders have been drawn up possibly by civil servants. In the absence of an Assembly and the opinions of the Members, it must be left to civil servants. There is no other way of legislating for everyday happenings in Northern Ireland. By the way, I think that the Anti-social Behaviour Order and the Dangerous Wild Animals Order could be combined. However, I cannot see any part of Northern Ireland, particularly in West Belfast, which I know well, which
  GC 86
  could in any way implement the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour Order in Northern Ireland. There is some talk of putting tags on people who have been involved in that behaviour. Can you imaging kids running around Ballymurphy or—
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord must speak to the order before us.
  Lord Fitt: Yes, I know I have diverted. I was trying to illustrate that it is impossible for us to deal with the orders that we have coming in by every post. They should be dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its members have been elected and have more authority than, for example, noble Lords in this House. They can say that they sought the opinions of the electors. The two main political parties in control of Northern Ireland are not represented here. One of them is represented in the other place but the other—Sinn Fein—is not represented at all. I wonder what sort of input they had in the discussions that have led to the promulgation of these orders?
  Where do we go from here? I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was quite right when he talked about getting a grip on things. Now, to translate that into language that we understand, how does one get a grip on things? We have an Assembly in Northern Ireland that does not want to get a grip on anything. The members of the Assembly will be the people who should be taking decisions on these orders and will be, we hope, in September.
  Again, I can hear voices from the past, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. The political developments that have taken place in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement—the cross-border agreements—are not to the taste of everybody in Northern Ireland. Quite a lot of people in Northern Ireland see the cross-border agreements as being some form of concession to Sinn Fein, to the total exclusion of the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland.
  So what should we concentrate on before we begin to unravel and understand most of this? I think we should concentrate on trying to get the Assembly in Northern Ireland re-established. The people to talk to are not us. We have no influence in the streets and byways of Northern Ireland. The groups who should be talked to, if we can talk to them, are Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party. They hold the key to political progress in Northern Ireland. Aside from all the talking that we do here and the well-intentioned remarks that we make, it is those two political parties.
  By the way, did the Government talk to the SDLP or any other political party in Northern Ireland on these orders before they put them into print? If they did not, they should have. I do not believe that any criticism of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is justified. We have a civil service that has served the community in Northern Ireland well over many troublesome years. They are in this position now because there is no one else to accept the responsibility that they have to accept in relation to the promulgation of these orders. I can only advise the Leader of the House, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Northern

  GC 87
  Ireland, to use every endeavour to relieve this House and its individual Members of the burden of trying to go through these orders and to get the decisions taken where they should be taken, in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Lord Laird: The noble Lord referred to me in his speech. I wish to make the point that it is not that I, as an Ulster Unionist, am opposed to cross-border bodies, because it is quite something to have had a chairman of a cross-border body from the Ulster Unionist party. It is not that. It is that the cross-border bodies do not operate fairly, if they operated fairly, I would be totally in support of them. I am not a voice from the past. I am a great supporter and admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and his acumen for explaining things. However, I wish to clarify my position for the Committee.
  Baroness Amos: I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, more about relieving all of us of the burden of considering these orders in the detail that we must. I entirely agree with the sentiments that have been expressed in Grand Committee this afternoon and I share the regret that has been expressed by noble Lords that we have to consider these orders this afternoon.
  Members of the Committee will be well aware that we have been focusing on trying to reach agreement. We have urged the party to maintain its engagement over the summer. The Committee will also be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have said that efforts need to be made to step up the dialogue and discussions so that we can try to come to a resolution.
  I thank Members of the Committee for recognising that responding to today's debate will be something of a Herculean task. I shall do my best. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked questions about whether political parties had been consulted on the budget order. I can assure him that they were consulted.
  I shall start by addressing some of the more general points that have been made before moving on to the specific points. I shall start with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, with respect to the Barnett formula and so forth, before going on to some of the issues about efficiency that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others.
  The Barnett formula represents the mechanism for determining changes to the devolved budget. Thus, there is no difference between the resources that come through Barnett and other resources that are allocated to local ministries in order to address spending priorities in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised some specific points about the detail of the estimates, particularly the additionality of EU funds. The allocation of EU funds is factored into the sums set out in the estimates. The additionality of funds is validated by the Treasury to ensure that the full draw down is achieved.
  Regarding EU moneys more generally, it is important to appreciate that those estimates are a financial statement. The allocations made by various
  GC 88
  EU bodies are fully reported on in the various EU monitoring committee reports that are produced annually. Of course, that is a requirement by the European Commission auditors.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spoke about efficiency duplication, the efficiency review and bureaucracy in some detail, but it was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Molyneaux and others. On the efficiency review, we are committed to at least matching the efficiency targets. In numerical terms, that means achieving efficiency gains in excess of £500 million by 2007–08. In addition, administration costs will be held at the 2005–06 levels for 2006–07 and 2007–08.
  Some initial work has been undertaken. Members of the Committee will be pleased to learn that the rationalisation of back-office functions, such as finance and personnel, is a key area where savings can be delivered. The ongoing review of public administration addresses the relative costs of running Northern Ireland, which is an issue raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. The work includes benchmarking the costs of producing health and education with comparable areas in England and elsewhere.
  The use of consultants exercises the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The recent audit office report into the employment of consultants by Northern Ireland departments of course identified some shortcomings in procedures and recording systems. But the report also acknowledged the significant pressures that exist with the introduction of devolution, the creation of the four new departments and the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting. As I think that I made clear to the noble Lord when this was raised on the Floor of the House in a Starred Question, we are of course looking at the recommendations in that report in order to put them into effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised the broader question of consultation and the quality of that consultation, and more general concerns were raised by Members of the Committee. We carry out consultation precisely because it is important that we find out and understand what communities want. But Members of the Committee also need to recognise that we have a statutory requirement, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to carry out consultation. So it is something that the Government think is important, but it is also a statutory requirement.
  5.15 p.m.
  The issue of public administration was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The review was launched in 2002 and the noble Lord was concerned about where we have got to with it. It is the most far-reaching examination ever of how public services in Northern Ireland are organised and delivered and aims to deliver a more effective and efficient system of public administration to the people of Northern Ireland.
  In consultation with the main political parties it is planned to publish a firm proposals paper for consultation in the autumn of this year. The scale of

  GC 89
  the proposed reform will inevitably require a lengthy implementation phase, which will allow sufficient time for a return to devolution and for the local executive to influence the final outcome. Yesterday, my honourable friend Ian Pearson announced his view that a reduction in the number of district councils and health bodies would be appropriate. That, of course, will be a key issue for the consultation process.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised absenteeism. As a result of a recent PAC report, DFP has issued to all departments a new circular that puts in place a robust monitoring system which will address the problem at a much earlier stage through a trigger-point system. That will bring about a measurable improvement. The noble Lord also asked for the statistics relating to 2003–04. Those statistics are not yet available, but when they are I shall ensure that the noble Lord has a copy of them.
  As regards the pay dispute, I recognise that the dispute is having an impact on particular key services and is causing not only inconvenience but also some hardship to the public. We are working hard to secure an early settlement in order to return public services to their usual high standard. Last week, the management side presented a number of proposals to the trade union in an effort to break the deadlock. For its part, the trade union also tabled some proposals, which are being considered by the management side.
  However, talks between management of the Civil Service and representatives of the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance were adjourned by the trade union at lunchtime last Friday. That was because the trade union indicated that it did not believe that it could reach a settlement of the dispute on the basis of the overall pay remit set by the Government for the negotiations. The trade union has now sought an early meeting with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to seek to have the pay remit figure increased for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That request is now being considered and an early response will be sent to the trade union.
  On the more specific point of the impact that that dispute is having on the payments of subsidies and grants, NIPSA called a strike for administrative staff in payments branch, Orchard House, Derry/Londonderry. While the strike started on 12 March, on 6 July more than half of the staff taking part in the industrial action returned to work. The return to work of those staff will help the departments concentrate on priority work areas and, in particular, those cases where payments have been delayed due to queries.
  Despite the strike action, the Department for Agricultural and Rural Development has made many of the subsidy balance payments now due. The amount of subsidy processed since 12 May stands at £39.8 million. Around £20 million remains to be paid. That largely reflects query and penalty cases that have failed the automated cross-checks. Action is in hand to process those cases so that the majority of the still outstanding payments can be processed over the coming days.
  GC 90
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised concerns about what is happening to the health service in Northern Ireland. There is a regional programme of work being taken forward in 2004–05 to examine how pressures on hospitals can be eased.
  A number of Members of the Committee raised questions about education. The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Laird and Lord Maginnis, asked specific questions in relation to the review of post-primary education. I know that there are very strongly held and diverse views about academic selection in Northern Ireland. However, change is unavoidable. There are weaknesses in our current arrangements that must be addressed. The decline in pupil numbers cannot be ignored.
  The Government's review of post-primary education will build on the strengths of the current system offering both choice and flexibility and will provide all pupils with education that they see as relevant to their needs. All schools, including grammar schools, can have a place under the new arrangements. But those offering a traditional academic emphasis must also offer people access to a guaranteed minimum number of vocational courses.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not find it somewhat strange that at a time when this new Labour Government have abandoned the idea of turning grammar schools in Great Britain into comprehensive schools and have declared that they have no further ambition in that direction, they now seek to undermine the element within education in Northern Ireland that has been a huge success over so many years?
  Is it not inappropriate that the Government have no idea of the number of teacher or pupil hours that would be involved in moving children or teachers from one school to another? They just have not bothered to find out the impact of the Costello report. That is the difficulty we have. We believe that our educational system can stand on its own feet because it is a good system, but it is being destroyed without any preplanning.
  Baroness Amos: I do not agree with the noble Lord. He is not right when he talks about the Government abandoning plans in England and Wales where they have made absolutely clear that they want to achieve a balance between flexibility and choice, which is what they want to achieve in Northern Ireland as well.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: That means nothing.
  Baroness Amos: No, I do not agree with that. It does not mean nothing. It means that the Government are seeking to ensure that we have a system that puts excellence at the heart but which, at the same time, meets the needs of all pupils. To do that, we recognise that we must have a range of provisions. In my earlier comments, I made absolutely clear that all schools, including grammar schools, can have a place under the new arrangements. Those schools offering a traditional academic emphasis will also need to offer a guaranteed minimum number of vocational courses.

  GC 91
  If the noble Lord has looked at the education system in England and Wales he will know that in seeking to encourage specialisation in city academies some 10 per cent of pupils are drawn through selection. That is part of the method to enhance excellence and to draw people in from a wider area while, at the same, encouraging excellence in a local school. That mix of choice, flexibility and excellence is precisely what we would also like to see in Northern Ireland.
  As regards the Department for Education provision, the budget includes £3.2 million for the review of post-primary education in order to provide for ongoing groundwork to support implementation of revised arrangements. The questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, with respect to the knowledge that we have of what currently exists will be picked up through that review. But it will not he possible to estimate the total cost of those arrangements until decisions begin to emerge at a local level.
  The issue of integrated education was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Kilclooney, and my noble friend Lord Dubs. The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, made her view of what is happening at a local level absolutely clear. Integrated education is accorded the highest priority, but long-term planning of schools infrastructure needs to consider factors, such as rapidly-falling birth rates. Such factors have significant influences on school building provision.
  Regarding the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, about works for the schools estate, the order contains a specific provision of £26 million for minor works to improve the schools estate, including the removal of temporary classrooms and improved access for those with disabilities. That is in addition to the already substantial planned investment in the schools estate. On 27 April my honourable friend Barry Gardiner announced an investment programme covering 43 schools, including the funding of 12 schools through public/private partnership.
  The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked about children with autistic spectrum disorder and the noble Lord, Lord Laird, mentioned a specific case which, of course, I cannot address here. I understand that there will be an additional £0.5 million allocated to develop diagnostic assessment and early support services in 2004–05. The establishment of multi-disciplinary diagnostic and assessment teams will reduce waiting times for diagnosis and provide initial support for parents.
  DHSSPS is working closely with the Department for Education to implement the recommendations in the task group report on the education of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder and on the establishment of a centre of excellence in autism at Middletown.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about the student numbers cap. Currently, the Department for Employment and Learning is carrying out a public consultation exercise on the Higher Education Bill. The Minister with responsibility for employment and
  GC 92
  learning will wish to consider the issue of removing any cap on student numbers as part of that consultation exercise.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to planning. I fully appreciate the concerns raised by Members of the Committee on that issue. I would also point out that the planning service is now in its second year of a three-year programme to deliver fundamental reforms to the planning system. A number of key issues have already been addressed. Further significant progress will be achieved over the next six months.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I only made the point in relation to the strike. Had I been making some points about the planning service, I would have had to have declared an interest: I have had an application in for two-and-a-half years. That is why I stayed away from that point.
  Baroness Amos: I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, raised some concerns about the underspend in certain programmes and the Strategic Investment Board. Of £220 million of departmental underspend, some £157 million relates to slippage in capital programmes. I know that raises some bigger questions about why there has been that degree of slippage in capital programmes, but all of us will recognise that it is very unusual for a capital programme not to experience slippage.
  The Strategic Investment Board was established in April last year to facilitate the development of key infrastructure programmes. The focusing of high calibre expertise and advice has enabled us to take forward a number of significant infrastructure investment programmes in key areas, including water treatment, education and roads.
  I turn to the railways, an issue which I know is of concern to many noble Lords. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney, and my noble friend Lord Dubs. Closure of the railways on the non-core lines is only one option which is still out for consultation. Ministers need to take on board all the options and consider the economic, social and environmental impact in the wider budgetary context. Noble Lords will recognise that we need to address a number of pressing issues. The consultation exercise follows a statutory requirement and will conclude on 23 July. We will of course have to ensure that we achieve maximum value for money.
  5.30 p.m.
  On the issue of investment in the roads, a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, the funding allocated to the road service as part of the regional transportation strategy will see significant improvements on the major roads mentioned by the noble Lord.
  Concerns were also expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney, about the cost of the civic forum. The provision in the order is for the full-year costs of the body. The figure quoted for previous

  GC 93
  years reflects actual costs during suspension, hence the apparent increase. We all hope that suspension will cease, so the approach we have taken in the budget is consistent with our wish for an early restoration of devolution. In the event that the resources are not needed by the civic forum, they will be reallocated to other priority areas. So I can reassure noble Lords that the money will not simply be allocated and then not spent. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, also spoke of the wider role of the civic forum. That will form part of the review and of the talks.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about funding for the North/South bodies. Indeed, the noble Lord has written to me on many occasions about this matter. All budgets for North/South bodies are agreed jointly by the government of both the North and the South. The 2004 budgets for each of the bodies have now been jointly agreed. Under current arrangements, North/South bodies are required to operate on a care and maintenance basis only and, in this context, budget proposals should not include any substantive development costs. I am well aware of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, about the level of the budget allocated for the Ulster Scots Agency in 2004. He has tabled a number of Written Questions on the matter.
  Lord Laird: When the noble Baroness says that the budgets have been "agreed", with whom have they been agreed? One of the planks of the current political process in Northern Ireland is consultation. I believe in consultation since I will talk to anyone about almost anything. But no discussion or agreement has taken place between the agency, the implementation bodies, the language body and both governments. That is the point I cannot understand.
  As for care and maintenance, the language body seems to be the only one to suffer this business of care and maintenance. Waterways Ireland is to have a 40 per cent increase in its budget for the year 2004. It seems rather unfair that we should be the only body to suffer from care and maintenance. It is not a case of taking new territories. The Ulster Scots Agency was seeking to continue with a policy which it has now had to stop.
  Baroness Amos: I think that the noble Lord and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. I have written to the noble Lord on a number of occasions setting out the consultation which has taken place and the fact that the relevant sponsoring departments have agreed this budget. I am aware that the noble Lord then requested the minutes of meetings which were held. I have explained to the noble Lord in the form of a Written Answer that under data protection legislation it is not possible to supply those minutes. Given that, I think that we will have to disagree. Although I have written to the noble Lord a number of times, it is clear that he does not accept the explanations I have given.
  GC 94
  Perhaps I may repeat that the relevant sponsoring departments have agreed that the current budget allocation is an appropriate amount to meet the agency's basic care and maintenance needs for 2004.
  Lord Laird: Again, agreed with whom? As a former chairman of the body, not to get access to minutes to prove that there was consultation seems somewhat unusual. There was no consultation in the sense of a discussion about policy. There was a telephone call to tell the agency what would be its budget and what had been agreed with the Irish. In my opinion, that does not constitute consultation, discussion or agreement. I cannot understand why, when policies were working successfully last year, they were not allowed to continue. If there was a good reason for their not being allowed to continue, if someone had a better policy, we should have liked to have heard about it. But to do that without discussion, consultation or agreement is crass in the extreme.
  Baroness Amos: Perhaps I can remind the noble Lord that no money was taken away from the Ulster-Scots Agency. The agency received a year-on-year increase. It was not as high as the agency wanted, but many organisations find themselves in that situation. When they receive a year-on-year increase, they make decisions about their priorities. That is all that I can tell the Committee at this point. I am happy to maintain my correspondence with the noble Lord on that point, but I must tell him that I can add nothing further to what I have already said.
  On the issue of minutes, again I made clear to the noble Lord in a Written Answer on 23 April that, under Part 2, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers internal discussion and advice, it would be inappropriate for the Government to disclose documentation relating to discussions on the budget for the language body.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Perhaps I am slow on the uptake, but I should like the Minister to explain in more detail because I genuinely fail to understand how access to minutes of a public body can come under the scope of data protection to the extent that the democratic process can be undermined so that public representatives in this and another place do not have access to the minutes relating to the functioning of a public body. I fail to understand.
  Baroness Amos: Clearly, if a public body is holding an open meeting discussing its budget, that information is widely available. If there is an internal discussion between the body and its parent department—Members of the Committee who have operated in public bodies will understand this—that is a matter of internal discussion and advice, which then goes to Ministers and is not in the public domain. There is no problem here. There is no other body in which that is recognised as being a problem.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, also raised the issue of the staff of the North-South Ministerial Council secretariat having contact with the Ulster Political

  GC 95
  Research Group. Staff from the secretariat, acting in their capacity as officials of the Irish Government and OFMDFM, have helped to facilitate meetings between members of the Ulster Political Research Group as part of the overall policy of community engagement endorsed by the British and Irish Governments. No other support or funding has been provided by the Government.
  The noble Lord also raised the issue of funding for festivals. Review of funding for festivals has been undertaken to inform future strategy for government support of festivals. The report has been considered by Ministers and a policy and guidance framework based on the report's recommendations is being developed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked specifically about the removal of industrial derating. We have discussed the topic before in Grand Committee. I remind the noble Lord that firms will have had more than eight years from when the policy decision to remove industrial derating was first announced to prepare for the payment of full rates.
  Finally, two other matters were raised. The first was the issue of economic inequalities between the north and the south, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. The Republic of Ireland economy has indeed grown dramatically during the past decade but it was starting from a very low base. It has also had fiscal and monetary autonomy, which Northern Ireland does not have, but the main economic indicators in both north and south are still heading in the same, favourable direction. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the specific issue of working to help those who want to cease a life of violence. I shall have to write to him on that.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  5.41 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  The proposals contained in the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 represent measures to protect the public from behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The proposals focus on the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders. They form part of a wider range of measures, including restorative and rehabilitative responses, with the aim of ensuring that the justice system responds appropriately to behaviour which can blight communities and that people in Northern Ireland can enjoy a quality of life that is not ruined by fear of anti-social behaviour.
  Anti-social behaviour is a matter of concern to the people of Northern Ireland. The 2001 Northern Ireland Crime Survey reported that more than half of
  GC 96
  those who responded felt that anti-social behaviour had increased in their area in the previous two years. Fear can have a very disabling effect, particularly for those who are older or more vulnerable, but it is important to note that in this survey younger respondents felt anti-social behaviour to be even more of a problem than those who were older.
  The Government fully believe that we must now address the issue legislatively. That decision is informed by findings in Northern Ireland and evidence from practice elsewhere. In June last year, an anti-social behaviour count day in Northern Ireland recorded 3,150 incidents of anti-social behaviour.
  In a study commissioned by the Scottish Executive to monitor the use of ASBOs, 62 per cent of local authorities who responded reported a perceived improvement in the behaviour of those given ASBOs. In Manchester, available evidence shows that 60 per cent of those who have ASBOs have not been prosecuted at all, either for breach or for any other offence.
  Innovative ways of using ASBOs in England and Wales—for example, in dealing with the blight of illegal advertising—have been recognised in a recent survey by the environmental group, Tidy Northern Ireland, which identified areas where graffiti and illegal advertising were a significant problem.
  Anti-social behaviour orders were introduced in England and Wales in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The provisions were added to by the Police Reform Act 2002, which gave criminal courts the power to issue an ASBO on conviction of a criminal offence and increased the number of bodies that could make application, and, most recently, by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Among other things, it provided that on ASBOs made on conviction, evidence used does not have to have been admissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted.
  In April 2002, a consultation paper was published by the then Secretary of State on community safety in Northern Ireland. Issues identified that needed to be addressed included street violence, low-level neighbourhood disorder and anti-social behaviour. The resultant Community Safety Strategy published in March 2003 identified that anti-social behaviour legislation in England and Wales needed to be examined to see if it was appropriate for Northern Ireland. In the context of the findings in Northern Ireland and evidence from elsewhere, this draft legislation is brought forward.
  Most respondents supported what the Government aimed to do. There were concerns from organisations involved with children. The points that they made were considered very carefully, and, as a result of the consultations, the Government included in the draft order the provision for courts to have discretion with regard to reporting restrictions for young people. The wording of the legislation clarifies that, where reporting restrictions are applied, they cover the whole application from start to finish.

  GC 97
  5.45 p.m.
  The Government concluded that, in the interests of the protection of all in the community, it was necessary to bring forward this legislation for consideration. It is worth noting that an application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the consultation and the process that the Government followed, brought by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, was refused. Indeed, the High Court found "no arguable case" for any of the arguments put before it.
  It is essential in Northern Ireland that there is a partnership approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour. The draft order allows initially for three partners: the police, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and district councils. Partnership involving the Housing Executive allows the use of ASBOs without conviction to deal with anti-social behaviour in housing estates where the Housing Executive is the major landlord. Partnership involving district councils will allow anti-social behaviour relating to noise pollution, enforcement of byelaws and licensing laws to be targeted. It may be possible for other bodies to become partners in future, just as the range of partner bodies in England and Wales has expanded.
  The draft order provides for the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders as a statutory measure in Northern Ireland. It provides that where there is no associated conviction, the police, the relevant district council or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive would be able to seek an ASBO on application to a magistrates' court in respect of anti-social behaviour. It also provides that ASBOs may be made on conviction in criminal proceedings where the court is satisfied that the convicted person has acted in an anti-social manner and that an ASBO is necessary to protect persons within Northern Ireland from further anti-social acts by him. It further provides that breach of an ASBO would be a criminal offence subject to a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine or both.
  The proposals will form part of the wider range of tools to deal with this kind of behaviour and it is important to note that the Criminal Justice Review proposed a range of restorative and rehabilitative responses to low level crime which are being implemented, including youth conferencing and the police's youth diversion scheme, which involves restorative cautioning for young people under 17.
  The measures proposed here do not aim to replace existing measures but to complement them. It is essential that the Government send a clear message that anti-social behaviour is not acceptable and that there are effective sanctions if people choose to act in this way. The Government's aim is to continue to build a safe and tolerant society for all the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the draft order to the Grand Committee.
  GC 98
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for so clearly laying out the order. In passing, I thank her for her patience and clarity in responding to our previous debate.
  Reading Hansard from another place, I noticed that David Trimble said that he was surprised that Northern Ireland had waited six years for ASBOs. First, I want to make it quite clear that my party welcomes ASBOs as another weapon in the judicial armoury. There are many areas and occasions in Northern Ireland when ASBOs will be of value.
  However, I am concerned that it could take up to three months from application to the delivery an order. Given how I see ASBOs being used in Northern Ireland, with younger people and in relation to unruliness in accommodation, and so on, the need is pretty urgent when such situations arise. Indeed, a certain friend of mine was having a terrible time with the people above him in a Housing Executive apartment, with banging, thumping and crashing at night causing a huge amount of noise. He could not get anyone, including the Housing Executive, to do anything, and ultimately went to the paramilitaries. That was very successful; it only took a few weeks. That is rather like the cynical, sad story that on the Shankill and Falls roads at one time you could get a divorce for £250.
  I hope that the efficiency of delivery of ASBOs will be better than three months from the time of request. I should also like reassurance from the noble Baroness that the order will bring Northern Ireland up to date and in line with the legislation in Great Britain: the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. I hope that the order incorporates the 1998, 2002 and 2003 Acts.
  On a slightly more negative note—although I do not mean to be negative about ASBOs—I should like some information about what the attendant bureaucracy will cost in sterling, but more importantly in time, especially police time. I should not like to think that this is going to be another heavy bureaucratic load on the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could enlighten me a little on that, especially as I know that the Government are continually looking for reasons to reduce policing in Northern Ireland. We do not want to introduce another heavy bureaucratic load on the police service when we are talking about having to reduce the level of policing.
  However, on the whole, my party welcomes ASBOs. We hope that the Northern Ireland system will allow them to be delivered and used far more effectively than, I understand, they have been in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I, too, thank the noble Baroness for setting out the parameters of ASBOs. We, too, accept that there is increasing cause for concern because of the fear that loutish behaviour can

  GC 99
  cause. I have seen a great improvement in the environment in Northern Ireland since I was last there five years ago. I am sure that that helps to counter the worst forms of anti-social behaviour. If people have a nice environment, they tend to behave better.
  As we have heard, we have had legislation in England since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and it has taken a long time for that to be initiated in Ireland. Groups in Northern Ireland have significant funds distributed to them of about £3.3 million to solve locally the problems of anti-social behaviour. Of course, there are ways of dealing with anti-social behaviour other than slapping on orders, and I shall refer to them in a moment. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Review talked of other measures, such as restorative justice, as a means of dealing more productively with low-level crime.
  The preference on our Benches would be to implement acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) before dashing for an ASBO. They have been a success in places such as Islington. If the Committee will allow me, I shall give it an idea of how they have worked there. ABCs, as I shall call them, are voluntary agreements between young people, their parents or carer, and the agencies involved—perhaps landlords, the police, schools, social worker and so on—that certain behaviour is unacceptable and that the young person will stop it.
  Their behaviour is monitored over six months and, if the ABC is breached, there are a number of possibilities, from moving to a notice seeking possession of the home, to an ASBO or extending the ABC to some other measure, such as referral to a youth offending team. They are highly effective, quick and cheap to implement, and they involve the community around the young people, supporting them to reform, rather than labelling them as bad.
  The good points about ABCs as opposed to ASBOs are that they do not involve the courts, so they are a more practical option for local authorities that want to take quick, cost-effective action, and they are not a step on the criminal justice ladder for the young person involved. They require agencies to work together, which is essential in tackling the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. As ABCs are voluntary and offender-centred, they require the young person to take responsibility for, and to tackle, their behaviour, and get them appropriate support. Different solutions are found in each case rather than taking a blanket approach—for example, curfews may not be the right answer if the problem is noise from within the home. As ABCs are voluntary, they need to be imposed, so no evidence chain is required. They can be used to nip trouble in the bud rather than waiting for the serious offending that requires an ASBO.
  Part of the acceptable behaviour contract is monitoring by appropriate agencies, such as the police, landlords and schools, which can itself be the evidence-gathering necessary for an ASBO, should the ABC fail. Even if people favour ASBOs, they can use ABCs in the interim. Far from being a soft option on anti-social behaviour, the ABC initiative
  GC 100
  shows that the contracts work. They have been endorsed by the Home Office as a national model. I wonder whether this will be part of the proposals that the Government have in mind. Perhaps the Minister will consider extending the scheme to Northern Ireland.
  The Minister has explained how ASBOs will be delivered in Northern Ireland. Will the police become involved only with orders in relation to formal criminal prosecutions? Will the Housing Executive become involved only in relation to activities within public housing estates? Will district councils become involved with ASBOs only in relation to their own property, such as parks, or as part of their jurisdiction on noise pollution?
  The Liberal Democrats do not oppose ASBOs in principle, but we have some concerns about the circumstances in which they can be used and the level of seriousness of offence before an order is made.
  Baroness Blood: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this order. First, let me say that nobody in Northern Ireland is opposed to a measure that will bring some form of law and order to our Province. Lawlessness is rife in Northern Ireland; it must be looked at and attended to with great urgency. But I have some concerns with the order in its present form in Northern Ireland. I want to raise six points, on which I will be as brief as possible.
  The noble Baroness has already referred to the judicial case involving the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People. That raises some concerns. The commissioner's office was approached by almost all the leading children's organisations in Northern Ireland. They expressed concerns about the speed with which the measures were introduced in Northern Ireland and the fact that there was inadequate consultation. To my mind, the issues raised by the commissioner's office have not been responded to satisfactorily by the Government. I received an e-mail yesterday from the Northern Ireland Rights Commission, which has received no response to date, about which it is very disappointed.
  I have a major concern that the ability in Northern Ireland to "name and shame" children raises many issues. It makes them very vulnerable to paramilitary punishment beatings. As many noble Lords know, I have worked in this area for many years. I would be very concerned that a measure such as an ASBO would be used against a child, whose name would become public knowledge, with the result that they would be the victim of paramilitarism or displaced to another area.
  As we have already discussed, public housing in Northern Ireland is mainly provided by one body: the Housing Executive. We all know that housing in Northern Ireland is split along sectarian lines. I travelled to America two years ago to look at how displacement was dealt with there. They had a displacement policy whereby if someone in a neighbourhood was bad, they were moved on to the next one. That is fine if there are more than 100 neighbourhoods. But in the area in which I live, there are six neighbourhoods. I would be very

  GC 101
  concerned if an order was made against a young person and he was moved on. I cannot see that working. I raised the matter with the Minister in the other place and he assured me that it would work. From my knowledge on the ground, I cannot see how it would work, because if a young person is named and shamed and has to move on, that would probably mean that his entire family would have to move on.
  I am a member of a health and social services health board. We have had paramilitary people circulating the names of young people who have had to be taken into our facilities for safekeeping. I am really worried that this aspect of the ASBO legislation raises the issue of putting the names of children over the age of 10 into the public domain. That could mean the destruction of their education and of the whole family in the housing. I am talking mainly about Housing Executive estates.
  One of my biggest concerns is the question of who will police this. We are continually told that the PSNI is stretched to capacity. I am inundated by people ringing me to say that they called the police to be told that there was no manpower and that no one was available, and who were asked whether they could wait. I have had pensioners ring me about burglaries where they have had to wait three days for a response. I wonder who will be the leading light who will come in and scoop up all these young people. There is a real problem with young people on the streets of some of the big cities in Northern Ireland who are causing major concerns. I am worried about who will police it.
  In Northern Ireland, as in the United Kingdom, it is a criminal offence to drop litter. We have signs all over the place and yet we have a huge litter problem. I drove through the main parade area on 12 July and my car felt like a tank, it was pushing so much litter in front of it. Hundreds of tonnes of litter were dropped and I do not know of anyone who was charged. If one goes around Belfast one will see why it is getting a name as a dirty city. Litter is being dropped everywhere, even though we have huge signs saying that offenders can be prosecuted. But, to my knowledge, no one has ever been charged. Similarly, we have a byelaw in Northern Ireland saying that people cannot drink in certain public places. That law is flouted daily, sometimes within sight of the PSNI. I have seen it myself. But no charges have ever been made.
  My main concern about this order is naming and shaming children and bringing their names into the public domain. In Northern Ireland that can be an extremely dangerous thing to do. We are doing a lot of work within our communities on restorative justice and are trying to bring children and young people in and give them a different outlook on life. I am worried that they will be criminalised by this.
  My other big problem with this order is who is going to police it. We are told that the police are already stretched. Are we going to recruit some of the community police that we heard about yesterday? In the United Kingdom, 20,000 community police are to be recruited. If that is the case, it is grand. I am all for patrols going round my area taking up the people who are causing all the trouble.
  GC 102
  While I understand the rules of Grand Committee, given the serious doubts that have been raised by all children's organisations in Northern Ireland, surely the Government should postpone the introduction of this legislation until its full impact has been assessed and a full and fair consultation process has been undertaken.
  Lord Fitt: I associate myself with the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. I made some facetious reference to this order earlier. On reading it today, I think that it will be very difficult to implement it in certain areas and estates in Northern Ireland. Let us take the example of a young boy who is creating mayhem in an estate such as Ballymurphy or Turf Lodge, defying the wishes of the people on that estate, and whose father is a member of a paramilitary organisation. Is there any way in which an order can be implemented against the wishes of his father?
  Recently, the Northern Ireland papers were full of stories of the INLA, a paramilitary organisation, which had taken it upon itself to police Ardoyne. It was beating up young people in the area and accusing them of anti-social behaviour. Two or three of the young boys were so badly beaten up, terrified and harassed that they hanged themselves. The Northern Ireland papers were full of reports on the issue. The paramilitaries in those areas have taken it upon themselves to decide what types of activity will be permitted in the area.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, said that she feels that the legislation has come far too quickly given the situation in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether adequate discussion took place with the PSNI. Was it asked whether it was prepared to police this order and to deal with all its possible side effects? I cannot see members of the PSNI going into estates under the control of paramilitaries, some of which are loyalist and some of which are republican. It is a fact of life in Northern Ireland that the PSNI is totally excluded from those areas.
  I noticed a detail about young boys harassing neighbours. The neighbours are at risk as well. If a young boy's mother complains to the local authority or the police, they can find themselves in extreme danger. The answer given to this is the same as all other times when we have discussed these matters: that there should be no "no go" areas in Northern Ireland. But we have to face the fact that there are "no go" areas in Northern Ireland. Young hooligans in them can get away with effective murder: seven young boys were beaten up by a paramilitary organisation, the INLA, in the Ardoyne area.
  The noble Baroness asked for further discussion on the order before it is implemented. I support her expression of concern. I hope that it is possible to have further discussion that will make this order in any way acceptable in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Hylton: I follow my noble friend Lady Blood. It would have been far better to have had a tailor-made order suited to the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. For that reason, I agree with my

  GC 103
  noble friend that there would be much merit in postponing the implementation of the order until some of the detailed problems can be sorted out. There are three problems that I wish to mention.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the time required to obtain an order. Perhaps there may be a solution to that in that I hope that an interim order can be obtained much more quickly than the full-blown one. Secondly, how will these orders relate to restorative justice? By that, I do not simply mean police cautioning. I am referring to matters such as voluntary agreements that have already been mentioned and the relationship between the person complained of and the youth offending team. Under the heading of restorative justice, it would be very good if some of those who have behaved in an anti-social way were involved in repairing the damage that they had done; for example, removing graffiti that they had put up. If they could also be brought to sufficient consideration of their behaviour, they would become willing to apologise to those who have suffered from it. Those are all forms of repairing and restoring the damage that individuals have caused.
  Lastly, on matters relating to breaches of orders, I notice that these can involve imprisonment for up to six months. I question the effect of that in practice. It is a relatively short sentence and it is bound to disrupt the schooling of those who are still, in theory at least, attending school. What will be the impact on people aged 10 to 16? Will they be placed in youth custody centres? Have the Government thought through the question of the breach of orders?
  Lord Glentoran: I had prepared a question for the Minister about how ASBOs would be policed in paramilitary controlled areas. I did not put it because, while I am a great admirer of the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, and have taken her advice on a number of occasions and will continue to do so, the whole of Northern Ireland is not a paramilitary area. There are many urban areas of Northern Ireland where ASBOs could be a useful adjunct to the judicial system. Of course, all members of the Committee understand that ASBOs would be almost impossible to use in certain areas.
  Lord Laird: I welcome the draft Anti-social Behaviour Order. I firmly support the measures taken against anti-social behaviour to restore stability to communities. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the protection of the human rights of young people, families and elderly people in communities throughout Northern Ireland whose lives have been blighted by anti-social behaviour. The Government must be less complacent about the problem of anti-social behaviour in Northern Ireland than it has been in the past six years. They must keep the working of the ASBOs in constant view and make promptly any changes that are required.
  Will any of the lessons learnt from best practice in England and Wales be applied to the introduction of this legislation in Northern Ireland? Will there be, for
  GC 104
  example, an anti-social behaviour unit at the NIO as there is at the Home Office? I welcome the draft order. I consider it a step in the right direction.
  Baroness Amos: I thank the noble Lords who have spoken and welcome the positive comments that have been made about the need for anti-social behaviour orders, while recognising the concerns expressed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of why this has taken so long. Members of the Committee will know that local authorities in England and Wales had powers in relation to housing, education, policing and other areas within their control that did not apply to district councils in Northern Ireland. It was therefore difficult to see how provisions in the 1998 order could map on to the Northern Ireland position. There was also a desire to see how these provisions operated in England and Wales. Picking up the point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Laird, we wanted to learn from the experience of England and Wales.
  Changes have been made to the 1998 legislation by the Police Reform Act 2002 and, most recently, by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. In the light of these changes, the success of ASBOs in England and Wales and the fact that the community safety strategy that was published in March last year identified that the legislation in England and Wales needed to be examined to see whether it was appropriate for Northern Ireland, it was decided to bring forward legislation for Northern Ireland now to replicate the provisions for England and Wales in a form that reflects Northern Ireland's housing and local government structures.
  6.15 p.m.
  It is important to note that in England and Wales practioners' funding costs have gone down as they have gained experience in relation to anti-social behaviour orders. It is important to strike the right balance, avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and having a robust process in place.
  On the issues around the difficulty of implementing this order in Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other Members of the Committee spoke about this—an anti-social behaviour order does not require the consent of a child's parent for an order to be made. If a child who is the subject of an ASBO breaches the order, he or she would be liable for prosecution anywhere in Northern Ireland. The police in Northern Ireland are fully engaged in this process and are involved in the planning. All three partners can enforce an anti-social behaviour order.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the use of police resources. Other Members of the Committee were also concerned about the impact of this on the PSNI. ASBOs can save police time, much of which is spent catching persistent offenders or, more particularly, dealing with the offences that they commit. Many offenders come to court with 100 appearances against their names. Taking those people out of their offending patterns, taking them out

  GC 105
  of the areas where they regularly commit offences, will enable the police to take action against them simply for being in an area or undertaking an activity from which they are barred. The police will not have to catch them committing an offence. That will save substantial amounts of police time and enable them to focus on driving down crime. In a recent survey, the PSNI found that 85 per cent of burglaries in south Belfast were carried out by 15 individuals. Dealing with those people and those patterns of behaviour will start to make a real change to the figures and to the crimes that add up to a host of human tragedies.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, was particularly concerned about the issue of enforcement, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is not our view that we should not deal with anti-social behaviour because doing so would highlight the activities of youngsters who would gain unwelcome attention from paramilitaries. The argument that convictions highlight people's criminal activities could be made against the entire criminal code but it does not follow that we should abandon the criminal code. However, as a result of the consultation, we took on board the fact that, when appropriate, the court should be able to impose reporting restrictions in order to achieve an appropriate response to provide some degree of protection. I hope that that demonstrates that the consultation processes are valid.
  On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, about ABCs, they are written voluntary agreements between people involved in anti-social behaviour and authorities such as the police and housing departments. They were introduced in December 1999 in the Borough of Islington so they are a comparatively recent development. They are now widespread throughout police force areas in England and Wales. They are designed to complement ASBOs but have an attendant flexibility due to being voluntary. They do not require legislation. We hope that they will be taken on board with ASBOs rather than it being a matter of there being one or the other.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The point is that if ABCs are used in the first instance one does not have to put an ASBO on a bit later. I would prefer the encouragement of those being implemented rather than going the full stretch to an ASBO.
  Baroness Amos: I recognise the point being made by the noble Baroness. It may be that in the case of the 15 individuals who I mentioned earlier, who are persistent offenders, ABCs are not appropriate. However, as a degree of prevention before young people get to the point where one has to use an ASBO, an ABC is appropriate. The point is that there are a number of tools in the armoury. There is a degree of flexibility, and a certain judgment is required about which is most appropriate.
  I remind the Committee that these are civil orders, not criminal orders, although a breach of the order is a criminal offence. On the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the Housing
  GC 106
  Executive will be able to use the orders against tenants and against private owners in areas where it is the chief landlord. District councils will be able to use them where there is anti-social behaviour in their areas.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, also asked whether councils would only get orders regarding their own properties. A council can apply if a property of an adjoining council is a problem. An ASBO can apply throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. In seeking an ASBO, identification will be made at that point about where it will apply. It can apply to the whole of Northern Ireland.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, raised a series of very important questions. Indeed, would like to thank her for recognising that it is not an easy environment in which to work. That is why a number of noble Lords have welcomed what is being proposed here, despite the concerns that are being expressed. On the issue of the Human Rights Commission, I understand that it has had a meeting with officials on this issue.
  On the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, first, in relation to the challenge made by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, I am, of course, aware that he sought leave to apply for judicial review of the Minister's decision to put this draft order before Parliament for approval. Both the applicant and the Government presented arguments. The commissioner failed to persuade Mr Justice Girvan that there was an arguable case in any of the issues raised in support of the application for leave. This included the issues raised in relation to consultation. The issues raised were fully dealt with by Mr Justice Girvan in his judgment in the application for leave to apply for judicial review. In relation to consultation, he said:
  "A decision by the Minister to consult in the way in which he did could not be considered irrational or unlawful".
  On the issue of civil procedure, with its lesser safeguards, this is not the case. In a case, Clingham and McCann, the House of Lords accepted the justification and good sense of ASBOs, which are intended to protect the fundamental rights of the community that suffers from anti-social behaviour. ASBO procedures are subject to due process in court and the anti-social behaviour must be proven to the criminal standard, which was held by the House of Lords in McCann. Any proceedings for breach of an ASBO will be criminal proceedings.
  In relation to possible imprisonment in Northern Ireland, if a child breaches an ASBO and goes to court, he or she will be offered a youth conference. Youth conferencing was introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Review and involves the child and its family and the victim, if the victim wishes it. The aim is that a plan will be drawn up and taken through, which can involve reparation and restitution.
  On the issue of the naming and shaming, about which the noble Baroness is clearly very concerned, the order gives the court discretion to impose reporting restrictions when making an ASBO against a child, as I have already mentioned. The wording of the

  GC 107
  legislation is clear that the whole of the proceedings is covered. The restrictions cover television and radio broadcasts as well as newspaper reports, which goes beyond the position in England and Wales. Courts will not act carelessly and will be in a position to make a decision on a case-by-case basis. The Government are providing a statutory measure with all of the safeguards in law so that people do not turn to those who would mete out paramilitary-style justice.
  On the provision of public housing and the sectarian split, an ASBO can be used to stop someone being in an area where he has been acting in an anti-social way and the court decides that an order is necessary for the protection of persons from further anti-social behaviour. However, the sanctions must be reasonable and proportionate, and the court, as a public body, must interpret the order in a way that is human rights compliant.
  On the issue of whether an ASBO might result in homelessness, it is not inconceivable but highly unlikely that a court applying the proportionality test would conclude that a person should be excluded from their home, though if alternative accommodation was available that might be appropriate.
  I believe that I have dealt with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, in relation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland being stretched. But I underline the fact that the approach is multi-agency and that the applying partner will have the power to enforce an ASBO.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the issue of interim ASBOs, which will enable a court to order an immediate stop to anti-social behaviour. That protects the public more quickly and reduces the scope for witness intimidation, sending a clear message to the community that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated. It removes the opportunity for the behaviour to continue while the application is being processed.
  On the issue of the order being tailor-made, I made it clear that this was a matter of learning from what has happened in England and Wales. The measures have been consulted on, and they do not set aside restorative justice orders. I repeat—measures must be reasonable and proportionate.
  I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on lesson learning. As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about whether we shall have more young people going to prison, I hope that that will not be the case. It is important to emphasise that in Northern Ireland, if a child breaches an ASBO and goes to court, he or she will be given the option of a youth conference—as I said, in relation to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. If it becomes a matter of custody, the place of custody would be a juvenile centre for 10 to 17 year-olds. But I should like Members of the Committee to remember the availability of the youth conference, which was one of the recommendations of the criminal justice review.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  6.28 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  The draft order makes proposals for new legislation in two areas of concern—"hate crime" and "car crime". Hate crime deals with crimes motivated or aggravated by hatred of race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. Car crime deals with the specific and often misnamed area of "joyriding". Hate crime has seen worrying increases in Northern Ireland in recent times—a quadrupling of numbers in the last five years—and joyriding has frequently been a plague on the lives of some communities.
  Racist attacks have increased from 93 in 1998–99 to 453 in 2003–04. Alongside what has become regular reportage of racist incidents in Northern Ireland is the fact that the rate of racial incidents per head of the minority ethnic population is estimated as being almost double that in England and Wales. There have also been worrying increases in attacks against the gay community. A recent attack in Northern Ireland ended in the horrific murder of a completely innocent man, Mr Ian Flanagan, for which the perpetrators quite rightly received life sentences. The disabled have also been increasingly victimised. Attacks based on religion will also be covered by our proposals.
  On car crime, the offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, the nearest current approximation to the offence we are now targeting, has been between 2,000 and 3,000 over the past two years. Dangerous driving offences have increased by 44 per cent in the past year.
  Hate crime and car crime are areas of pressing concern for Northern Ireland. Incidents have been seen across Northern Ireland. They are issues which cross boundaries and are faced by all communities. The time is right to legislate.
  On "hate crime", the draft order will provide courts with powers to impose heavier sentences when an offence is aggravated by hostility based on the victim's actual or presumed religion, race, disability or sexual orientation. When there has been such aggravation, the proposals will require sentencers to state that in court and to treat this as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
  The maximum penalties which can be imposed in what are, by and large, crimes of violence are being increased across the board. For example, sentences for grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and putting someone in fear of violence will increase from five to seven years, common assault from one year to two years' imprisonment, harassment from six months to two years' imprisonment, and criminal damage from 10 to 14 years' imprisonment. The draft order also adds sexual orientation and disability to the list of groups currently protected under public order legislation. In

  GC 109
  many respects, the "hate crime" provisions are bringing Northern Ireland's laws up to the same level as is already the case in England and Wales.
  The draft order creates an offence of aggravated vehicle taking based on the taking of a vehicle without consent, and it then being driven dangerously, or causing an accident which results in injury, damage to property, or damage to the vehicle. The maximum penalty will be up to five years' imprisonment. The draft order also creates an offence of causing death or grievous bodily injury when committed as part of the new offence of aggravated vehicle taking. The maximum penalty will be up to 14 years' imprisonment. The draft order also increases the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two to five years' imprisonment. Again, the creation of these offences brings Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales.
  The form in which the draft proposals are presented to the Grand Committee today have been influenced by public consultation. The Government undertook three consultation exercises in developing this legislation. Two separate policy consultations were held on race and sectarian crime legislation in Northern Ireland, and one on road traffic offences and penalties. These were then brought together into a single piece of draft legislation, which was consulted upon between February and April of this year.
  As part of the consultations, the proposals were extended to include protections based on sexual orientation and disability. As part of its inquiry into hate crime in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee was particularly influential in the decision to include disability. In relation to our initial road traffic proposals, we listened to some of the representations made and increased our proposed penalties for dangerous driving and aggravated vehicle taking. These have been increased from two to five years.
  The police and the justice system as a whole must be able to respond to criminal behaviour firmly and appropriately. It is essential that the police, the prosecutors and courts have the tools available to them to deal with such behaviour. Our aim is to continue to build a safe and tolerant society for all in Northern Ireland.
  I commend the order to the Committee.
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.— (Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for presenting the order so clearly. Really, I can only support it. I believe that I am right in saying that the Attorney-General has already in recent times appealed a sentence relating to joyriding given by a judge in Northern Ireland as being too light, and won the appeal, some time in the past 12 months.
  My concern about the order derives from the prison population in Northern Ireland and the effect that it might have on it. I do not suppose that we know any
  GC 110
  specific numbers, and I am not up to date with the present situation, but prisons are fairly crowded in Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the two separate offences in the order, if they do not act as a deterrent, could lead to severe pressure on the Northern Ireland prison system. However, in principle we support the order.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: My contribution will be a little more lengthy than that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. However. I want to say at the outset how much we welcome the order. We are very pleased to see that the Government have included crimes against disabled people in particular. The Minister will recall that we called for that a long time ago. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 asking the Government to do what they are proposing in this order. So we are pleased to see it included on this occasion, even though the Government objected to the amendment at the time. I am tempted to complain at length about the time taken to accept what we proposed, but I shall resist the urge to do so. This is too important and serious a measure on which to score trivial political points.
  Since 1996 the police have been keeping statistics on racially motivated crimes. It was seen as enough of a problem at the time for the police to act to tackle hate crimes, and I shall leave it at that. The legislation is welcome, but I believe it is essential that the police are given proper resources to implement their powers. A few weeks ago I visited the Police Service of Northern Ireland. At this point I should like to record my congratulations to the Chief Constable and his staff, and in particular the DCUs, on their strenuous efforts to engage with members of the ethnic minority communities.
  An example of that is in Dungannon, where an interpreter facilitates communication between the police and Portuguese residents. Another example is in Foyle, where crime prevention leaflets are now being printed in Chinese. I am sure that there are many other excellent examples of good practice. I am also sure that the police could make even deeper inroads into combating these pernicious crimes if they had the resources to do so.
  I was delighted to see the Opportunity India campaign recently launched in Belfast, to which senior executives from around 60 companies contributed. The campaign was held to promote trade and investment links between India and Northern Ireland. It was organised by Invest Northern Ireland and facilitated by the noble Lord, Lord Rana. It was indicated that,
  "he would make it a priority to develop university links between Northern Ireland and India, which he saw as a key element in the development of both economies. 'I want to play a major role in furthering education and business links between Northern Ireland and India', Lord Rana said. 'We will work towards developing trade between India and Northern Ireland and we have a wonderful opportunity to attract students from India to come (to Northern Ireland) to study'".

  GC 111
  This legislation will encourage and enable the people of Northern Ireland to welcome the trade and investment coming their way as the economy continues to thrive.
  The Royal National Institute for the Blind has asked me to raise some particular issues with the Minister, which I shall do with pleasure. I ask her to consider a number of other measures, including the collection of statistics on disability hate crimes and voice identity parades, in order to maximise the benefit of this order.
  The introduction of a requirement for the courts to treat disability hatred as an aggravating factor when sentencing is welcome. While statistics are not collected on disability hate crimes, a number of cases have been reported, of which I shall give one example. One guide dog owner was consistently taunted for being blind and then had firecrackers thrown over the garden wall at her guard dog. In a survey carried out by the Northern Ireland Deaf Youth Association, 36 per cent of young deaf people reported that personal safety was an issue. The same proportion of respondents identified bullying as a concern.
  A survey produced by Dr Sean Kelly from the University of Ulster School of Nursing on the abuse of people with long-term mental illness in Northern Ireland found that 60 per cent of those surveyed had been subject to serious victimisation or harassment. Mencap's research has found that almost nine in 10 people with learning difficulties have experienced bullying or harassment.
  It would help if the fact that people were disabled, together with their access needs, was included in the data when a person's details are entered on to the police computer as a victim or perpetrator. I wonder whether the Minister would look at that issue.
  On voice identity parades. we need to see a strong focus on crimes based on prejudice since these types of hate crime are particularly pernicious and damaging to society. The requirement to demonstrate hostility during the committing of a crime or immediately before or after in Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act, which is being carried over into the draft order, makes a clear distinction. Other tactics such as the use of voice identity parades can and should be employed to deal with crimes based on perceived vulnerability.
  The evidence suggests that this is possible. The first ever conviction for murder based on a voice identity parade was secured at the Old Bailey in December 2002. A linguistics expert from Cambridge university was used to make sure that the process was sound, and the detective in the case was commended by the judge for his work. Indeed, the Home Secretary said:
  "I am firmly of the view that voice recognition is feasible and I have asked my officials and scientific advisers to reconsider this area urgently to see what steps we can take to further encourage the use of voice recognition by police and criminal justice agencies".
  The Home Secretary has gone on to issue Home Office Circular 57/2003 to police forces on the use of voice identity parades. Will a similar circular be issued by the
  GC 112
  Northern Ireland Office adopting the results of the Home Office research? If so, that would be extremely helpful.
  I want to quote from a BBC news bulletin issued today which discussed homophobic attacks, in particular those in Derry, which are becoming increasingly vicious. Sean Morrin from the Rainbow Project was speaking after a gay man was attacked and bitten in the face outside a chip shop in the Waterside area on Sunday evening. He was taken to hospital where he received five stitches to his face. Over a period of seven weeks during April and May there were eight homophobic attacks in the Foyle area, while there have been 17 homophobic incidents this year. A police spokesman said that the latter figure equalled the total number of attacks for the previous year. Clearly this is something that needs to be taken seriously.
  All members of society have a duty to tackle bigotry in whatever form it raises its head. The integrated education movement in Northern Ireland has led the way in this respect. Its ethos is to bring all members of society together and the schools to teach their pupils the value of everyone as an individual and not as a member of any particular group. That, too, is our responsibility. By passing this order we shall go some way towards realising our goal of stamping out the evil of racially motivated crime.
  Lord Rogan: Noble Lords know only too well, over many years, the tensions between our two communities in Northern Ireland that unfortunately arise under the name of religion. Perhaps this has disguised a latent or hidden hostility towards our ethnic minority groups in Northern Ireland, groups that I warmly welcome to our Province. Hostility towards ethnic minority groups has become more evident over the past two to three years. Only recently I mentioned in particular the attacks on Filipino nurses in Craigavon.
  Equally, several parts of Northern Ireland, in particular certain areas of West Belfast, have for years been plagued by so-called "joyriding". As the Minister pointed out, that crime is wrongly named. Perhaps it should be called "car crime" or "car hijacking".
  I broadly welcome the order because it contains many of the recommendations that my party has put to Her Majesty's Government over the years. Hate crime, crimes based on hostility towards race, sectarianism and sexual orientation and directed towards any group is totally abhorrent in a civilised society.
  As I have mentioned, crime motivated by race is a growing problem in Northern Ireland. The Government's own figures show that the rate of racial incidents in Northern Ireland in 2001–02 was 12.9 per 1,000 of the minority ethnic population compared with 6.7 per 1,000 in England and Wales. The PSNI statistics show that the number of racist and homophobic incidents recorded has more than doubled from 226 and 35 respectively in 2002–03 to 453 and 71 in 2003–04. Those figures, shocking enough in themselves, are undoubtedly modest. They do not reflect the high

  GC 113
  number of these crimes that go unreported every day. Even more worrying is the low prosecution rate. In 2002–03 there were only seven prosecutions arising from the 226 racial incidents recorded by the PSNI.
  I also welcome the introduction of the new offence of aggravated vehicle taking. Joyriding, or car hijacking as I prefer to call it, is a major problem in Northern Ireland. During the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in another place, my right honourable friend and colleague David Trimble asked the Home Secretary to extend that part of the legislation which dealt with car crime/joyriding to Northern Ireland. It has taken over a year to impress the importance of such a move upon the Northern Ireland Office. For over a year now we have been sending out the wrong message to our young people who are tempted to take cars in this manner.
  Car hijacking is simply not tolerated in England and Wales, but apparently it is in Northern Ireland. I therefore welcome this provision, which will bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I thank all noble Lords for welcoming the order and for the recognition that we all want to see hate crime stamped out.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked specifically about the impact on the prison population. We think that we will see some increase in the length of sentences since we are giving the courts extra powers, but we do not envisage the prison population soaring. However, sentencing is a matter for the courts.
  On the issue of police resourcing, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris—I should say first that I thank her for her positive comments about the Police Service of Northern Ireland following her visit, and in the spirit of Northern Ireland business debated in Grand Committee I thank her for not scoring political points today—we are fully committed to ensuring that the Chief Constable is sufficiently resourced to deliver an efficient and effective policing service. As the noble Baroness is aware, in the current financial year some £726.3 million has been made available to maintain the day-to-day policing service in Northern Ireland. While the level of resources available is crucial to effective policing, so too is ensuring that the best use is made of those resources.
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland workforce plan, launched in 2002, is currently under review. It addresses a number of key issues where changes and improvements are making a significant contribution to better policing. The police were involved in the consultation on this and did not indicate that they thought that additional resources would be required.
  I turn to the issues raised by the noble Baroness in respect of disability. As the noble Baroness is aware, racial and homophobic incidents are already being monitored. Attacks on the disabled and those motivated by religious hatred will be recorded in line with the commencement of the legislation in September.
  GC 114
  The recording of hate crime involving hostility towards victims because of their disability will follow the guidelines that came out of the review as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, so crimes will be recorded as disability hate crimes if they are perceived as such by victims or by any other person. The victim's disability will also be recorded.
  Voice recognition can already form part of evidence which can be used to secure convictions. The Police Service of Northern Ireland will consider a range of measures when implementing hate crime legislation. The police are supportive of practices and initiatives that help and protect vulnerable people.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, questioned the number of prosecutions. The Chief Constable has increased patrols in relevant areas and has taken steps to ensure that victims are more ready and able to come forward. That high visibility patrolling is aimed at both reducing incidents and improving contact with local communities. That is because the police need community support if they are to be able to address crime in all its forms. The Government have already introduced special direction measures, including live video links, by way of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to protect vulnerable or intimidated witnesses.
  On the timing of the introduction of these provisions, this is our first appropriate legislative opportunity after the consultation. We are going further than in England and Wales by proposing penalties of five years' imprisonment for aggravated vehicle taking and dangerous driving, which is in direct response to our public consultation. I hope that I have addressed all the points that have been raised.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  6.52 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  This order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, as modified by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) Order 1984. The main purpose of the order is to address public safety and animal welfare concerns through the introduction of a licensing, inspection and enforcement scheme to regulate the keeping of dangerous wild animals by private individuals. The scheme will be centrally administered by the Department of the Environment.
  The main provisions of the order will require any person wishing to keep a dangerous wild animal as defined in the schedule to the order to obtain a licence from the department prior to taking ownership of the animal. A licence will be valid for a period of 12 months or such longer period as the department

  GC 115
  shall determine. The keeping of a dangerous wild animal without a licence will be an offence and persons under 18 years of age will not be able to apply for a licence.
  It will require the department to perform a range of checks on all applications. These checks will relate to the applicant, the accommodation and the conditions in which the animal will be kept. In addition, the department will also he required to receive a report from a veterinary surgeon or other person deemed suitably competent by it.
  It will require the department to set a number of mandatory conditions for any licence it may grant. These will relate to matters such as the welfare of the animal, the person or persons entitled to keep the animal, the number or type of animal that can be kept and the place where the animal is to be kept. The department will also be free to apply other conditions as it sees fit.
  The order provides applicants with a right of appeal to a magistrates' court against any decision by the department to refuse a licence or against any conditions imposed on the grant of a licence. It will create an offence where the requirements of a licence are not complied with. It will also give the department powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of assessing an application or determining if the requirements of the legislation or of an existing licence are being complied with.
  The order will give the department powers to seize any animal where the requirements of the legislation or of a licence are not being complied with. The department will also be given powers to destroy a seized animal, under veterinary supervision, or otherwise dispose of it. It will give owners the right of appeal within 21 days to a magistrates' court against seizure and prohibit the department destroying or otherwise disposing of a seized animal before the appeal has been determined. It establishes penalties for any person found guilty of not complying with the requirements of the legislation. Courts will be given power to cancel existing licences or disqualify any such person from keeping dangerous wild animals.
  It will provide transitional arrangements for existing owners to make arrangements to apply for a licence. It will also provide for the legislation to come into operation by way of a commencement order so that all supporting administrative arrangements are in place to ensure public safety. It will give the department the power to modify the schedule that defines dangerous wild animals.
  Following strong representations from key respondents during the consultation process, two provisions not included in the original draft order have now been added. These additional provisions are set out in Article 8, which makes it an offence to give or sell a dangerous wild animal to any person who has not produced a valid licence to keep the animal in question, and paragraphs (4) to (15) of Article 9, which provide for a transitional voluntary surrender scheme for existing animals for a period of three months after the coming into operation of the main provisions of the order.
  GC 116
  This draft order fills an important gap in the Northern Ireland statute book in relation to both public safety and the welfare of dangerous wild animals in private collections. It will provide a robust licensing and enforcement regime to control the keeping of these animals. It will also bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom while including other provisions which reflect the particular needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we have nothing inherently against this order. However, it is a detailed and heavy-duty order that encompasses a lot of restrictions and rules. I wonder, therefore, and challenge gently the proof of the need for this legislation—other than in zoos and so forth, which I think I am right in saying already have their own licensing and regulatory regimes. I am concerned that we are perhaps legislating for the sake of legislating. I accept the need to protect the public and the necessity to protect animals of any type, let alone wild and dangerous ones, so I find it strange that at this particular juncture in time someone has thought that we need this legislation.
  I have only two questions. I imagine that if someone wants a licence to look after a dangerous wild animal, they will have to pay something for it. Has that been considered and what might be the cost of such a licence? Do the Government anticipate making a profit? Against that, I wonder what will be the cost of administering the order. Is it possible that the Government will find themselves landed with considerable extra costs?
  Aside from those queries, I have no particular feelings about this order.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: As we have heard, there have been controls on the keeping of wild animals in all parts of the UK except Northern Ireland since 1976. I understand that at the time it was felt that such legislation was not needed in Northern Ireland. But, with the passage of time, it appears that it might now be necessary. I understand that large cats have been sighted and that they have affected livestock, so perhaps it is now necessary to introduce legislation for Northern Ireland.
  I too have only a few brief questions. The order will require the department to perform a range of checks on all those who apply for a licence. Will a vet undertake those checks? What is meant in Article 3(5)(a) by "other person authorised"? Also, are the Government satisfied that the age of 18 is appropriate, given that we are considering reducing the age of consent in many areas? The age of 16 would appear to be more appropriate. I wonder why the age of 18 was chosen. Finally, can the Government be more specific about the cost of the licence?
  Other than those queries, we think that the order is acceptable and we are happy to support it.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Kilclooney: I welcome the order. When I was a Member in the other place, in my constituency of Strangford we had a gentleman who took a lion out for a walk every evening at five o'clock. It certainly was not the appropriate time to go canvassing because everyone cleared off the streets. I had many complaints from constituents that on this matter Northern Ireland was out of line with the rest of the UK. It is ridiculous that you can keep a pet corgi and must have a £5 licence, but you can have a lion and need not pay a licence fee whatever.
  I have one question. What happens to these wild animals when they are seized? Are they put down? Does the USPCA keep them until they die naturally? Are they handed over to the zoos for proper care and attention?
  Lord Rogan: I, too, welcome the order. It has been a long time coming. Criminal legislation for Great Britain has been in place since 1976. The Northern Ireland Assembly was consulting on the matter when it was suspended in the autumn of 2002.
  I have one question. The schedule names pure breeds, but what about cross breeding? I am reminded that a few years ago someone bred a wolf and an Alsatian. One of them killed many sheep in County Fermanagh, including some on the estate of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. There was also great fear for humans in the county.
  People who mistreat animals or release exotic pets into the wild need to be made culpable under the law and the order is therefore greatly welcomed by us.
  Lord Lyell: I am grateful that the Minister has found time to allow us to debate this matter. I did not think that I would get back from a visit to the Farnborough air show in time. I was invited to examine this and another order. When I looked at the explanatory memorandum to this order I was startled to find on page 1, paragraph 5, the statement,
  "a continuing trend for keeping DWAs as pets".
  That may be.
  I then looked in the schedule. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be equally sad to discover that under Article 2 the Department of the Environment is responsible. I am sure that the Minister will know that during my time and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, animal health was one of the prime concerns of the so-called Department of Agriculture.
  I looked at the animals listed in the schedule. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, mentioned a lion and I thought of cats and other domestic creatures. The Minister will not necessarily have scanned pages 12 to 15, but when reading them one or two things came to my mind.
  Pages 14 and 15 list reptiles. Mole vipers and certain venomous snakes are mentioned. We then see listed Elapidae and Viperidae, including certain front-fanged venomous snakes, including cobras, adders, fer-de-lance, rattlesnakes and vipers. I suppose that
  GC 118
  one has to be comprehensive with such legislation, but I was astounded that such a list appears in the schedule.
  One thing concerns me; that although such animals might be kept in a pet shop under adequate conditions, suppose that they get out. If there is a problem, what will be the result? Suppose that someone is bitten?
  I was glancing at the exemptions and see that Article 7(3)(b) states that Article 3(1) shall not apply to a dangerous wild animal,
  "which is kept for the production of food, wool, skin, hair or feathers or for such other purpose as the Department may by order prescribe".
  I also saw in Article 5(12) various measures which might relate to one of the lovely creatures listed on page 15. If one of them escaped, would someone he able to retain it and extract serum—anti-snake-bite serum? I hope that the order will allow whichever department is responsible to get hold of these lovely creatures and extract the serum so that treatment can be available in a hospital. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, wondered what happened to these happy creatures if the department finds them—including some of the Sydney funnel-web spiders or their close relatives? Are they destroyed or what?
  I commend the noble Baroness on the thoroughness of the order, but I am astounded by the vast array of creatures. I hope that it is replicated in Great Britain.
  Baroness Amos: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that I have read all the pages in the schedule, which make very interesting reading. When I read them, I was glad that I did not recognise most of the species listed.
  I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, with respect to his getting here on time, he is obviously not a regular in the consideration of Northern Ireland business. We are extremely thorough in our consideration of Northern Ireland business, which is why we are still here.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked why the legislation is required. In the absence of regulation, the department cannot be certain about the number and species of animals presently being kept by private individuals. The absence of this baseline information makes it difficult to respond to reports of sightings; for example, by checking for escapees.
  Reports of incidents or nuisance caused by dangerous wild animals continues to be rare, although there have been a number of recent reported sightings, plus reports of injuries to livestock. However, each reported incident, no matter how minor, tends to attract significant public concern about the potential risk to public safety and the draft order addresses this concern by introducing a suitable regulatory regime.
  On the cost, the draft order provides for the department to recoup the full costs of administering the scheme by charging licence fees. Fees will be set to recover all direct and indirect costs incurred as a result of a licence application and not with the intention of deterring ownership of dangerous wild animals or as a means of raising revenue. So at this point in time it is

  GC 119
  not possible to say how much each licence will cost, but once that is determined I am happy to write to Members of the Committee.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. We need an undertaking that the cost of the licence is highly unlikely to become a deterrent to those wishing to keep certain species. They may be unable to afford the licence.
  Baroness Amos: I repeat that we will he setting fees to recover all direct and indirect costs, but not with the intention of deterring ownership of dangerous wild animals and certainly not as a means of raising revenue. I can assure the Committee on that.
  The department may also incur costs in accommodating and caring for animals voluntarily surrendered. The extent of these costs will depend on the number of animals involved and rare species.
  The cost of a licence will be broken down in four elements: the department's administrative costs in processing applications; the costs for inspection by a suitably competent person; the costs of obtaining suitable insurance against liability for any damage which may be caused by an animal; and any costs associated with upgrading accommodation to comply with all the licence requirements.
  On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady. Harris, on the departmental discretion to appoint a suitably qualified person, we are thinking of those with experience of zoos. It may not be a vet, but a person who has extensive experience having worked in a zoo.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked specifically about hybrids, in particular wolf hybrids. They are an increasing source of concern to the public and some respondents to consultation in the draft order have recommended that wolf hybrids should be included in the schedule of animals which will come within the remit of the legislation. However, the definition is complex both from a scientific and administrative viewpoint. It is generally recognised that there are no scientifically proven methods which will withstand legal challenge to differentiate wolf hybrids from other canines. This inability scientifically to isolate wolf hybrids makes breed specification difficult, if not impossible, to administer effectively and equitably. It is an issue that many other countries also face.
  The Defra consultation paper on changes to the 1976 Act proposes to define hybrids in the schedule as animals which have 8 per cent or more of the pure listed animal DNA. Should this definition be adopted in Great Britain, we intend to amend the schedules to the draft order accordingly. This can be done by subordinate legislation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked what happens to seized animals. The animal will be passed to a designated person or body to keep on behalf of the department. The department has the power to dispose of or destroy the animals 21 days after the seizure date or until the outcome of an appeal.
  GC 120
  The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked which department would be responsible. I note his views about it being environment or agriculture, but the most important point is that the regulatory regime should be effective.
  As regards serum and snake bites, even with regulation, venomous snakes can still pose a risk, not least to their owners. There has been at least one such incident in Northern Ireland. The Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast has procedures in place for dealing with snake bites, including measures to minimise venom absorption, and the availability of expert advice on the need for anti-venom administration and access to anti-venom stocks which are held in Liverpool and in London.
  I recognise that the recent review in Great Britain raised concerns about the effective control over venomous snakes and I also recognise the dangers posed by these animals which, by their very nature, are easily transported and concealed. But I believe that the proposals in the draft order will provide an effective regulatory regime for venomous snakes, as for other dangerous wild animals. I hope I have addressed the points.
  Lord Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that she is convinced that Liverpool, let alone London, is near enough for the rush that might be necessary. I thought of an accidental bite from the Minister's pet cobra or rattle snake. I have flown from Belfast to Liverpool and the Isle of Man, with unfavourable climactic conditions and I am sure that the noble Baroness has taken all the necessary steps. Her word will reassure those who have a trillion-to-one chance of being bitten by one of these snakes that Liverpool will deliver what the Royal Victoria Hospital needs.
  Baroness Amos: Of course, the Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast is the first stop.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  7.14 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  The order would enable the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to make regulations to provide for the issue of certificates for temporary exemption, exempting private cars and motor cycles from the requirements of normal testing for a specified temporary period and to permit such certificates to be acceptable documentary evidence for the purpose of obtaining vehicle excise licences.
  Certificates of temporary exemption will be issued as an alternative to vehicle test certificates in exceptional circumstances. "Exceptional circumstances" means a

  GC 121
  failure in the supply of essential services or other unexpected happenings such as a fire, accident or industrial action.
  The power to issue certificates already exists for goods vehicles, but no such contingency arrangements are available for private cars and motorcycles. The order will regularise that position. The order will alleviate some of the pressures created as a result of the industrial action which is currently having an impact on the capacity of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency in Northern Ireland to deliver normal vehicle testing services. This has resulted in many drivers being unable to use their vehicles legally on the roads or to get vehicle excise licences. It is also impacting adversely on the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  The issue of certificates of temporary exemption would temporarily remove some vehicles from the testing cycle. This would free up capacity to allow the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency to focus on other vehicles such as buses, taxis and goods vehicles used on international journeys. It would also enable the agency to manage the backlog of work that will still remain when the industrial action ends. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this order before us at the end of a long series. It is good for us to spend a whole day on Northern Ireland matters. particularly in such detail, because we are refreshed on what is happening on the ground.
  We talked earlier today about the problems of the strike, so I will not mention it again. Obviously, I support the order, understanding the reason for its being brought to your Lordships' House. I am concerned about the adequacy of the length of time the order will be in place. One does not want to be too pessimistic, but as we have had a lengthy stoppage and the strike continues, there will be a serious backlog. That will affect our hauliers in Europe, and some European countries will not necessarily at first accept the fact that some of the vehicles were not tested on time.
  However, I am more concerned that the hauliers will be expected to maintain the level of inspection of their vehicles were the MoT system in place. I do not know, but I suspect that the hauliers' depots are not equipped to the same extent for vehicle inspection as are the MoT centres. Funnily enough. I have never had an MoT test in Northern Ireland or in England, I only had them in Spain. However, the set-up in an MoT centre for heavy goods vehicles and for motor cars requires a certain amount of specialist equipment to ensure that all the settings comply with EU rules and regulations.
  I am concerned that Northern Ireland hauliers will not be equipped to carry out the necessary checks on their vehicles, which by now might be a month or so
  GC 122
  overdue, and that they will let them run on for a while. I suppose that we could be talking of checks on heavy goods vehicles being delayed for up to six months.
  I am also concerned about the effect on the insurance policies of hauliers and private vehicle owners. While I was doing some homework on this subject, I read that many insurance policies depend on MoTs being up to date. I wonder what Her Majesty's Government have done in talking to the insurance industry. The longer it lasts the bigger the problem will become.
  It is all very well to say that there will be an extension in time, but an insurance company may say that its policy states that the MoT has to be done on a given date and that if it is not done and a driver has an accident or something goes wrong the driver is not insured. That is an area on which I should like some encouragement.
  Lastly, as regards hauliers, it seems that if there is a significant backlog—such as six months—and the haulage industry has to incur increased costs, we should look to the Government and the department to cover at least a part of those costs. With those riders, I support the order.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for the very full, clear and gracious responses that she has made today to the points raised on the orders. As we have heard, this order is the result of industrial action by civil servants in Northern Ireland, which is impacting on the ability of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency to grant vehicle excise licences or MoTs.
  The Government have known about this difficulty for a long time. Why have they taken so long to do anything about it? I understand that the exemption applies only within the UK. What happens if someone wants to take a car abroad from Northern Ireland? How can we be assured that cars coming over from Northern Ireland are safe on the roads of the rest of the UK? What happens if a car is involved in a road accident? That is a real concern, particularly for people who are going abroad.
  It is difficult for us to oppose this order because law-abiding citizens will do their best to get their vehicles covered and in good order. But I have considerable concern supporting something that appears to condone the driving of unroadworthy vehicles. I am sure that most of the people of Northern Ireland are sensible enough not to want to drive cars that are in had condition, but it is a dilemma. We can only hope that it will be resolved quickly for the safety of all the road users in Northern Ireland. We support the order.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I suppose that it would be unwise of me to be controversial at this hour of the evening. Hence, I shall content myself by saying that of all the Orders in Council that I have seen brought before Parliament, this surely must be one of the most irresponsible that I have seen for a long time. In bringing forward this order, the Government have abdicated their responsibility.

  GC 123
  My figures may be wrong, but can the Minister tell me whether at present there is somewhere in the region of 87,000 vehicles overdue for MoT testing? Is it the case that normally at the stage when vehicles go for an MoT test—after the owners have taken the trouble to try to get them up to standard—on average 22 per cent are turned down at the first time of testing? If that is so and my mathematics are right, there are something like 19,140 vehicles currently on the road that are unroadworthy, plus those vehicles that are currently unroadworthy but which, if they were tested, would be brought up to standard. Surely, that is a huge problem for people in Northern Ireland. We must find out the truth behind what is happening in this sector. I notice that in another place the Minister, Angela Smith, said that she would like to dispel the myth that the order was just a response to industrial action. But if it is not just, or not mainly, a response to industrial action, why is there such a backlog?
  Is it not the fact that something like £17 million has been spent in updating the testing centres in Northern Ireland? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of that figure and to know how much of that figure involved the updating of equipment and how much was involved in provision of software. Is it because of the arrangement, whereby that £17 million was spent and the Government have a contract with the people who provided the equipment and software, that they cannot do what should be done in any sensible situation—to contract out to our main agents, the garages in Northern Ireland, the responsibility for doing MoTs.
  I know that at the moment, as Minister Smith indicated, the MoT fee in Northern Ireland is £28, whereas in GB it is £40.75. However, I and most of us know that major garages in Northern Ireland actually buy a package to send vehicles over to Scotland— a package that costs £90 for transport and testing in Scotland—after which they bring them back again to turn them over as second-hand vehicles. Why, then, are ordinary car drivers not allowed to avail themselves of the equipment that most major garages have, which they could use very quickly and efficiently to bring vehicles up to the standard?
  We are creating this permission to drive unfit vehicles on the road, while the Government cannot afford to privatise the system. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the efficiency of those involved in MoT testing up until recently has been as efficient as it should be, given the new equipment that is available. I am told that the testing of vehicles is taking around three times as long as it should. But if, for whatever financial reason, we are unable to privatise the system, surely there should be an interim measure to secure roadworthy vehicles in Northern Ireland. We might even have had pilot programmes to see whether such a move would work; here was an opportunity to see whether private garages could provide the service more efficiently than is being done presently. But no—that opportunity has been lost.
  Minister Smith said that car drivers will still be required to keep the car in a roadworthy condition at all times. What an opportunity that is for them! Do
  GC 124
  we really believe that all people will keep their cars in good condition, unless there is legislation being enforced? If that is the case, we do not need MoT testing in the first place.
  The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on insurance certificates was even more important. The Minister in another place said that most insurance certificates do not say that the driver must have an MoT certificate. Of course they do not, but they insist that drivers keep their car in a roadworthy condition. In other words, they must ensure that the tyres, brakes and steering are in good order. With this exemption we can be sure that there will be vehicles on the road that are not in good order in those respects.
  If that is the case, what happens not when someone has a bang resulting in a £500 or even £5,000 claim, but when someone is seriously disabled for life and there is a claim for tens of thousands of pounds? Will the insurance companies say, "We have an arrangement with government; they will make up the deficit?". I am certain that the insurance companies will not pay. Have government an arrangement with the insurance companies to fulfil any shortfall for which the companies would under other circumstances be liable?
  This Order in Council is a death sentence on people in Northern Ireland. I hope that I am not given to exaggeration, but currently there are 19,000 vehicles on the road that should he MoT tested but are not. In addition, there will be all the other vehicles coming on stream plus those that would have been brought up to standard. It strikes me that there is a carelessness regarding the welfare of car drivers and other road users in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Kilclooney: MoT testing in Northern Ireland is now in disarray; that is why this order has been brought before the Committee. We all recognise that it is in disarray mainly because of the strike; therefore the Government are right to bring forward the order. I am only sorry that it was not brought forward earlier.
  My one question relates to the term "temporary exemptions". How long does a temporary exemption last—one month, one year? That has not been spelt out.
  I can never understand why Northern Ireland has a different MoT testing system from the one in the rest of the United Kingdom. Obviously, it should be in private hands. The Government should consider giving those currently employed in MoT centres the opportunity to buy out the system so that it is privatised from here on, leaving us in the same position as England, Scotland and Wales.
  Since there is disarray in MoT testing with the result that we need temporary exemptions, now that there is to be a planning services strike, can we get temporary exemptions from obtaining planning permission?
  Lord Lyell: The Minister in another place mentioned that 90,000—the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to 87,000—cases were waiting, as reported at column 12 of Hansard. Can the noble Baroness indicate what proportion it is of all

  GC 125
  annual testing, should it be going on, and how long will it take to clear the backlog? My noble friend Lord Glentoran thought that it would take approximately six months.
  Earlier in her speech in another place the Minister said that 5,700 driving tests had been cancelled. I presume that they were cancelled because of this dispute, although it is probably not relevant to the order.
  I agree with what many Members of the Committee said concerning drivers being stopped. Whether or not they have had an accident, it could be difficult if they do not have the relevant certificate or piece of paper—even if the insurance and so forth is in order. When drivers come to Great Britain, I suspect that they will generally be all right, but it could be extremely difficult if they go abroad.
  That said, this seems to be the best and quickest way to ensure that Northern Ireland motorists drive safely and are able to keep death off the road. However, it is interesting that on average 22 per cent of vehicles fail the MoT; so there are approximately 20,000 people still on the road who perhaps should not be. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her patience.
  Baroness Amos: I shall try to address the points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked when we propose to stop issuing certificates of temporary exemption. In the current climate of industrial action, the period of time during which certificates will be issued will depend on how long the dispute continues. They are seen as a tool for enabling the department to manage the workload when the strike comes to an end. We intend to continue using temporary exemptions until the waiting time has returned to an acceptable level. In future, they will be a useful tool for dealing with emergency situations such as fire or a failure in the supply of essential services. A temporary exemption can last for any period up to a maximum of six months.
  As regards hauliers maintaining their vehicles to the same standard, there will be no change to the arrangements for maintaining vehicles. The exemptions affect only testing. That applies also to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, with whom I do not agree. The majority of us who have a car that requires an MoT do not wait until after the MoT to determine whether our vehicle needs work on it, but will have a regular maintenance regime with a garage to ensure that the vehicle is kept roadworthy. We see that as an individual responsibility.
  Of course, there is the annual testing regime for an MoT, but it is important to recognise that roadworthiness is the responsibility of the individual. It is not the responsibility of the state. I accept that having to get an MoT concentrates the mind, but I do not agree with the noble Lord that the majority of people would not keep their cars in good condition. I
  GC 126
  think that the opposite is true. A car is an investment. It is in the individual's interests to keep it in a roadworthy condition.
  Lord Glentoran: My experience of going through an MoT test annually in Spain is that there are specific regulations for which specific equipment is needed. For example, a gauge can be obtained that will indicate when a tyre is illegal. As regards the steering wheel an inch's play or whatever is allowed, but, again, there is a specific piece of measuring equipment that will indicate whether it is legal. It is the same for the light settings, handbrake, and so forth.
  The average driver will not be aware of that sort of detail. Although I have spent my life with vehicles and was in charge of a great number at one time, I have still taken a vehicle for an MoT and been told that one of my tyres needs changing. That sort of detail will not be available. People will be driving "illegally".
  Baroness Amos: I take that point, but I also recognise that most individuals have some kind of service regime for their cars. The majority of garages are able to give that kind of information. I am not saying that there is not an issue here that needs to be addressed. All I am saying is that there is a degree of responsibility that rests with individuals with respect to roadworthiness that we need to accept.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: With the greatest respect, the Minister must live in a different world from the one in which I live. The majority of people who service their vehicles regularly are those who have vehicles that are less than three years old—people who have new vehicles and want to keep them in good order. The older the vehicle is, the less it is serviced, for the simple reason that it becomes a very costly operation.
  In Northern Ireland—and I am sure that it is the same in other places—we see vehicles driven until they literally fall apart on the side of the road and are abandoned there. Young people then pick them up and use them as runabouts. It would be interesting for Members of the Committee to know the number of accidents caused by uninsured, unlicensed drivers running about with those broken-down abandoned cars. That is the sequence of my experience of motor cars in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister takes my point seriously.
  Baroness Amos: The noble Lord has entirely made my point for me. He referred to uninsured, unlicensed drivers; even with an MoT regime, they do not go and get their cars MoTed, because they are driving without insurance, licences and MoTs. That is a completely different group of people to the one that I hope we are talking about—the majority of individuals, who want to operate within the law. We have a specific problem that we need to address in relation to the strike, so I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Maginnis, has just made my point for me.

  GC 127
  I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who was concerned about the possibility of increased costs for hauling. The proposed order would not impose additional costs on the haulage industry. On the issue of insurance, which many Members of the Committee mentioned, we have advised motorists to check with their insurance provider that having a temporary exemption rather than a vehicle test certificate does not invalidate their insurance policy. The practice varies between insurance companies. The insurance policies require vehicles to be roadworthy, and some companies use the test certificate as a guarantee of that. But they do not all do that, so it is important for motorists to check with individual companies—and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has an awareness-raising campaign in that regard.
  I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that the temporary exemptions appear to fly in the face of what we are trying to do about road safety. I cannot pretend that temporary exemptions are an adequate replacement for the normal regime of vehicle testing and roadside enforcement. But I remind the noble Baroness and the rest of the Committee that temporary exemptions are meant to be a short-term measure, as the name implies, designed to meet the exigencies of a particularly difficult situation that is adversely affecting businesses and ordinary motorists. In order to maintain the focus on road safety and ensure that motorists are fully aware of their responsibilities, we are stepping up publicity in that regard. In issuing the temporary exemptions, we shall try to ensure that those who must go abroad or have a particular need are given a degree of priority when the tests restart. A temporary exemption order will allow a vehicle to be driven legally on the road and
  GC 128
  to be registered and taxed. They do not remove the requirement for motorists to keep their vehicles in a roadworthy condition.
  On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, of whether the process might be contracted out, that has been considered many times. Each time it has been considered, the conclusion has been that the existing system best meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, the approach in Great Britain has much to commend it, but there is an issue of consistency. Many garages in England and Wales do only six MoT tests a week, and concerns have been raised that the way in which the tests are carried out by individual garages means that a degree of inconsistency is creeping into the system. On the other hand, in Northern Ireland, which has been widely regarded as a model of best practice, the fact that the tests are concentrated means that independence, consistency and objectivity are at the heart of the system. The proposals advanced by the noble Lord have been considered on many occasions.
  Temporary exemptions represent a helpful contingency for the long term but obviously the strike is creating a particularly difficult situation, which is why the backlog is at such a high level.
  The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned the efficiency of vehicle testing with the new equipment. I understand that tests now take roughly the same amount of time as they did before, but we hope that, as a result of the introduction of the new equipment and the upgrading, the new system will be more efficient in the longer term. Indeed, as the noble Lord indicated, tests are much cheaper in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. The department carries out about 500,000 tests a year. The length of time that it will take to clear the backlog will depend on how soon the strike comes to an end.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  The Grand Committee adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Millennium Development Targets
  Millennium Development Targets
  Further Education: Skills for Life Qualifications
  Further Education: Skills for Life Qualifications
  Children's Centres: Parental Involvement
  Children's Centres: Parental Involvement
  Primary Schools: Parental Choice
  Primary Schools: Parental Choice
  Japanese and Chinese Studies
  Japanese and Chinese Studies
  Support Vehicle Project
  Support Vehicle Project
  Strategic Trends
  Strategic Trends
  Supreme Court: Somerset House New Wing
  Supreme Court: Somerset House New Wing
  National Statistics: Code of Practice
  National Statistics: Code of Practice
  Planning Applications: Playing Fields
  Planning Applications: Playing Fields
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Metric System
  Metric System
  Weights and Measures: Equipment Testing
  Weights and Measures: Equipment Testing
  Wind Farms
  Wind Farms
  Home Office Sports and Social Association
  Home Office Sports and Social Association
  Prison Service and Parole Decisions
  Prison Service and Parole Decisions
  Religious Offences
  Religious Offences
  Asylum Seekers: Eritrea
  Asylum Seekers: Eritrea
  Sentencing and Imprisonment
  Sentencing and Imprisonment
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  DVLA: Telephone Lines
  DVLA: Telephone Lines
  Irish Territorial Waters: Lighthouses and Navigational Aids
  Irish Territorial Waters: Lighthouses and Navigational Aids
  A303: Ilminster to Exeter Improvements
  A303: Ilminster to Exeter Improvements
  Segway Human Transporter
  Segway Human Transporter
  Zimbabwe: EU Travel Ban
  Zimbabwe: EU Travel Ban
  Côte d'Ivoire: UN Security Council Mission
  Côte d'Ivoire: UN Security Council Mission
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  EU Constitutional Treaty
  EU Constitutional Treaty
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Defra: Funding of Outdoor Recreation Initiatives
  Defra: Funding of Outdoor Recreation Initiatives
  Rivers and Waterways: Recreational Activities
  Rivers and Waterways: Recreational Activities

  Northern Ireland Independent Monitoring Commission
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 20 April 2004 I formally requested the Independent Monitoring Commission to prepare a security normalisation report under Article 5(2) of the International Agreement between the British and Irish Governments.

  Article 5(2) enables the British Government to commission the IMC to prepare a report on security normalisation activity undertaken over a specified period. I asked the IMC to report on all normalisation activities which have taken place since December 1999 up to the present time. The activities are set out in Article 5(1)(a)(i) to (v) of the International Agreement. The IMC report also takes account of views on the effects of normalisation on the ground and the programme of reform to deliver a community based policing environment in Northern Ireland. It is distinct from the monitoring of the programme of normalisation included in the Joint Declaration which is yet to be commenced.

  I am most grateful to the commission for its thorough report. The report is helpful in identifying the extent of steps that have been taken to reduce the security profile in Northern Ireland. The report also recognises that further steps are being taken, but that these must be measured against the prevailing assessment of the security threat. I have placed copies of the second report of the Independent Monitoring Commission in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Northern Ireland Youth Justice Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have placed copies of the Youth Justice Agency's annual report and accounts for 2003–04 in the Libraries of both Houses. This is the agency's first annual report since its inception on 1 April 2003. It achieved eight of its nine key performance targets and all 20 of its development objectives.

  Northern Ireland Prison Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Baroness Amos
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have placed copies of the Northern Ireland Prison Service's annual report and accounts for 2003–04 in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The annual report details that the service met seven of its 12 key targets in full and partially met an eighth. Of the comprehensive programme of 24 development objectives set for the service, 12 were achieved, four were partially achieved and substantial progress made towards meeting the remaining eight.

  HIV/AIDS
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of Taking Action: The UK's Strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world, which I published today.

  This paper is being published by the Department for International Development (DfID) but the following government Departments worked with DfID to help to produce it: the Department of Health, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HM Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Patent Office, the Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  AIDS is one of the greatest threats to eradicating poverty and achieving the millennium development goals. Over the past 25 years the number of people affected by HIV has risen dramatically, from the first AIDS cases identified in the 1980s to the 38 million who are living with HIV and AIDS today. Over 20 million people have died. Sub-Saharan Africa has suffered the severest impact: over 25 million people are currently living with HIV and AIDS and 12 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. By 2010 the number of orphans who will have lost parents to AIDS may rise to 18 million. In Asia and Eastern Europe, there is a serious risk of a generalised epidemic unless action is taken now. In all regions, women and young people are particularly vulnerable.

  The UK Government are committed to fighting AIDS and reversing the spread of HIV. The challenges facing the world were set out in the UK's Call for Action on HIV/AIDS, published on World AIDS Day last year. Taking Action: The UK's strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world sets out how the UK will respond to the challenges by: promoting a comprehensive response to tackle prevention, treatment and care as well as addressing the social impact of AIDS; prioritising the needs of women,

  WS 11
  young people, including orphans and other children; focusing on human rights, stigma and discrimination; and ensuring that action on AIDS is sustainable in the long term as well as responsive to immediate needs.

  As announced in the spending review, the UK Government will commit at least £1.5 billion over the next three years to tackle AIDS in the developing world. Of this, at least £150 million will be dedicated to helping orphans and other children made vulnerable by AIDS, especially in Africa. We will also be doubling our contribution to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria with an additional £77 million over the next three years. This is in addition to extra money for UNAIDS and UNFPA announced in my Written Statement of 6 July.

  Forensic Science Northern Ireland: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today published the Forensic Science Northern Ireland annual report and accounts 2003–04. The annual report sets out performance of the agency against key targets. Copies of the report have today been laid before the House.

  Hong Kong
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The latest report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2004 and includes a foreword by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  European Union Constitutional Treaty
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr Jack Straw) has laid before the House Command Paper 6289, containing the text agreed by the European Council on 17–18 June 2004 for a Constitutional Treaty for the European Union (CIG 86/04). Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and the Printed Paper Office.

  This is an interim text of the treaty, which still has to go through a process of technical amendment by jurist-linguists this summer. The Dutch presidency then plans for the final text to be signed by Heads of State and Government on 29 October.
  WS 12
  Command Paper 6289 includes the declarations of the Council that will accompany the treaty, and the protocols that are new or directly relevant to the UK (the remainder can be seen in the online version of the treaty, at www.fco.gov.uk). We will present the final text in full to Parliament this autumn, also as a Command Paper, prior to introducing legislation to give it effect in UK law—subject to its approval in a referendum.

  Voluntary and Community Sector
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of the report of the fifth annual meeting, held on 5 May 2004, to review the compact on relations between Government and the voluntary and community sector.

  The meeting reviewed the significant achievements made across government and the voluntary and community sector to implement and develop the compact. The compact is the blueprint for improving partnership working between government, at all levels, and the sector.

  The challenge now is to make sure the compact is used as a practical tool to improve public services and citizens' everyday lives.

  The compact action plan in the report of the fifth annual meeting sets out our priorities for driving the relationship between government and the sector forward this year.

  Watchkeeper
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  We are pleased to announce the new chapter to the Strategic Defence Review set out the potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to significantly improve operational effectiveness. UAVs will be a key contributor to network enabled capability and their ability to provide persistent surveillance of the battlefield or theatre of operations, without putting lives at risk has been demonstrated recently by US operations in Afghanistan and coalition operations in Iraq.

  The central element of the UK's current plans for acquiring UAVs is the Watchkeeper programme, which will provide UK commanders with accurate, timely and high quality imagery. Watchkeeper will be an advanced system integrating air vehicles, sensor payloads and ground control facilities. It will be joined to the wider command and control network through communication systems such as Bowman, allowing information to be passed quickly, providing commanders with an improved understanding of the battle space and shortening sensor to shooter times.
  WS 13
  The competition for entry into the final stage of the Watchkeeper programme has been run between two industrial teams led by Northrop Grumman and Thales Defence Ltd. Both submitted bids reflecting an understanding of the programme requirements, the technical complexities, the project management requirements and UK industrial participation. Following detailed consideration of the proposals, on the basis of value for money and demonstration of the best potential to deliver the required capability, the selection of the team led by Thales Defence Ltd will be announced as the preferred bidder for the Watchkeeper demonstration and manufacturing phase by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Farnborough International Airshow today. Further negotiations will be required before the project is ready to pass its main investment decision. It is planned to start these negotiations immediately. Depending on the outcome of that work, we aim to make the main gate decision on Watchkeeper later this year. The intention remains to bring Watchkeeper into service as soon as possible with capability beginning around the end of 2006.

  Park Homes
  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.

  My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will publish for public consultation on 30 July a paper on park home implied terms and written statement.

  The Housing Bill includes several clauses that improve the rights of park home owners. These include two powers allowing the appropriate national authority (Secretary of State for England and National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales) to make secondary legislation relating to the implied terms and the written statement.

  Provision has been made for the first exercise of the power to specify new implied terms, and to amend and delete existing ones, to have retrospective effect. It is therefore vital that we address all the important issues in the first exercise of the power. An affirmative resolution approving the order from both Houses of Parliament will be necessary.

  In the consultation paper we have proposed 22 changes to the implied terms on which we have already consulted informally. We propose, for example, amendments on, among other things, further tightening of the resale process, increased transparency in the payment system and more residents' rights through the quiet enjoyment of the pitch.

  The Housing Bill contains a re-enactment of the power of the appropriate national authority to prescribe requirements with which written statements must comply. The consultation paper proposes several changes to the requirements taking account of the proposed implied terms.
  WS 14
  Copies of the paper are being sent to a wide range of interested parties, including local authorities, trade and resident associations, and others with an Interest in this issue. The closing date for responses is 22 October.

  Copies of the paper will also be placed in the Libraries of the House, and will be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at www.odpm.gov.uk.

  NHS Estates and Facilities Management Development Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  We have received the NHS Estates and Facilities Management Development Agency annual report and accounts 2003–04 and copies have today been laid in accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

  The report describes the agency's performance against key tasks and targets and incorporates its accounts for that year. Copies of the annual report and accounts 2003–04 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Taxation: General Commissioners
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  On 15 July 2004 I made an order under Section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating a number of divisions in the Bristol area, Cornwall and Yorkshire with effect from 1 September 2004 and two divisions in West Glamorgan with effect from 1 January 2005, as follows:

  Bristol, Bedminster and Wrington divisions are merged into Bristol, Bedminster and Wrington division;

  Penzance, Redruth, Truro and West Kerrier divisions are merged into West Cornwall division;

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes divisions are merged into Grimsby&Cleethorpes division; Swansea and Neath divisions are merged into West Glamorgan division.

  All the amalgamations were made at the request of the general commissioners in all the divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the divisions concerned. I have placed a copy of the order amalgamating the divisions in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Employment Tribunals Service: Performance Targets 2003–04.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Gerry Sutcliffe) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Employment Tribunals Service has published its annual report and accounts for 2003–04 today. Copies have been laid before Parliament and will be placed on the ETS website at www.ets.gov.uk.

  I have set the Employment Tribunals Service the following targets for 2004–05:

  Quality

  75 per cent of single employment tribunal cases to a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt;

  Minimum to be achieved by all offices in relation to above target—65 per cent;

  85 per cent of employment tribunal decisions issued within four weeks of the final hearing;

  85 per cent of employment tribunal users satisfied with the service offered by ETS;

  75 per cent of appeals to EAT to a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt.

  Efficiency

  3 per cent real-terms reduction in employment tribunal administrative unit costs.

  In addition to these key targets:

  Finance
  Pay 100 per cent of invoices within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  Reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated for the chief executive's reply.

  Coal Authority: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  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.

  I have today laid a copy of the Coal Authority report and accounts for 2003–04 before Parliament.

  Company Audit Bodies: Annual Reports 2003
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 16
  I have received the annual reports for the year 2003 from the five recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors: a combined report from the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and one each from the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Schedule 11 to the Companies Act 1989 sets out the requirements which a body must meet to be eligible for recognised supervisory body status. These include requirements to have adequate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance with its rules relating to membership and eligibility—for example, holding an appropriate qualification, being a fit and proper person, working to technical and ethical standards, maintaining competence—discipline and investigation of complaints. In these reports, the recognised bodies inform the Government about their activities in relation to these arrangements.

  In January 2003 I announced a number of changes to the regulatory regime of the accountancy and audit professions, including the establishment of a new independent inspection unit, located within the Financial Reporting Council, and a professional oversight board for accountancy (POBA), to take over, from this department, my functions under Part II of the Companies Act 1989 in respect of the recognised supervisory bodies. I am pleased to report that these bodies are now established and in operation. The delegation of these powers is dependent on provisions in the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill currently before the House and so for the time being my department continues to have responsibility for oversight of the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Tonnage Tax
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The tonnage tax was introduced in 2000 as part of a package of measures to revive the UK shipping industry. In July 2002, I announced that the Inland Revenue and the Department for Transport would commence a review of the way the regime is operating, and invited public contributions. A number of representations have been received. Individuals and groups wishing to make further representations are invited to do so by 30 September 2004. Details about how representations can be made are available on the Inland Revenue's website.

  BBC Charter Review
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

  On 11 December 2003, I announced the first phase of BBC Charter review with the launch of a major public consultation. The consultation was supported by a programme of survey research, visits to different parts of the country to hear the views of people in the media industry and the public first hand, and a series of events for children and young people to hear what they had to say.

  By the time the consultation closed on 31 March 2004 we had received over 5,000 written responses and there had been over 25,000 unique visitors to the charter review website. We published the responses on the Internet as the consultation proceeded. The research fieldwork we commissioned was completed in June this year.

  Today, I am publishing the results of this consultation and research. The report we are publishing—What You Said About the BBC—summarises the main points that were put to us. It does not capture every single one of the many hundreds of issues raised, which is why I am also publishing in full the reports of research and consultation on which What You Said…is based. These documents, together with the consultation responses I have already published, should be seen as a complementary package and taken together give a comprehensive picture of the views received.

  What You Said…contains both praise and criticism. Most people indicated that they value the BBC and hold it in high esteem, but a significant minority disagreed. To those who like the BBC it was generally seen as the best broadcaster for news, documentaries and features about personal interests.
  WS 18
  But even to many supporters it is seen as being by no means perfect. Although satisfaction levels are high, most people want to see changes. However, there is a clear view that the BBC should continue to remain independent of government, parliamentary and commercial pressures.

  People believe the BBC should keep up with developments in new technology and should be a leading partner in new markets—this will be particularly relevant as we make the journey towards full switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting.

  Contributors clearly felt that there was room for improvement in the way the BBC is governed and regulated, although there is more debate to be had about exactly what changes are needed. And on the question of how we should pay for the BBC, the licence fee was widely considered to be the best—or rather the "least worst"—method for the time being, although other options were put forward and questions were raised about how the licence fee is set, collected and distributed.

  The findings contained in this report will feed directly into the review of the BBC's charter. As I have said on numerous occasions, the only certain outcome of charter review will be a strong BBC, independent of government.

  I have placed copies of What You Said… and the supporting research in the Library of the House. Further copies are available from the charter review web site: www.bbccharterreview.org.uk.

  Government Car and Despatch Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  The Minister for he Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today laid the Government Car and Depatch Agency annual report and accounts 2003–04 before Parliament, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.