Sitting of 21 July 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Post Offices (Deprived Urban Areas)
    Ms Meg Munn: What help he is giving to post offices in deprived urban areas. [185307]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): Among a range of Government measures to support post offices, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has set up a £15 million fund for 2002 to 2005 to support post offices at risk of closure in deprived urban areas. To date, 194 post offices in the most deprived 10 per cent. of wards have been supported. We anticipate that this number will rise to 350 on completion of the fund. A further £210 million is available from the Department of Trade and Industry for managing the long-term sustainable future of the urban post office network.
    Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and welcome the fund. However, Jordanthorpe post office, in a deprived area of my constituency, was assessed for the fund and met the criteria, but was told that there were insufficient funds for it to benefit from the scheme. That post office is enormously important in supporting a whole community and shopping area. Will he give me further advice on what Jordanthorpe post office should do to keep providing the service that it does?
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is a strong champion of the residents of her constituency. I fully understand her concern for ensuring that her urban post offices stay open and I shall listen carefully to her representations. She may not know that since 1997 the Government have invested £2 billion in the post office network. I urge her, as a specific action, to encourage the Jordanthorpe post office to investigate the option of gaining access to the additional funding for the urban post office network that has been made available by the DTI.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Consultation on the closure of post offices in Northern Ireland has become a farce. There is obviously a clear policy on closures. Waterloo road post office in Larne in my constituency was signalled for closure. A neighbouring
    312
    business man was prepared to provide new post office accommodation and to buy out Waterloo road post office's rights and interests with the full support of his community. That was refused and he received no support from Postwatch. Is any appeal open to my constituents as we had accepted the closure of several other small post offices?
    Phil Hope: The ODPM does not provide support for post office networks in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which I shall convey to my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and ensure that he, his constituents and the business he describes get the fullest possible reply to those concerns.
    Tony Lloyd: Some farce is also associated with the closure programme in England. In my constituency—one of the most genuinely deprived inner-city communities in the land—more than 40 per cent. of the post offices will be closed. It would help enormously if the Post Office came clean about how the process works and opened up the books so that when people tell me that post offices are viable yet the Post Office still closes them, we know whether it is the Post Office that is abusing the rules or simply a misunderstanding of the position. I think that the Post Office is abusing the rules.
    Phil Hope: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I will certainly convey them to my ministerial colleagues in the DTI who have responsibility for the post office network. It is true to say that the previous Government presided over 3,500 unstructured closures, with no plans for the long-term sustainability of the network. This Government are providing a huge investment in both the rural and the urban network to ensure that there is a planned process and a sustainable future for post offices in both urban and rural areas.
    Ms Karen Buck: I have recently been told that 50 per cent. of my post office network faces closure by this time next year. Although I fully understand the economic necessity for a reduction in the network, does my hon. Friend realise the impact that that has on urban communities as well as rural communities? Will he urge the Post Office to think carefully about what it does, especially in the complex social situation of London, where rich and poor areas jostle side by side, and ensure that it accepts that post offices are part of the lifeblood of local communities in urban villages, as they are in rural communities?
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the urban post office network is essential. That is why the Government are investing over £180 million to fund compensation payments to sub-postmasters whose offices close, and we are investing substantial extra resources through the urban reinvention programme that I mentioned earlier. Post offices play an important part in community life, and without a rational approach the unplanned closures that occurred under the last Conservative Administration would continue, leaving damaging gaps in the network. The DTI is working hard to ensure that there is a planned process for ensuring the long-term sustainability of post offices in urban as well as rural areas.

    Decent Homes
    David Taylor: What Government policy is in relation to the rights of local authority tenants to have homes which meet the decent standard criteria by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [185308]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): We are determined to make good the appalling neglect of council homes by the last Tory Government, who left us with a colossal £19 billion backlog in repairs and modernisation, and 2 million substandard homes. We have now reduced the number of substandard homes by 1 million and are on target to bring a further 600,000 homes up to the decent homes standard by 2008. Where councils can achieve the decent homes standard through mainstream funding they are perfectly entitled to do so; otherwise the most effective and efficient way to secure the extra funding and better standard of management required to deliver decent homes will be through a choice of public finance initiative, stock transfer or arm's length management organisation.
    David Taylor: Many on these Benches benefited from an affordable, well maintained home rented from an accountable local authority, and we welcomed the reassurance of the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), that the right to a decent home would be extended even to those who retained their local authority landlord. Why has this Minister torn up that commitment, allowing home investment only through the PFI, ALMOs or stock transfer even where tenants prefer direct investment from their local authority to coerced privatisation? Does not the modernisers' mantra of "a right to choose" apply to our core supporters?
    Keith Hill: Well, if my hon. Friend wants to put it in those terms, he can, but I believe that the decent homes programme is precisely designed to deliver to our core supporters. My hon. Friend misuses language when he talks about privatisation. Under the PFI and ALMO arrangements the stock remains council-owned stock and the tenants remain council tenants. The housing associations, which are a key lever for bringing in the huge new sums to deliver the decent homes programme, are not-for-profit organisations. Fifty per cent. of all tenants are in housing associations, which on the whole deliver homes that are of a higher standard and afford tenants greater satisfaction.
    Mr. Robert Key: Has the Minister seen yesterday's report from the UK Noise Association, called "Antisocial Housing"? Why do the Government continue to refuse to include noise insulation in their decent homes-plus standard?
    Keith Hill: Ambient noise is included in the decent homes standard.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: I welcome and understand the Minister's concern about the disrepair of our stock and that which we inherited, but the solutions that he proposes are seen as departmental proposals that are mean and spiteful—
    314
    bad-tempered, even—and almost a betrayal of the wishes of many tenants who want to remain with their local council. For a Labour Minister to be denying them that right seems to me perverse.
    Keith Hill: But I put it to my hon. Friend that we have so far had some 130 ballots on various aspects of the decent homes programme, and in over 80 per cent. of cases tenants have voted for the various forms of PFI, stock transfer or ALMO on offer; they have gone for what my hon. Friend seems to regard as a spiteful option. Where a ballot fails the Government are anxious to work with the local authority to examine the ways forward. That is occurring in Birmingham, close to my hon. Friend's constituency, where good progress is being made.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Birmingham, Hodge Hill borders my constituency, and in an effort to help my neighbour—[Laughter.] I might remind Labour Members that their party was in charge of Birmingham city council during the time to which I am referring, and it still is. No one could fail to have been struck by the number of homes and shops boarded up in that constituency. Take, for example, the parade of shops in Shard End, over which all the flats were boarded up. [Interruption.] Perhaps the new hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) might like to take note.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. First of all, if the hon. Lady intended to raise matters relating to another constituency, she should have notified the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, I know we are near the end of term and I like to give some leeway, but the supplementary question must be short.
    Mrs. Spelman: For all the worthy aspirations of the decent homes standard, does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the Government have failed to get to grips with the problem of empty flats over shops, which could be made into perfectly decent homes and be an asset rather than a liability?
    Keith Hill: I suppose that after her long sojourn in Hodge Hill I ought to welcome the hon. Lady back to the Dispatch Box, but in the light of her singular lack of success in Hodge Hill, it might be a good idea for her to repair to her own constituency, Meriden, at the earliest opportunity. She raised a number of issues, one of which was the decline in neighbourhood shops. I want to encourage Birmingham city council's programme of flourishing neighbourhoods, which is designed to deal with those issues. With regard to flats above shops, the Government have already set up a taskforce to deal with that problem. We are making progress there. The hon. Lady ought to at least acknowledge the Government's addition to the current Housing Bill of a proposition to bring empty homes in cities back into rented accommodation.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: What is the philosophical objection of my right hon. Friend to the idea that councils like Bolsover—which does not have social services, does not deal in education, and deals

    315
    only with housing—should be able to keep control of the housing stock and build even more? What is the philosophical objection to that, even in new Labour?
    Keith Hill: Well, I do not know. I am not always described as new Labour, nor, for that matter, is my Department invariably categorised in that fashion. As I understand it, my hon. Friend's local authority, Bolsover, is in the process of carrying out the stock options appraisal, which will be completed in January. At that stage we can have a look to see what is the appropriate way forward. As I have already indicated, mainstream funding by Bolsover may well be the appropriate way forward.
    Mrs. Spelman: As Shelter's report on homeless households, "Living in Limbo", reveals, the number of people living in temporary accommodation has hit record levels at 94,000 and is still rising. Does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister accept that temporary accommodation, by definition, is the antithesis of a decent home, and that a doubling of the length of time that people have to wait for a permanent home is an indictment of the Government's policy? Is not the truth of the matter that although the decent homes standard is a laudable ambition, for 94,000 people the Government have made it irrelevant?
    Keith Hill: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. It is an issue about which the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned. But while she has been away in Hodge Hill, she obviously missed the Chancellor's excellent statement, which will accord huge new levels of investment for social housing in the next spending review period. It is our expectation that as a result of those high levels of investment, which will yield no fewer than 75,000 new homes for social renting in that period, by 2008 we shall have turned round the increase in homelessness.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that of the three options that he says are available to tenants now to achieve decent homes—stock transfer, PFIs and ALMOs—ALMOs are different in that their borrowing counts against Government borrowing? Will he give an assurance to tenants in Sheffield who are working with the local authority towards ALMOs that no artificial limit will be placed on the amount they can borrow, so that even where tenants of local authorities choose the ALMO route, in practice it will not be available to them?
    Keith Hill: We hope to work with Sheffield to deliver on the ALMO programme, for which funding is available. The new arrangements for housing capital finance were introduced in April, and they allow local authorities to determine how much they can afford to borrow beyond borrowing supported by central Government—the matter is linked to increases in the management and maintenance allowance. We hope that a number of authorities will be enabled to deliver decent homes under the so-called prudential code.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee recently
    316
    released a critical report on progress towards the decent homes standard. Why are Ministers now the only people who believe that the decent homes standard will be met by 2010? The spending review provided new money for housing in growth areas and low-demand areas, but it provided no money for the decent homes programme. Given the tough efficiency savings that Ministers demand from the housing sector and the recent trend for tenants to vote against stock transfer, which of these will be dropped first—the decent homes target or the Government's ideological obsession against local authority borrowing for housing investment?
    Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. Funding is available for the decent homes programme. We acknowledge that the decent homes target for 2010 is challenging, but I reiterate that we are on target to bring 1.6 million homes up to the decent homes standard by 2008.

    Northern Way Growth Strategy
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: What assessment he has made of the effects of the Northern Way growth strategy on growth in the north. [185309]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): In February, I invited the three northern regional development agencies to produce a joint plan for driving up sustainable economic growth in the north, and I expect to receive that report shortly. The three northern regions, which are home to 15 million people, have excellent prospects for economic growth. To help boost the economic revival in the north and elsewhere, the spending review has increased the funding of RDAs from the current £1.8 billion to £2.3 billion in 2007–08.
    Mrs. Fitzsimons: I thank my right hon. Friend, whose personal commitment to regeneration in the north is welcome, for that answer. Is he aware that the fastest economic growth in Britain is in south Manchester? He might miss a trick by not joining up the huge pools of Government investment in the regeneration of north Manchester around Rochdale and Oldham with organisations such as the Knowledge Capital Group, which maximises research and development in universities. Will he do everything in his power to make sure that we maximise public investment in north and south Manchester to make sure that we are the engine in the Northern Way?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I recently visited her constituency, where we have made a substantial investment in housing in low-demand areas through the pathfinder programme. The Northern Way is not taking over cities' roles, and it coordinates the economic assets and advantages that exist in the three regions. Rochdale has an extremely important part to play, and I was pleased to learn about its development plans, which fit into the Northern Way. The Northern Way will not replace the RDAs, which will work together for the benefit of north Manchester and Rochdale.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in expressing disappointment that the RDAs in the north failed to deliver a rural-proofing policy in the Countryside Agency report? What progress can he make through the Northern Way growth strategy to answer that criticism?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We develop not only urban areas but rural areas, and we have given that objective to the RDAs. I recently attended a meeting in Cumbria, where the representative from the rural board, which was the set-up before the RDAs took over, was keen to point out the increase in resources for rural areas in Cumbria. Rural areas are important parts of the region; we will not ignore them and the RDAs are directly responsible for implementing the plans that we have given them.
    Mr. Peter Pike: This afternoon the Northwest Development Agency will announce decisions on the aerospace innovation centre that is to be sited in Lancashire. Is that not an important part of the Northern Way policy, along with the housing renewal pathfinder project? Will it not eventually make the north-west the place to be, and make Burnley a good place for people to live and work in?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose area benefits from the pathfinder proposals. We have also given new powers to the regional development agency to ensure that decisions on jobs, housing and infrastructure are brought together. I think the RDA has done well in that regard. The Northern Way will unite all those decisions across the three regions, and will begin to develop the assets of the north rather than allowing them to become liabilities. It is really a matter of the sum of the parts.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does not the Northern Way strategy underline two huge conflicts at the heart of the Government's entire policy? First, whatever the Deputy Prime Minister is planning to spend in the north of England, will it not be utterly dwarfed by investment in the massive 1 million homes that he plans to build in the south, east and south-east of England? Secondly, what is the purpose of setting up elected regional assemblies in the north if the Deputy Prime Minister is going to impose a strategy of his own? What is the point of the cost of all those extra politicians and bureaucrats if he is going to stick his own strategy on them and tell them what to do? That is not devolution; it is fake devolution.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman often reveals his ignorance of what is actually going on. He needs to recognise that housing problems in the north are different from those in the south. We have a lot of empty houses in the north, because there is less demand. The opposite is true in the south. If we have to deal with different problems at different costs, we must make the appropriate decisions. More resources may be used in the south, but we have made it clear that the distribution will be balanced fairly.
    The Northern Way is a very imaginative idea, which came from the north itself. It was not imposed by the Government; it was presented by the three regions. We now await the taskforce report.
    318
    The regional development agency has played an important role in all this. A week ago, the hon. Gentleman said in the House that he had no intention of abolishing the RDAs. He said:
    "We have not said that we will scrap the regional development agencies."—[Official Report, 13 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1262.]
    I do not know whether he was using the royal "we". The Tory party manifesto stated that the party would "abolish Regional Development Agencies". Is that the position of the Tory party?

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What plans he has for reducing the level of antisocial behaviour on housing estates. [185310]
    The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government have increased the powers available to local authorities, the police and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour no matter where people live. Antisocial behaviour orders are available regardless of the perpetrator's or the victim's housing status. There are also a number of powers available specifically to social landlords to protect both their tenants and the wider community. Those have recently been strengthened in a number of ways, including the commencement on 30 June of new powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The Housing Bill also provides new powers applying to both the social and private rented sectors. On Monday the Home Secretary launched his strategic plan reinforcing the Government's commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but is he aware that a very small number of tenants in my constituency, through blatant antisocial behaviour, are making the life of many tenants of council and housing association homes a complete misery? That is doing untold harm to the victims. It can lead to the break-up of marriages, depression and illness, and many good tenants are being forced out of their homes. Will the Minister come up to my constituency so that I can take him out canvassing, and we can view the problem at first hand?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of the specific problems that have been identified on the Gaywood South ward, the Reffley Lane estate and the South Lynn estate. I understand that the council is aware of the problems, but may not have been able to pursue the antisocial behaviour orders as expeditiously as people would like because of capacity constraints due to staff absence. It will be taking action, however, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will support that wholeheartedly. I am not sure, though, that he really wants me to come and canvass for the Labour party in his constituency.
    Ms Christine Russell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of tackling antisocial behaviour on estates has been the introduction of neighbourhood wardens, who can be a

    319
    uniformed presence on the street and the eyes and ears of local communities? Will he join me in congratulating the Chester community rangers, who have just been awarded the neighbourhood renewal unit quality standard for their excellent work? Following the comprehensive spending review, can he assure me that their work will continue?
    Mr. Raynsford: I very much endorse my hon. Friend's views about the importance of neighbourhood wardens and the significant role of community support officers working with the police to ensure a far more active presence in many of the areas where antisocial behaviour and criminal activity pose a challenge to communities. We are determined as a Government to extend those initiatives and to help to reinforce the sense of security and safety in communities, so that they can work together to tackle that appalling problem.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the two firefighters killed tackling a fire in east London yesterday. They died doing an extraordinary and heroic job and our thoughts are with their families at this time.
    This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Leigh:On behalf of all his colleagues, may I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on the 10th anniversary of his election as leader of the Labour party today? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Does the Prime Minister recall that, in those halcyon days in 1994, he said that it was wrong that we were wasting millions of pounds on accountants and bureaucrats in the NHS instead of spending it on doctors and nurses? Is it not a shame that, 10 years on, the National Audit Office still does not have a detailed cost breakdown of how much of the £61 billion extra investment is reaching the front line? Can we please have detailed cost breakdowns between spending and overheads on the front line? Will he provide Parliament with the information that we need?
    The Prime Minister: Administration costs as a proportion of overall expenditure in the health service are falling, but since the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, what we have been able to achieve in the national health service over the past few years are 67,000 more nurses, 19,000 more doctors, and reductions in every single part of waiting times and waiting lists, including in his own constituency.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I with sincerity congratulate my right hon. Friend on his 10 years as party leader, in consequence of which Hastings and Rye are now Labour towns, benefiting from around 2,000 fewer victims of crime? Will he join me in congratulating the Hastings crime reduction partnership on that success, which is due in large measure to the 37 street wardens and community support officers who are now walking the streets and making them safer?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries should be brief.
    The Prime Minister: I know that it takes my hon. Friend some time to go through the achievements. It is correct that we are putting more support officers and neighbourhood wardens into operation on our streets. That is important because people welcome them where they have been in operation. We should not forget either that we have 12,500 more police officers since 1997, and it is this Government who are going to carry on increasing the police budget—unlike the Conservative party, which is going to impose a cut in the police budget by the cash freeze announced by the shadow Chancellor.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the firefighters who lost their lives yesterday and in expressing our sincere sympathy to their families.
    I, too, would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his 10th anniversary as Labour leader. They have been 10 years of deep frustration for the ambitions of my party and for the ambitions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not here today.
    In his acceptance speech 10 years ago, the Prime Minister said that he would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Can he tell us what has happened to violent crime since he became Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Under the British crime survey, violent crime is down, not up, since we took office. It is true that recorded violent crime is up, but overall, crime is down since we came to power. As I have just said, we have increased the number of police officers by 12,500. That contrasts with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record, as he cut the number of police officers serving on Britain's streets.
    Mr. Howard: The British crime survey figures do not include murder, rape, drugs offences or crimes against children, which is why the Prime Minister never mentioned them when he was Leader of the Opposition and why he then used the recorded crime figures only. On the recorded crime figures, violent crime has gone up by 64 per cent. since 1998. For the first time in this country, 1 million violent crimes were committed in a single year. The Prime Minister has also said that too many of the guilty are going free. Can he tell us how many people guilty of these violent crimes are brought to book?
    The Prime Minister: First, in respect of violent crime, the British crime survey is calculated in exactly the same way as it was when the right hon. and learned

    321
    Gentleman was in office, and the figures indicate that violent crime is down. Secondly, crime overall has fallen but, yes, there are real problems with violent crime. That is why we have the new Criminal Justice Act 2003 coming into force, which will make a big difference in many parts of the country. It is also why we have more police officers and new measures on antisocial behaviour. None of this would be improved by his plans to cut the police budget in real terms.
    Mr. Howard: I am not going to cut the police budget; that is absolute nonsense. The Prime Minister was also talking nonsense when he said that overall crime had fallen. On the recorded crime figures, crime has gone up by 15.5 per cent. since 1998. The Prime Minister did not answer my question. He certainly has been good at very many things over the last 10 years, but answering questions is not one of them. Clear-up rates for violent crime have fallen by nearly a third. Over 500,000 violent crimes were not cleared up, which is one of the reasons why too many of the guilty are going free. Let us look at another issue. Will he tell the House how many criminals he has let out of prison under his early release scheme who have committed more crimes when they should still have been in prison?
    The Prime Minister: First, we have increased the number of prison places in this country. Yes, it is true that some let out under early release—who would, of course, have been released later in any event—have committed crimes, but it is a small percentage of the overall figures. [Interruption.] Two per cent., I am told. Let us go back to the essential question. Crime has actually fallen under this Government, not risen. The Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago that he does not intend to freeze the law and order budget. Let me read what the shadow Chancellor has said:
    "I have agreed with my shadow Cabinet colleagues that the baseline for spending across all of these departmental budgets—
    that is, outside the NHS and schools budgets—
    will be 0 per cent. growth for the first two years."
    That is in cash terms and it includes the law and order budget, does it not?
    Mr. Howard: No, it does not, because we have also explained how we will save over £1 billion a year on the paying of benefits to asylum seekers. Let us get back to crime. On the recorded crime figures, about which the Prime Minister always talked when he was in opposition, there have been 800,000 more crimes committed a year than in 1998. That is an increase of 15.5 per cent. Since his early release scheme was introduced, nearly 2,000 prisoners have committed crimes when they should have been in prison. They have been responsible for nine serious sexual crimes, 163 burglaries, 47 robberies and 462 other violent crimes, whose victims will not have been comforted by the Prime Minister's assurance that that is a small percentage. What is tough on crime about that?
    The Prime Minister: Tough on crime means making sure that we toughen up the penalties for serious offenders and for drug pushers, which we have done. It also means making sure that we increase the number of police on the streets and that we back that up with
    322
    community support officers, which we have done. It further means getting crime down overall, which we have also done.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is going to save £1 billion through the reduction of asylum costs, but that is going back to his fantasy island, is it not? We have been doing a little research on this. Apparently, the shadow Chancellor actually says that he is going to save £1.8 billion on asylum costs; unfortunately, that is the whole of the immigration budget. [Laughter.] So perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain, given his proposed freeze on the law and order budget, how he would maintain police numbers, improve investment in the criminal justice system and carry on getting crime to fall.
    Mr. Howard: Anyone who thinks that I would not make sure that the Home Office gets the resources that it needs is living in fantasy land. This week, the Prime Minister launched another of his five-year plans full of gimmicks and schemes, like the ones he has had before. Can he tell us how many people have been marched to a cash point, how many have had their housing benefit docked, and how many are appearing before night courts? Is any one of the gimmicks that he has previously announced still in operation?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly. Thousands of fixed penalty notices have been given up and down this country. [Interruption.] They are on-the-spot fines and they have been welcomed by police throughout the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman actually opposed fixed penalty notices, and incidentally he also opposed the introduction of community support officers; perhaps he will tell us whether that is still his position? As for it being fantasy that he would cut the Home Office budget, perhaps he will now accept that when he was Home Secretary, having promised to raise police numbers, he actually cut them.
    Mr. Howard: Everybody knows that crime fell by 18 per cent. while I was Home Secretary, which is more than even the Government's target for the next five years. Now, let us get back to my question. I did not ask about fixed penalties; I asked about cash points. The answer to the question that I asked the Prime Minister is none—no thugs have been marched to cash points, no one has had their housing benefit docked and the courts do not sit at night. Is not the truth that every one of these failed initiatives is typical of this Government's dismal record on crime? Ten years on from his acceptance speech, have we not had just more slogans, more spin, more gimmicks and more initiatives, none of which are tough on crime or on the causes of crime?
    The Prime Minister: Fixed penalty notices are of course on-the-spot fines, and they are to be combined with antisocial behaviour orders, closing down crack houses, making sure that the police have the power to close pubs and clubs where disorder occurs, making sure that courts have a proper information technology system, and putting more community support officers and police on the beat.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to compare 10-year records and I am very pleased to do that. Let us look at them, mine and his. Under this

    323
    Labour Government, we have more people in work, the first ever minimum wage, the lowest interest and inflation rates for years, the best ever exam results, and more teachers and nurses; moreover, crime is down. Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman, what happened? When he was Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment went up, and when he was Home Secretary, police numbers came down. And we should never forget that he was the one who introduced the poll tax. So on comparing 10-year records, we are doing pretty well.
    Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that some very good things came out of the 1960s, most notably the then Government's determination to tackle for the first time through legislation the scourge of discrimination, which affects millions of our fellow citizens? Does he also agree that now is the time to look again at our laws and to make them easier for victims of discrimination to use, and to encourage the prevention of discrimination in the first place, thereby greatly improving the life-chances and opportunities of millions of our fellow citizens?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. The strengthening of the law against discrimination has been an important part of this Government's agenda over the past few years. Whatever the difficulties in our society, we should be pleased that discrimination forms no part of the respectable part of politics, and all politicians in the main political parties regard the idea of playing politics with race and discrimination as completely out of order.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On Sudan, and the unfolding catastrophe in Darfur, I welcome the extra £28 million that the Government have pledged for direct assistance. What scope does the Prime Minister see for further practical steps on the back of that welcome decision, to assist the millions of Sudanese facing ethnic cleansing and starvation?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the additional resources, which mean that after the United States of America we are the largest bilateral donor in this situation. The key things now are, first, to ensure that whatever aid is given goes through to the people who need it most, and secondly, to keep up pressure on the Government of Sudan to ensure that they deal with the real problems that are giving rise to the violence and ethnic cleansing. We must continue, along with the United States, to put as much pressure as we can on them to do that.
    Mr. Kennedy: I certainly thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the international community must recognise the absolute sense of urgency here, not least the fact that we cannot expect only 60 United Nations monitors and 300 troops adequately to patrol an area the size of France? Will he continue to send every conceivable signal to the rest of the international community about the urgency involved, because the real danger in humanitarian terms is that we could be facing the obscenity of another Rwanda?
    The Prime Minister: It is for that very reason that we have been in touch not only with the United States but with other countries on the issue over the past few weeks. I myself have spoken twice to Kofi Annan about it. We will continue to work closely with the United Nations and with the other countries involved in this, and to monitor the situation very carefully. We rule absolutely nothing out in this situation. Let us see how the results of the extra aid develop over the coming days. We will keep a very, very close watch on this, and I am in contact with other Ministers on it literally every day.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that over the next few months MPs of all parties will receive substantial complaints in their postbags about fireworks misuse. Yesterday, 8 tonnes of fireworks were seized in Gloucester. Does he accept that, unless we strengthen the Fireworks Regulations 2004, which are currently before the House, we will continue to suffer the problems of the illegal importation of fireworks and we will not have a system for licensing retailers?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. The regulations were laid before the House last Friday, and we are also implementing everything that was contained in the Department of Trade and Industry consultation document on the issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaigning that he has done on this subject over a long period.
    The measures in the regulations include making permanent the offence of possession of fireworks in public by under-18s; a curfew on the use of fireworks between 11 o'clock at night and 7 in the morning, with certain exceptions such as Diwali and new year's eve; limiting the period in which fireworks can be supplied to the general public unless a licence is obtained from the relevant licensing authority; and a maximum noise limit. We have introduced the measures because of the problems to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and we will keep them closely under review.
    Mr. Alan Reid: The Deputy Prime Minister closed the Oban coastguard station and two other stations despite many warnings that lives would be put at risk because of the loss of local knowledge. Earlier this week, the Transport Committee found that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency had failed to carry out a full impact assessment of the closures. In view of that finding, will the Prime Minister set up an independent review to carry out a full impact assessment, and reopen the centres if that is what the review recommends?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman an independent inquiry, but I can tell him that I will look further into the issue and get back in touch with him about it in writing. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister says that a great deal of extensive consultation took place before the decisions were taken. There will always be difficult decisions to take in this area, but I will get back to the hon. Gentleman and write to him with the details.
    Mr. David Kidney: However much purple haze rains down on my right hon. Friend, will he stand firm in upholding the primacy of the welfare of children, especially in those few cases where intervention by mediation or court ruling is necessary to determine contact with the separated parents?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is the interest of the child that should always be of paramount consideration. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, and the process that we are discussing today will not alter that basic principle.
    Pete Wishart: Yesterday the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary quite rightly paid tribute to our armed forces in prosecuting the Prime Minister's illegal and unpopular war in Iraq. The rewards for their efforts are seemingly cuts and amalgamations, so what would the right hon. Gentleman say to my constituents serving in the Black Watch or some other historic Scottish regiment who have been put in the firing line abroad only to be stabbed in the back at home?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he does his case no good whatever by that type of statement. Let me point out to him that, under this Government, defence spending is rising. Of course there are changes in how we spend the defence budget. That is sensible. As the world changes, it is important that we make changes to how we spend the money in relation to defence. No reductions in front-line troops are anticipated by the review today, but it is important to make sure that the record amounts of money that we spend on defence are spent in the most sensible way. Rather than talking about an illegal war, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that most of the people in his constituency serving in the regiments that he described will be proud of what they did in Iraq.
    David Cairns: Is it not clear that, in this new century, the era of narrow-minded nationalism is passing? To that end, does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not matter which particular no-hoper leads the nationalist parties, because it is their philosophy of isolationism and separatism that is being consigned to the dustbin of history?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his case very well, and I have to agree with it. It is interesting that, after devolution, which many people said would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, the UK is actually stronger today. I welcome that, and I think that most people realise that, for example, with the Scottish Parliament, the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish people have been recognised, while the UK has been kept strong because the United Kingdom is in the interests of all the people who live in it.
    Peter Bottomley: In the Prime Minister's first answer, he gave the impression or claimed that all hospital waiting times had been reduced. If we include constituents in Sedgefield with mine in Worthing, how many people have been
    326
    waiting more than a year for audiology tests? Is the figure higher than when he became Prime Minister or higher than when he became leader of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know the figure off-hand, but I can look into it. However, I would have to say to the hon. Gentleman that anyone looking at the NHS today knows that, although there are still major problems, it is getting better as a result of the investment and reform that we have made; and the extra nurses and extra capacity, along with the changes, are delivering substantial falls in waiting times and waiting lists right across the piece. I would be astonished if that were not the case in his area; it certainly is in mine.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Just published—and a source of possible inspiration for many Members—is the autobiography of the late Jeremy Bray, MP, who combined a scintillating intellect with a profound sense of feeling for his fellow human beings. He constantly talks about his own fallibility and his limitations. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the mechanisms that he has in place for dealing with his own fallibility and limitations are sufficient? [Laughter.]
    The Prime Minister: I am absolutely confident that the mechanisms for judging my fallibility are infallible.
    Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister recognise that his leadership and policies contributed to the collapse of the Labour vote in last week's parliamentary by-elections? What does he say to members of his party who feel that, after 10 years, he should honour his promise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and step aside?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman should do is realise that the Government of the country is decided, ultimately, at a general election. We look forward to meeting the Liberal Democrats at that election.
    Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will recall that we are celebrating 30 years of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. May I urge him to bring forward new and tough legislation that will confront the issue of corporate killing?
    The Prime Minister: First, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the Health and Safety Commission over the past 30 years. We will prepare proposals on this matter and publish a draft Bill later in the year. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that the matter to which he refers raises very complex issues, and that we need to get the balance right on corporate responsibility.
    Mr. David Rendel: The Prime Minister and the Government believe in widening participation in higher education, as does my party. However, the number of young people in England aged between 18 and 20 applying to university has fallen as a proportion of the total number of people in that age group. In fact, the figures are down to about 12,000

    327
    below the level that one would have expected over the past two years. I believe that that is because of tuition fees and top-up fees. Can the Prime Minister offer any other explanation?
    The Prime Minister: First, I do not believe that the numbers are falling. The numbers of people going to university are rising. If the hon. Gentleman allows me, I shall check the statistic that he gave me before I agree to it. Secondly, it is important to recognise that the Government are putting more taxpayer's money into higher education. However, if Britain is to compete with the very best and get even more people into university—and especially people from lower-income backgrounds—we have to change the system of funding. We are reintroducing grants and making sure that children from the poorest families get £3,000 a year in support, but we are saying to those who get the benefits of a university education that they should put something back into the pot after they graduate, for the general good of the country. I do not think that unreasonable. If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we were to put in even more money by means of a 50 per cent. top rate tax, that would not be good for the economy. Even if we raised the money—which we would not—I do not think that it would be the right priority for spending.
    Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate British Telecom on its new system to block customers' access to child pornography websites? That stops a staggering 10,000 attempts a day to download images of children being abused and raped. Vodaphone has now agreed to use similar technology. Will the Prime Minister now call on all internet service providers and mobile phone companies to follow that example and help stamp out that despicable trade in children's misery?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and we will certainly do so. We welcome the BT initiative to block access to web pages containing images of child abuse. We would encourage any measure that other internet service providers take to reduce the availability of such images. We will be inviting leading service providers to a meeting in September to consider what can be learned from the experience of the BT initiative, and how that can be extended across the piece. However, I know that this is a serious issue of public concern, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are acting on it.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When defence Ministers said that Piers Morgan should take full responsibility for publishing fake photographs in his newspaper, and when Alastair Campbell said that Gavyn Davies should
    328
    take full responsibility for the BBC's output, would it have been an adequate defence to say that they acted in good faith?
    The Prime Minister: In our debate yesterday, we went through all the various issues in relation to this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: Answer!] I will answer, very directly. It is not simply a question of having acted in good faith. We acted on the intelligence that we had. I defy anyone to look at that intelligence and say that they would not have come to the same conclusion. I believe that we took the right decision, and I stand by it. I believe that the world, Iraq and the region are better places as a result.
    John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the number of apprenticeships that have been developed in the Clyde—some 250 in the past few years and another 100 about to start in the coming year. Can he allay my concerns about what will happen with future orders, to ensure that those 350 young people have jobs in the decades to come?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely by keeping the strong economy that we will encourage such apprenticeships. As my hon. Friend may know, we have seen a rise from 70,000 modern apprenticeships to 250,000 in the country as a whole. It is the combination of investment in training and skills and a stable economy with high levels of employment that is the best guarantee of increasing prosperity, not merely in my hon. Friend's constituency, but throughout the country.
    Sandra Gidley: The Prime Minister will be aware that the star ratings for trusts were released today, and that a target for primary care trusts is access to a GP within 48 hours. I wish to share with him a brief email that went out from Southampton City PCT:
    "Just a reminder that the Primary Care Access Survey will take place this Wednesday … between 11am and 1pm. If you … have any problems hitting the … 48hrs … target, please contact …."
    Will the Prime Minister admit—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A short supplementary would have been fine. Can the Prime Minister answer?
    The Prime Minister: I shall do my best. First, the star ratings are given by the independent Healthcare Commission. Secondly, my understanding is that the Liberal Democrats are against all these performance targets—the guarantees for people about access to GPs, the waiting list and waiting time targets. It is very odd of the hon. Lady to say that we should be even more vigorous and rigorous in ensuring that they are met. I remind her that we are putting more money into the national health service, including in her area, than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us for.

Rural Strategy
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I am pleased to present to the House today the Government's rural strategy 2004. As in the rural White Paper 2000, our vision for rural communities is based on delivering genuinely sustainable development, with economic and social strategies consistent with our aim of protecting and enhancing our natural heritage for future generations. Rural strategy 2004 represents an ambitious set of policy priorities for rural communities and the countryside, coupled with radical reforms to the delivery of our policies.
Fresh evidence that we have commissioned confirms that there is relative prosperity in rural areas. For example, measured in terms of average household income. 55 per cent. of households in rural areas are above the median, but the evidence also confirms that the picture is by no means uniform across rural England. Rural society is changing in ways that are blurring the distinction between urban and rural. Farming remains at the heart of rural society, and an important focus of rural policy, but employees in rural businesses are now more likely to be employed in manufacturing, tourism or retailing. Within the overall picture of relative prosperity, there are pockets of economic and social disadvantage.
That evidence shapes our approach to delivering sustainable communities and so puts a premium on policies and on delivery mechanisms that focus on that deprivation. My reform agenda sees the devolution of decisions and delivery—to get help to the areas and people that need it most. To ensure that they are able to access that help, I will ruthlessly streamline the funding support we provide. The present 100 rural, agricultural and environmental funding schemes will be reduced to three major funding programmes linked to strategic priorities, allowing us both to sweep away unnecessary rules and to simplify application processes.
Our policy has three main planks. First, while supporting prosperity across the board, we will act to help the minority of rural areas that are lagging economically. I want rural businesses to have the support they need. This year, I will put an extra £2 million into the Business Link network, to improve support and assistance to businesses, especially those in lagging rural areas. I want all rural business men and women to know that they can turn to a service that understands their needs, including the needs of agricultural businesses and businesses diversifying from agriculture, and a service to help them through the existing maze of services and grants available.
I will devolve decision making and funding for economic regeneration to the regional development agencies, to allow decisions better to reflect the needs and pressures in each region. I am increasing the funding DEFRA provides to the RDAs' single pot from £45 million to £72 million next year. To ensure that it is spent in the most effective way, each region is to put in place arrangements to facilitate rural prioritisation within a strong partnership structure. I shall not impose a single structural form—I want to encourage maximum
330
simplification and streamlining—so that regional delivery partners are set free to focus on doing, rather than talking.
Local authorities have a vital role as community leaders in joining up and delivering quality services, so I intend to look at innovative mechanisms for devolving delivery even closer to rural communities. Over the course of this year we will set up a pathfinder in each region, to explore practical ways of providing more joined-up and flexible approaches at local level in rural areas, including joining up services and funding at the point of delivery.
The second plank of our policy is to tackle rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and to achieve fair access to services. Access to transport, to affordable housing and to broadband helps to underpin economic prosperity and social justice for rural dwellers. Last week, the Government announced more money for sustainable housing. My Department will act as guardian, to ensure that that money helps to address social disadvantage in rural areas.
I will devolve money for building capacity in the voluntary and community sector to each region, to be managed through the Government offices, as that sector can truly understand local need and provide innovative solutions. However, I want to be sure that we get an independent assessment of results. The need for a rural advocate is as strong as ever, so I will create a small and well-focused new countryside agency by next April, initially within the legal framework of the existing body, to act as expert watchdog and advocate on behalf of rural communities. Its priority will be rural disadvantage, and it will act as a think-tank and futures body, drawing on its monitoring of progress and best practice to suggest innovative solutions to Government.
The third plank of our policy is to protect and enhance the natural environment in rural areas, and that of our seas, coasts and rivers, and our green spaces in towns and cities. A healthy and attractive countryside brings social benefits such as tranquillity, but also economic benefits; more than 300,000 jobs depend directly on it, and rural tourism brings about £13.8 billion to the rural economy each year.
Rural England is also a treasure trove of diverse and wonderful landscapes and wildlife. Its natural beauty is an asset to be cherished and enhanced. The countryside provides us with the essentials of life; improving its health is the most valuable inheritance we can leave. Our woodlands, for example, help to mitigate the effects of climate change—one of the most serious environmental problems the world faces. Visiting the countryside does much to improve our quality of life, providing recreation, better health and a source of education and learning.
Much of the quality of our landscape and its biodiversity depends on how it is managed by farmers and others. The changes that we are introducing as a result of CAP reform will enhance the positive and reduce the negative impact of farming methods and land management on the environment. As recommended by Lord Haskins, we will establish an integrated agency to deliver our policy objective of a healthy countryside valued and used in a sustainable way. The new agency will be a powerful, independent statutory non-departmental public body, building on the world-class

331
strengths of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service. Its remit will be the integrated management of our natural heritage that the challenges and environmental threats of the 21st century demand. That will include biodiversity, landscape, and the sustainable use of the countryside, including recreation and access. It will have a remit to carry out its functions within a sustainable development context. It will work closely with the RDAs—and elected regional assemblies, if established—to ensure that the natural environment is taken into account in regional policy making and activity.
The formal establishment of the integrated agency will require primary legislation. I hope to introduce legislation next year and to publish a draft Bill, as an early step. In the meantime, while each of the three bodies will remain responsible for their own statutory duties, they will come together into a confederation of partners by April next year. To help that partnership working, I will move the Rural Development Service from the policy core of DEFRA and give it the autonomy that befits a major delivery body.
This package of policy and delivery reform is aimed at delivering services in a more streamlined and customer-friendly way, through radical devolution to regional and sub-regional partners, as well as to our own delivery agents. The significant streamlining of our funding should make things easier and simpler for our customers. These arrangements are aimed at improving effectiveness in the delivery of our three policy priorities, within an enduring framework of sustainable development. They will also deliver efficiencies, exploiting operational synergies and removing duplication. They have been developed in an inclusive and transparent way. They will build on the excellent work being done across the country by those working for DEFRA and its family, and beyond DEFRA. They will provide greater freedom to staff to get on with delivering what our customers need from the Government, and I am confident our people will rise to that challenge.
I want these reforms to be workable, but sufficiently flexible to meet future challenges and changes. I commend the approach and its implementation to the House.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the letter that she sent me first thing this morning, although the website referred to in it did not contain any detail of the rural strategy, and for a copy of her statement, which for various reasons, including a mishap—I am not sure whose—I have only seen in the past 15 minutes or so. I welcome the recognition that some rural areas do not share the prosperity enjoyed by other areas, but I am afraid that I do not share her view of how their needs should be addressed.
First, on agriculture, I appreciate that the Government may have more to say about farming-related issues tomorrow, but the Secretary of State's two-and-a-half- page letter—headed, "Rural Strategy 2004"—does not mention either agriculture or farming, and the statement that she just made scarcely did so. That will alarm many people who depend on that vital industry for their livelihood. It suggests that, even now, Labour Ministers do not recognise the central role that farmers play in protecting, maintaining and enhancing
332
the rural environment, and the extent to which prosperity in many parts of the countryside is still very directly related to the fortunes of agriculture.
The statement is made against the background of severe problems in many rural communities. Under Labour, rural councils receive less cash support from the Government than their urban counterparts; under Labour, rural communities have fewer police per head of population than their urban counterparts; under Labour, rural bus services receive less support than their urban counterparts; under Labour, homelessness in rural areas is rising; under Labour, police stations in rural areas are closing; and under Labour, post offices in rural areas are disappearing and the proportion of households in rural areas with access to affordable broadband connections is only a tiny fraction of what it is in towns.
Against that background, the proposals summarised in the Secretary of State's letter this morning and in much of the statement that she has just given to the House are vague, often riddled with jargon and sometimes of limited relevance to the needs of rural communities. A dairy farmer worried about the spread of TB, a rural community whose environment is about to be destroyed, against its wishes, by the development of nearby greenfield sites at the insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister or a neighbourhood blighted by illegal fly-tipping will draw no comfort from the waffle that we have just heard from the Secretary of State, such as
"setting up regional pathfinders";
"bringing together partners at regional and sub-regional level";
"consultation about the Department's list of indicator districts in relation to PSA targets".
So much for the DEFRA family.
Why will the Government not stand up for rural communities in a practical way and give local councils, which are democratically accountable, the power to decide how much development takes place on greenfield sites in their districts, what kind of building is allowed and where it should go? Why will the Secretary of State not address the rapidly growing menace of fly-tipping, a problem partly caused by her Department's incompetence in not preparing for the implementation of new laws? Why not, for example, make fly-tipping an arrestable offence now? Without such practical steps her claim— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to speak.
Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that Labour Members do not like the truth about what they have done to our rural communities. Without such practical steps, the Secretary of State's claim that her policy will protect the rural environment will ring very hollow indeed in many parts of the countryside.
In turning to that part of the statement that deals with the response to Lord Haskins' review, I make clear our support for the broad thrust of many of his conclusions and, in particular, that too many organisations have become involved in the delivery of rural policy, leading to confusion, inefficiency and a lack of co-ordination and accountability. Proposals to reduce the number of organisations to a more manageable number are therefore desirable. However, as the Secretary of State has said, since legislation will be needed to set up the new

333
integrated agency, there seems a danger that, until parliamentary time is available, uncertainty may now blight some of the work of the existing bodies. Since the Countryside Agency is apparently to continue as a rump, there still seems to be a lack of clarity in the Government's mind about how the new arrangements will work.
Let me also make it clear that we do not agree that the regional development agencies are the right bodies to perform an expanded role in delivering any aspect of rural policy. The idea that using regional development agencies—and, possibly, and even worse, elected regional assemblies—will bring the delivery of services even closer to rural communities is so absurd that it can be proposed only by a Minister who neither knows nor cares what life is like in the remoter parts of East Anglia and the south-west.
Regional development agencies are unaccountable, bureaucratic quangos that are wasteful in their use of public resources. They exercise powers that have mostly been seized from elected local authorities, particularly county councils. The fact that their main champion is the Deputy Prime Minister should alone make anyone in rural communities suspicious of them. We all know that the Deputy Prime Minister has only one view of the countryside and that is as a vast potential building site.
It is a pity that the Secretary of State has done nothing in her period in office to protect our landscape from the unwanted and intrusive developments imposed by the Deputy Prime Minister or to defend the rights of elected county and district councils to exercise local control over the scale of new development. We will fight the transfer of any more responsibilities to regional development agencies in the context of rural policy.
I am also concerned that the important independent advisory role at present entrusted by law to English Nature will still be performed properly under the proposed new arrangements. From time to time—for example, over the issue of GM crops and their environmental impact—the independent advice that English Nature has provided has been uncomfortable for the Government, but the need for that advice and the need for an independent voice able to speak up with the authority of a statutory body remain. I am therefore concerned that the new arrangements will not fully recognise this need.
I am concerned also that, although the aim of the proposals is to streamline the machinery through which rural policy is delivered, the situation will, in certain respects, get more complicated. For example, the role envisaged for regional rural affairs forums is a move in the opposite direction. They will be talking shops for so-called stakeholders and nothing more.
People in my constituency of South Suffolk and in other rural areas are used to plain speaking. There has not been much of that from the Secretary of State today. For too long, rural communities have been at the bottom of the Government's agenda. They have been discriminated against in terms of financial support and neglected through the provision of new services, with their age-old traditions held in contempt by urban new Labour Ministers, their industries endangered by imports, often produced to lower standards than those
334
required here, and their environment destroyed in too many areas by a stroke of the Deputy Prime Minister's pen. Judging by what the Secretary of State said today, only the election of a Conservative Government will start the process of addressing their real and urgent needs.
Margaret Beckett: I got the distinct impression that the hon. Gentleman had understood neither the statement, nor, despite his experience, the reality of what is happening in rural areas. Let me pick up on a couple of the many points that he made. He talked about ignoring the central role of farmers, but I specifically identified and recognised that, as we do through the £17 billion that goes to farmers under pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy. He is right that there are other occasions to make more detailed announcements about farming—today's statement was about rural areas as a whole. Some 25 per cent. of those employed in rural areas are employed in manufacturing, which is more than in urban areas. Some 9 per cent. are employed in tourism, with 7 per cent. in retailing and 6 per cent. in agriculture. I share his view that agriculture is enormously important, but it is a pity that he seems to think that unless we are talking about farming, we are not talking about rural areas.
The hon. Gentleman listed ways in which he thought that rural areas were discriminated against under Labour, but ignored the fact that under this Government, all councils have received more money and every area has more police services. Under this Government, —450 million has been put into supporting rural post offices. He was foolish enough to talk about post offices disappearing, but it was because many commercial rural enterprises disappeared under the Government of whom he was a member that we were forced to introduce a special rate relief for villages with only one such enterprise left. They did not all disappear under us, but under them.
The hon. Gentleman made a totally unwise and inaccurate remark about English Nature and GM crops. English Nature advised us to run the trials, which we did, and after we received the results of the trials, a scientist from English Nature told us that he could not understand why anyone would oppose something that was better for the environment. Of course, however, that is quite consistent, because the only Government who brought GM products on to the market in this country were the Government of whom he was a member.
The hon. Gentleman said that people like plain speaking and that rural areas have been at the bottom of the agenda under this Government. The plain-speaking truth is that if the Conservatives' stewardship of rural areas had been as he said, and if they had not taken many rural areas and their support completely for granted, we would not now have some 180 Labour MPs representing rural and semi-rural constituencies.
Andrew George: I thank the Secretary of State for providing me with an advance copy of her statement, although that happened after the Prime Minister rose to his feet for Prime Minister's questions—within half an hour of the statement itself. I did not receive a letter from her, although I have received a communication to tell me that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who shares

335
my surname, received the letter rather than me. Perhaps the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs to examine its bureaucratic procedures.
I understand why the Department has been drawn into the vortex of incredibly fluffy thinking that often arises when talking about rural development. Indeed, paragraph 40 of the candid report that the Secretary of State penned in autumn 2003 to review the progress of the rural White Paper said that
"defining effectively what is meant by the concept of 'rural areas' versus urban"
areas has been a challenge. In the same report, she said:
"The White Paper's inevitably aspirational nature means that it has not always been easy to pin down what it has actually meant in practice, and different groups and individuals have tended to interpret it differently. This in turn has made it harder to be specific about the outcomes that the Government wants to see in rural areas and to target resources to those areas and people with greatest need."
At least she acknowledged that, three years after the publication of the rural White Paper, the Government were not clear about what they were intending to do in the first place.
The problem is that on top of the labyrinth of strategies, initiatives, pilots and projects, the rural strategy will fail if it merely adds to the strong sense of fatigue among the agencies, local authorities and Government Departments that are expected to implement it. The streamlining of initiatives and the funds announced today by the Secretary of State will help, but at least she was honest in her review of the rural White Paper when she said that among its "successes" it was "increasingly understood". It should now recognise the problems conventionally found in strategies created to give the impression of purposefulness, compared to the determined action required in rural areas today.
I agreed with the principles that the Secretary of State set out, the general thrust of the reforms that she mentioned to clarify and devolve matters and the work to avoid rural areas becoming the exclusive preserve of the better-off. What has she done since the autumn to define what rural areas are, and do all Departments agree with the definition, especially the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in its delivery of housing policy? Does the strategy supersede the rural White Paper? Will she explain in plain English the core objective of the strategy and is she confident that it will this time be understood across Government Departments?
Has the Secretary of State discussed the strategy on rural-proofing with her colleagues in the Treasury, who I understand are working tirelessly to ensure that Britain is removed from objective 1 and other European regional development aid? If that is the case, the money that the Government are proposing to add to rural regeneration might not even begin to match that withdrawn from the most needy rural areas that will lose aid.
The Secretary of State said that money will be given to regional development agencies, but will it be apportioned according to need or simply on the basis of rural populations? What will be the role of the fully independent sector in rural delivery? Over decades, we have had the tried and tested process of rural community councils throughout rural England providing an excellent means of delivery, so bypassing
336
them or giving funds to regional development agencies so that RCCs must try to draw money from them would not be a good mode of delivery. She should use the existing method of delivery to ensure that the money gets to the ground, and I would like some reassurance on that matter.
On the environment, farmers are pivotal to delivering what the Government want throughout the countryside, but they are going out of business at the rate of 12 a day. Lord Haskins says that he thinks that the fact that farms are becoming larger is a good thing, although I do not know whether that is Government policy. What are Government doing to ensure that there are sufficient farmers so that their targets for the countryside may be met?
The biggest challenge facing rural areas today is housing, so what is the Department going to do about that? If rural areas are not to become the exclusive preserve of the better-off, sustainable action is needed to ensure that rural areas are there for rural people.
Margaret Beckett: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that if the changes that we are announcing today merely add to the sense of fatigue, we will certainly have failed. However, I understand from the extensive discussions that my officials, ministerial colleagues and I have held with all those engaged that there is recognition of the need for change and a great willingness to embrace that change and take it forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about definitions and data. It is a symbol of the failure of the Conservative party that when we came to power and endeavoured, through the implementation of the rural White Paper, to find out how to address some of the problems that unquestionably exist in rural areas, there was a dearth of evidence, information and reliable data. We had to start from scratch in building an evidence base. We now have an agreed definition. I shall not share it with the House, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and ensure that the letter gets to him this time. Perhaps someone had not been to Walsall and misunderstood the nature of the countryside there.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Someone in the Department.
Margaret Beckett: Someone in the postal service.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we discussed the issues with the Treasury. We certainly did and it is very much on board. It has taken on board the issues of rural proofing in its approach to expenditure and assessment of need. He referred to objective 1 status. He will know that no one fought harder than the Government to secure objective 1 status, not least for the area that he represents. Money has been pouring into his area under this Government in a way that has never been seen before. I am conscious of the difference between the concerns and the hopelessness that people saw six or seven years ago and the hope, optimism and fresh opportunities that exist in such areas today.
The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the position of rural community councils. We recognise the dangers he identifies. It is not intended that their funding should come through RDAs; the existing role will be retained.

337
The general distribution of moneys between different RDAs will follow the overall picture because we will be contributing to the single pot.
I agree that farmers are critical to the environment and land management. The hon. Gentleman asked what we had done to assist their enduring participation in farming. There have been many initiatives, gestures and support of various kinds, but the most important thing we have done is to reform the common agricultural policy, which sets them free to farm to the best advantage of their business, not because that is how they get the subsidy. On housing, I said that the resources will also apply to housing in rural areas.
Diana Organ: I warmly welcome the statement, in particular the reduction of the 100 rural agricultural and environmental funding schemes to three major ones. Will my right hon. Friend provide more detailed guidance on that, and if so when? Which funding schemes are going into which programme? Many organisations are delivering in rural areas and will want to know which section they have been put into.
Will my right hon. Friend say a little about funding for areas of outstanding natural beauty? It was clear in the Haskins review that national parks will get 100 per cent. of their money directly from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the future of the money for areas of outstanding natural beauty was not clear. At the moment, some of it comes from local authorities and some from DEFRA.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must insist that supplementary questions are brief. Perhaps I can also put down a marker for Front-Bench spokesmen. Back-Bench Members also have to be called and that should be taken into consideration.
Margaret Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). We will obviously publish more detail. A rather attractive diagram shows what schemes will go where. Broadly speaking, the three major funds will focus on natural resource protection, sustainable food and farming, and sustainable rural communities. Although initially there will be an indication of how existing funds fit into that framework, one of my key goals has been that we do not simply introduce three headlines under which remain the existing complexity of schemes, rules, application forms and so on. I am determined that there will be three funding streams and that their delivery will be devolved as much as possible. We will also honour existing commitments, so it will take a little time to introduce the scheme.
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall write to her about areas of outstanding natural beauty. Those are covered by a range of issues and different sources of funding.
Mrs. Angela Browning: If support for rural business is important, which it is, why are the enterprise agencies in Tiverton and Crediton
338
in my constituency closing? The enterprise agency in Honiton will no longer be run locally, but from Plymouth—hardly rural—on the other side of the county, which is also the case for my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), whose constituency covers Exmouth.
On social exclusion, why are the learning and skills councils cancelling from 1 August all courses that do not lead to a qualification for work, thus depriving all the adult population with learning disabilities of the opportunity to prepare for voluntary work? The Secretary of State painted a rather twee picture of the beautiful countryside, but when animals leave Devon in the next decade, which they will, it will not look like a chocolate-box picture; it will look like a wilderness.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Those were supplementary questions. Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer just one of them.
Margaret Beckett: A number of the questions raised on specific policy developments are for other Departments, although I recognise the potential knock-on effect. As I said, we are not only putting more resources into support for businesses in rural areas, but intend to introduce a much more simplified and more effective way in which that support and information can be accessed.
As for Devon being a wilderness and everyone leaving, the Government of whom the hon. Lady was a member would have been proud to deliver CAP reform in the way in which this Government have.
Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for an insightful analysis of rural life and the view of the future. Will she consider the renaissance market town development of Yorkshire Forward? It has been extended to Marsden and Slaithwaite in my constituency and allows the local community to develop its own plan for sustainable development. Will the new money be accessed more easily so that those plans are not just talked about but properly implemented?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is entirely right—the local project and initiative that she describes is exactly the sort of thing that we want to see spread more widely. The greater resources that we are putting in and the greater freedoms that we are devolving to a local level mean that others can learn from best practice, which can be widely replicated.
Mr. McLoughlin: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to your ruling on a point of order yesterday, Mr. Speaker? Her Department could comply with that by close of business tonight if she gave the necessary instruction, and I beg her to do so.
On the more substantive issue, she mentioned the RDAs in paragraph 6 of the statement. Will she look at how her proposals will affect the Peak park, which falls into four Government areas—the east midlands, the west midlands, Yorkshire and the north-west? Certain

339
parts of the park qualify for grants given by RDAs, but other parts do not. Will she consider that particular problem?
Margaret Beckett: I shall certainly check what the hon. Gentleman says about your ruling, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the matter is for Departments to determine, but I shall look into it.
Secondly, we are conscious of the problems faced by areas such as the Peak park. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality discussed that with the relevant chairs of RDAs only yesterday. Although I recognise that hon. Members get upset about the use of what they regard as jargon, it is sometimes hard to explain organisational change in any other way. We are anxious to encourage partnership working among and with the RDAs.
Chris McCafferty: I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, in particular her proposals to prioritise access to transport and affordable housing. Is she aware that £2 million has been invested in rural transport in my constituency in the past 18 months? The improvement in the quality of life of my constituents has been immeasurable. Is she also aware of the housing problems that arise for people born and bred in semi-rural areas, like Hebden Bridge in my constituency, that have become tourist honeypots? Will the new agency prioritise and address those issues of affordable housing in such areas?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her words, which are in stark contrast to those of Conservative Front-Bench Members. I do indeed recognise the huge difference made by the resources that have been put, for example, into rural transport, which has certainly undergone a transformation. I share her concern about access to affordable housing, about which the Conservative party seems to have nothing to say, except to try to pretend that it would all be in greenbelt areas so nobody wants any of it, which is not a very constructive approach. I also understand and share my hon. Friend's concern that we should carry on making such improvements, and we will certainly continue to do what we can.
Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Lady constantly used the word "delivery". Is she aware that delivery depends on reliable IT systems that do not fail? The Rural Payments Agency is under strain and the cattle tracing service has been criticised. The besetting sin of this Government is introducing schemes before they can deliver them, as with the whole tax credit system. Will she make sure that nothing is introduced until she is absolutely certain that it can be delivered?
Margaret Beckett: Some of the criticisms made of the cattle tracing service had validity but are well out of date. I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that successful delivery depends on reliable IT, not least because, as he will probably recognise, when our Department was set up not only did neither of its constituent parts have reliable IT, but they could not talk to each other, so we are very mindful of the need for IT to underpin successful delivery of services.
Paddy Tipping: The final sentence of my right hon. Friend's statement stressed implementation. These are major changes for the Department and the various agencies involved, and they require primary legislation according to a timetable yet to be ascertained. What mechanisms and management structures will be put in place to handle those major changes and make them successful?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of what the Government are trying to achieve. We will be making much more information available to Members in, I hope, the near future. We believe and hope that a number of changes on the ground can begin next April, but as he says, changing the legal structures will require primary legislation, and obviously that depends on the Government's overall approach. I believe that we will begin to see differences next spring.
Richard Younger-Ross: I welcome the additional £2 million for Business Link announced by the Secretary of State, which is probably just as well as there will be few farmers left in Devon and we will need other businesses. Can she speak to the other agencies that may be undermining her efforts? Royal Mail is about to reduce postal collections in Teignbridge and south Devon; BT is shutting and removing telephone boxes; and the Post Office is about to close seven post offices.
Margaret Beckett: Contrary to the carping that we hear across the Floor of the House, very many people in the farming community fully recognise not only that this Government have done an enormous amount to help and support British farming, but that the changes that we have negotiated and are putting in place will help to create a sounder future for the farming community over the next half-century and beyond, not least because the resources that it will receive will be given in return for public goods and are therefore much more likely to be accepted and welcomed by the public.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's further comments, I am of course mindful that changes are taking place in rural areas, but I have already pointed out how much the Government are already doing to try to help to support rural post offices, which were one of his examples. He must be well aware of the changes that took place before we came to power, not all of which we can reverse.
Mr. David Drew: I am not sure whether I heard my right hon. Friend mention rural governance in her statement, but I know that she will appreciate the importance of parish and town councils, in which I declare an interest. Does she accept that there is still a problem in rural Britain regarding the capacity of parish and town councils and the level of disagreement that sometimes takes over? Will she make sure that resources are put into the first layer of our democracy, because those bodies are, and will remain, very important?
Margaret Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that there is an enormously important and valuable role for parish councils. He will be familiar with the

341
quality parish council initiative to which we have often referred in the House. I am also mindful of the fact that it is often at that level that the voice of the rural populace can most clearly be heard. I assure him that capacity-building, support and training is very much part of the picture that we hope to create.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has considered getting rid of her rural policy and the galaxy of institutions and public officials that surround it, and whether the people living in the countryside might be better off as a result.
Margaret Beckett: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman means. All I can say is that the Conservative party did their best to get rid of the prosperity of rural areas when they were in power.
David Taylor: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the statement; it reminds us why many of us voted for her 10 years ago in the leadership election. She is right to refer to the priorities of rural business, rural exclusion and rural environment, and she cites tranquillity as an important characteristic of the countryside. Where in her Department is the co-ordinated liaison with the aviation industry to try to tackle the problems of those villages that lie under flight paths or are scattered around regional airports, where environmental controls are particularly defective?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the statement. I understand his point keenly, because shortly after the planes that he refers to fly over villages in his constituency, they fly over mine. I am therefore mindful of his concerns. I simply say to him that we endeavour to maintain the right balance between economic development and social and environmental concerns—it is not easy, but we will continue to try to do so.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and the Secretary of State's inadequate reply, will she at least seriously consider shutting down the talking shop regional assembly in the south-west and the regional development agency, with all their glossy brochures and strategy documents which do absolutely nothing for the people who live and work
342
in the south-west, and instead spend the time and effort on cutting taxes and reducing regulations on those people?
Margaret Beckett: We are doing a great deal of work on whether and how we can achieve a better, more consistent and light-touch approach to regulation. The right hon. Gentleman may want all the voices for rural areas—what he calls a talking shop—silenced and the regional development agencies closed down, but many people in rural areas, as elsewhere, recognise the valuable and viable role that those bodies can play. Maybe they do not like to say so to the Conservative party because they know that it is pledged to abolish them.
Mr. David Kidney: The general approach of much more devolution has to be right, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that, but will it place new and greater demands on the rural proofing that has been so well championed by the existing Countryside Agency? If so, what does she think will happen to rural proofing in future?
Margaret Beckett: Obviously, responsibility at Government level remains with my Department, but we believe that a new, smaller and more focused Countryside Agency will be able to act very effectively as an independent adviser, advocate and watchdog for the interests of the countryside. That is certainly my hope and my intention.
Mr. James Paice: The Secretary of State referred to the valuable role of woodlands in tackling climate change, but not to their valuable role in the landscape, the forestry industry and local economies. How does she square her comments with the fact that private planting of woodland is at an all-time low and the losses being incurred by Forest Enterprise are at an all-time high, at the expense of the taxpayer? What is her strategy for putting that right?
Margaret Beckett: We are looking at how we can best develop and make use of the economic opportunity, and indeed the social as well as the environmental opportunities, of woodland. The policy responsibilities for the Forestry Commission will in future move to my Department, but the commission will work with the other agencies to establish delivery of policies on the ground in rural areas, and it will look afresh at the approach to woodland.

Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities
1.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the need to transform our armed forces to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Before I do so, however, I know that the House would want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery, professionalism and dedication of the men and women who serve their country in the armed forces, as well as those who support them in the Ministry of Defence and British industry. Their reputation is second to none. The transformation that I am setting out today will help to ensure that our armed forces can continue to respond effectively to the global challenges they are likely to face.
The Government are absolutely committed to Britain's defence and to our armed forces. That was made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement last week of the Budget settlement for defence. The 2002 spending review provided the largest sustained growth in defence spending plans for 20 years. This year it has been possible to make even more resources available to defence, providing the longest period of sustained growth for over 20 years—a defence budget rising by £3.7 billion. It is this sustained investment that makes possible the transformation to which the Government and the armed forces are committed.
In the 1998 strategic defence review we set out plans to develop defence capability to match the needs of the post-cold war world. We built on this with the SDR new chapter, published after the appalling events of 11 September 2001, and we confirmed this direction in the defence White Paper of December 2003. That White Paper makes it clear that the threats to Britain's interests in the 21st century are far more complex than was foreseen after the disintegration of the Soviet empire. That is why the defence White Paper signalled that we should continue to modernise the structure of our armed forces, embrace new technology and focus on the means by which our armed forces can work together with other Government agencies to meet the threat of international terrorism and the forces of instability in the modern world.
Our armed forces have enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation. It will see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people—the inputs that characterised defence planning in the past—to a new emphasis on effects and outcomes, and on the exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies and network enabled capability. We measured numbers of people and platforms in the cold war because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces. That kind of campaign has fortunately passed into history as technology has moved on.
The capability of our armed forces is growing year by year as intelligence is combined with target acquisition, modern communications and precision weaponry to produce results that have changed the nature of modem warfare. These new capabilities involve the rapid communication of actionable intelligence to the
344
commander in the field to deliver a range of combined effects, involving all three services and our allies acting efficiently and effectively together.
We are also able to respond more rapidly to crises through the improved deployability of our forces. We saw that in 2003 when forces were moved to the Gulf in less than half the time that it took 12 years before. With better target acquisition and precision weaponry, our Air Force was able to hit its targets with less ordnance—and hence fewer aircraft—than in the first Gulf war. The same tasks can now be completed in much less time, with far greater accuracy and correspondingly lower risk to our armed forces.
The defence White Paper makes it clear that this shift in investment towards greater deployability, better targeted action and swifter outcomes would involve a reduction in the numbers of tanks, aircraft and ships. Drawing on our experience of operations since the strategic defence review, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces have been identifying which parts of the armed forces are most in demand, and which are less well utilised. As a result, we have developed new plans to ensure that our armed forces can retain maximum effectiveness. I have set out those plans in detail in the Command Paper on future capabilities, which is published today.
The majority of reductions will affect not the front line, but support operations. We will exploit greater efficiencies in the delivery of logistic support and the modernisation of infrastructure. We plan to accelerate this process over the years ahead. Efficiency savings of £2.8 billion are included in our plans. All this money will be recycled to enhance our front-line capabilities and other modernisation initiatives.
Of course, we are investing more new money in defence. This investment will, for the Army, enable us to fund its transformation into a force which is structured and equipped to meet the demands of multiple, concurrent operations across the full spectrum of tasks. This involves a shift from the current structure, which is strong at the heavy and light ends of the spectrum but thinner in medium forces, to one that is better balanced right across the capability spectrum.
The balanced land force of the future will consist of two heavy armoured brigades, three medium-weight brigades, based around the future rapid effects system family of medium-weight vehicles—FRES—and a light brigade, in addition to the air assault and commando brigades. We launched the assessment phase of the FRES project in April this year and we expect to sign a contract for technology demonstration work to start later this year.
The shift in emphasis to more agile, deployable forces means that we will establish an additional three light armoured squadrons, re-role a Challenger 2 regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment and re-role an AS90 regiment into a light gun regiment. Later, we will equip three artillery regiments with the new light mobile artillery weapon system. At the same time, we will seek to improve our ability to engage land targets with precision and at range. The first Apache attack helicopter will go operational later this year, which is an important first step down this path.
That will be followed by improvements in our missile inventory, through the progressive introduction of the Brimstone air-to-ground missile, a new infantry

345
anti-tank guided weapon—Javelin—and improved artillery rounds to allow precision indirect fire over the second half of the decade. Collectively, these improvements will be balanced by a reduction of seven Challenger 2 armoured squadrons and six AS 90 heavy artillery batteries by early 2007.
Critical as these new weapons systems are, at least as important are the changes that we are making to enhance the Army's network enabled capability. Digitised communications systems provide the network links. The entry into service of Bowman at the tactical level, and the Cormorant and Falcon systems at the operational and strategic levels, will represent a step change in our capability to pass data between commanders and the front line. We are also continuing to invest in improved electronic warfare capabilities such as Soothsayer, and in developing stand-off sensors, such as the Watchkeeper unmanned air vehicle. I announced yesterday that the preferred bidder for Watchkeeper is Thales Defence Ltd. This will provide battlefield commanders with high quality, timely and accurate information. The new joint surveillance aircraft Astor recently made its first test flight successfully.
Our battlefield and maritime helicopter forces, arguably the most capable in Europe, have demonstrated their versatility by supporting the full spectrum of recent operations. Over the next 10 years, we plan to invest some £3 billion in helicopter platforms to replace and enhance our existing capability. This substantial investment within a relatively short time frame will make it possible to produce a future helicopter fleet focused on the key capability areas of lift, reconnaissance and attack, central to future expeditionary operations.
The dominance in the air by alliance and coalition air forces shown in recent conflicts, together with our judgment about the likely threat on deployed operations, and our continued investment in Typhoon and its advanced air-to-air weapons, mean that we can plan to reduce our overall investment in ground-based air defence. We will meet our requirement in future from 24 Rapier fire units and 84 high velocity missile launchers. Rapier will be deployed by the Army, with the RAF Regiment relinquishing the role. Ground-based air defence will be commanded by a new joint headquarters within the RAF command structure. We are reviewing the implications of these force structure changes for our future equipment plans. In the meantime, I can announce the procurement of additional missiles worth about £180 million for the high velocity missile system.
I come now to the infantry. We currently provide for operational and geographical variety for the infantry by moving battalions between locations and roles every few years, which is known as the infantry arms plot. This process inevitably takes battalions out of the order of battle while they are moving and training for new roles. It also adds to turbulence. We need to ensure greater capability from the infantry, improved continuity, better careers for infantrymen and more stability for their families. The infantry arms plot will therefore be phased out.
346
In addition, as a result of the improving security situation in Northern Ireland, we announced last month a reduction in the number of battalions committed to the Province by two. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the General Officer Commanding have conducted a further review of security requirements. As a result, I can today announce another reduction by a further two battalions, which will take place in the autumn. That will reduce the overall requirement for infantry battalions from 40 to 36. This reduction will comprise one battalion recruited from Scotland and three recruited from England.
Those changes necessitate a new infantry structure that must preserve the best aspects of the regimental system, but produce an organisation capable of adapting for the future. The new structure will be based on regiments of two or more battalions, in largely fixed locations, allowing individuals to move easily between those battalions. Details of the new organisation will be worked out by the Army and announced by the end of the year.
The Army board wants to establish an infantry organisation that will last for the foreseeable future. The manpower released by the reduction of four battalions will be redistributed across the Army to strengthen existing infantry units, but it will also be used elsewhere among the most heavily committed specialists such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence. The overall size of the Army will be around 102,000.
Our plans for the Royal Navy involve the further development of a versatile, expeditionary force capable of operating at distance from the United Kingdom and focused on delivering effect on to land at a time and place of our choosing. Two new large aircraft carriers deploying the joint combat aircraft will provide the heart of our future ability to project military power from the sea. On Monday, I announced the extension of the assessment phase to take forward further design work on the new carriers in the run-up to our main investment decision and that the principles of an alliancing approach have been agreed with our industrial partners. We are investing heavily in our amphibious capability. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which was delivered to the Royal Navy last week, will provide a step change in our ability to launch the Commando Brigade and support other forces ashore.
By ensuring that our major warships are effectively networked and supported, we can deliver more capability from fewer platforms. Developments in network enabled capability—linking sensors and weapon systems—mean that we can meet future area air defence and command and control requirements from a force of eight Type 45 destroyers. With those hugely capable ships currently under construction, we can plan to pay off our oldest Type 42 destroyers, HMS Cardiff, HMS Newcastle and HMS Glasgow, by the end of 2005. We are still in the early stages of an ambitious procurement programme and are working with industry to define a timetable that best matches our capability requirements and the need for steady work in both the shipbuilding and repair industries.
The potential submarine threat to most future UK operations is likely to be low. Where a threat exists, however, we will still need the full range of advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities to deal with it. We have therefore decided to reduce our overall numbers of

347
platforms optimised for anti-submarine warfare, while continuing to maintain our technological edge over potential opponents, including through the introduction of the new low-frequency active sonar 2087. We will pay off three Type 23 frigates, HMS Norfolk, HMS Marlborough and HMS Grafton, by March 2006. That shift of emphasis also allows us to meet our maritime reconnaissance needs with 16 Nimrod MR2 aircraft. That requirement could be met in future by a fleet of around 12 Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, which are more capable, subject to industry demonstrating satisfactory performance at acceptable prices.
We require a total of eight nuclear attack submarines. The introduction of the new Astute class boats will hugely enhance the contribution made by nuclear-powered attack submarines across the spectrum of operations. Solid progress has been made on the first of class following the restructuring of the project, and work continues on boats two and three, as well as on long lead items for boat four, but more remains to be done before production orders can be finalised. We are also investing in the latest generation of Tomahawk land attack missiles and improvements to submarine communications to give our current and future submarines an improved land attack capability.
Our mine countermeasure vessels have made a valuable contribution to recent operations. Against that changing threat, we must retain a balanced force of eight Hunt class and eight Sandown class vessels. We plan to pay off HMS Inverness, HMS Bridport and HMS Sandown by April 2005. The improved security situation in Northern Ireland also makes it possible to pay off the Northern Ireland patrol vessels, HMS Brecon, HMS Dulverton and HMS Cottesmore by April 2007. As a consequence of those changes, the manpower of the Royal Navy will reduce to 36,000 over the next four years.
Air power is critical to the prosecution of modem warfare. Over the next 10 to 15 years, an accelerating transformation of our air power will enable quicker, more precise and more decisive operations at range, delivered by multi-role Typhoon and joint combat aircraft equipped with highly capable weapons. The Typhoon programme is now moving forward towards initial operating capability, with indications that the aircraft is demonstrating excellent performance and good reliability. We expect to sign a contract for the second tranche of Typhoon aircraft as soon as we complete satisfactory negotiations over price and capability.
The investment in our air forces is already producing substantial improvements in existing aircraft. The Tornado GR4 is now one of the most potent offensive aircraft systems in the world, fully capable of day and night operations in all weathers. The Harrier GR9 development programme is on course to deliver a significantly more capable platform with much wider versatility, including for carrier-borne operations. The tactical information exchange capability project will examine how the effectiveness of the GR4 and GR9 can be further enhanced by improving their networked capability. The Tornado F3 aircraft is now equipped with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and the world-leading advanced short-range air-to-air missiles and is fully networked through the joint tactical
348
information distribution system. The new Storm Shadow long-range air-to-surface missile proved itself as a world-beater during the recent Gulf war. New precision-guided Paveway IV bombs will further enhance our overall capability in the short term.
With those significant advances in capability, we now judge that we must reduce the types and overall numbers of the RAF fast jet force, providing a firm baseline for transition to the multi-role era. We will reduce the number of the air defence Tornado F3 squadrons by one, and bring forward the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron disbanded in 2007. Those changes in the force structure and the achievement of planned organisational efficiencies will lead to a reduced RAF manpower requirement of around 41,000 by 2008, which will also allow us to close RAF Coltishall airfield by December 2006. We will also be undertaking an extensive review of our future requirement for airfields. Following an extended period of consultations, we have decided to rationalise the basing requirements of a number of RAF logistic support and communication units. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the armed forces is writing today to those hon. Members whose constituencies may be affected.
The RAF also plays an essential enabling role in support of expeditionary operations through its strategic and tactical airlift capability. The core of that capability remains the fleet of C-130 aircraft and, from 2011, the A400M. To accommodate larger items, we were considering the options to retain C-17s after the A400M enters service, and I am pleased to announce that we intend to buy the current fleet of four at the conclusion of the current lease arrangement and to purchase one additional aircraft, bringing our C-17 fleet up to five aircraft.
Amidst those structural and major equipment changes, we must never neglect the more immediate needs of our armed forces in the field and in particular their personal equipment. We already have a major programme under way in the light of experience from Operation Telic, and I can announce some further enhancements. This year, we will procure additional light machine guns for the infantry, together with night vision and target acquisition systems for forces in land, sea and air environments, as well as further enhancements to our special forces capabilities. We will also make major enhancements to our asset tracking capability to ensure that the right matériel is in the right place at the right time—we have learned the lessons from recent operations in Iraq.
Alongside the modernisation of our conventional forces, as set out in last year's White Paper, the Government remain committed to maintaining the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent, including making the necessary investment at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, and to keep open the options for a successor to Trident until a decision is required, probably in the next Parliament.
In addition to the reductions in the armed forces' manpower, we envisage reductions of around 10,000 in civilian jobs. Those reductions flow from efficiencies as a consequence of the Department's change programme and other initiatives. The reductions in armed forces and civilian manpower will be achieved, as far as practicable, through natural turnover. We will also retrain and

349
redeploy personnel wherever possible. We are committed to enabling our people to develop their skills and abilities, so that those who leave are well equipped for life outside defence and those who stay are properly trained for their roles. However, redundancies will inevitably occur, and we will use the normal consultation processes to achieve them.
The White Paper makes it clear that our reserve forces have evolved to become an integral part of the UK's military capability. We learned many lessons from operations in Iraq about how we mobilise our reserves and how we must strengthen the relationship between the services, reservists, their families and their employers. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), will make an announcement tomorrow about our plans to consult on proposals to update financial assistance to reservists when they are called into service and compensate employers who incur additional costs as a result of their staff being called up.
Some will claim that the defence budget is under such pressure that it is impossible to sustain the Department's forward equipment programme. In fact, the spend with industry will continue at the same level as in recent years. It is of the utmost importance that industry takes the maximum advantage of that substantial investment to produce what the armed forces need at a price that the country can afford. We will take forward our defence industrial policy and implement those changes in conjunction with industry to ensure a healthy and competitive defence industry, one that continues to play the leading role in our economy, a leading role that it enjoys today. I am confident that it will respond to this challenge.
For the third successive spending review, the Government have been able to announce real growth in the defence budget. That is without precedent since the mid-1980s. Even with these additional funds, it is necessary to secure maximum benefit from efficiencies and make choices to ensure that our force structure matches the requirements of today's security environment. The plans that I have announced today show the Government's determination to make the choices necessary to ensure that the real growth in defence expenditure is targeted at what the armed forces require in the 21st century, rather than what they have inherited from the 20th. That will ensure that the armed forces are equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future the tasks that they have undertaken so admirably and successfully in recent years.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I thank the Secretary of State, through gritted teeth, for allowing us sight of his statement every bit of 35 minutes before he rose to make it. I join him in his praise for, and commendation of, the magnificent work done by our armed forces, which does such huge credit and brings such distinction to our country.
We welcome some of the steps that are to be taken in the rebalancing of our forces for the threats and operations of today and tomorrow, and we accept the need for hard choices to deal with some of the legacy issues. We also recognise the importance of network-
350
enabled capability as a next step in the development of the armed forces. But, however the Secretary of State tries to present it today, this announcement is essentially about cuts. The servicemen and women whose battalions are to be disbanded, planes grounded and ships scrapped are the same men and women who bailed out the Government over their dismal failures and incompetence at the time of foot and mouth disease, and bailed out the Home Office over the fire strike. These are the same people who brought peace to Sierra Leone and Bosnia, saved Sierra Leone from almost certain self-destruction, helped to secure peace and good order in East Timor, brought freedom to Kosovo, helped push the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and liberated Iraq and brought an increasing security to its people. Some of them are fighting a largely unsung battle in Basra today, in a very difficult environment.
These young men and women, at all levels of all three services, will feel themselves to have been betrayed, politically and morally. Today the nation will be dismayed that its armed forces, whom it loves and admires, who have repeatedly been deployed at the drop of the hat all over the world on the Government's instructions, and who have brought such distinction and success to Britons internationally, should be treated in such an underhand way.
Most of the current difficulties in defence are entirely of the Government's making. The promise of a strategic defence review to restructure our forces for the post-cold war world was undermined by a defence budget reduced in real terms. The SDR was never properly costed or properly funded. When the new chapter was written after 11 September, as the Labour-dominated Defence Committee has pointed out,
"ambition continued to run ahead of delivery".
Only a few weeks ago, the Select Committee lambasted the Ministry of Defence for doing away with existing equipment before replacement systems had been procured and tested, failing to tackle manpower shortages, and underestimating the importance of boots on the ground. Does the Secretary of State deny that these latest cutbacks will seriously damage our military capability and our ability to project power for several years, while we await the arrival of largely unproven technology?
Despite all the Secretary of State's extravagant claims to be increasing it, there is in reality a deep crisis in the defence budget. According to the latest report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the defence budget is lower in real terms today than before Labour came to power in 1997. Is it not clear that the defence budget is decreasing, not increasing? If it is not decreasing, why did the Chancellor promise £31.8 billion for defence in 2004–05 in his 2002 spending review, but only £29.8 billion in his latest—a real-terms cut of 6.44 per cent.? Under this Government, the defence budget has sunk so deeply into the red that the equipment overspend is in excess of £1 billion per annum. That is hardly a sparkling example of the efficiency of smart procurement.
Today, is the Secretary of State not taking his most reckless step so far—cutting tanks, ships, aircraft and men to make immediate savings, while making vague promises that new weapons will be delivered at some point in the dim and distant future? Is this not the worst form of post-dated cheque?

351
The Government parrot the mantra that numbers of platforms do not count, because modern warships are so much more powerful. Yet the same warship cannot be in two places at once, and the fewer the platforms the greater the proportionate loss when one is damaged or disabled. Does the Secretary of State accept that with the cuts in the frigates and destroyers, the fleet will not be able to fulfil the broad range of tasks assigned to it, which it performs so brilliantly with so few ships? How will the minehunters be able to continue the many tasks that they have been assigned? Can the Secretary of State confirm that only one carrier at a time will ever be in commission in future, and that without proper air cover? At the very least, the Government should give the Navy what it wants, serious land-attack capability for the reduced number of Type 45 destroyers, by fitting them with the tactical Tomahawk cruise missile.
We welcome the work that is being done to modernise the way in which the Army organises itself in this expeditionary age in which it has been so regularly and invaluably used. However, we consider the reduction in the size of the Army in general, and the infantry in particular, from a manpower target of 108,500 to the present size of 103,500 and a proposed established strength of 102,000—a cut of 6,500 men—to be extremely unwise. All the evidence and all the experience shows that declining infantry numbers will leave less time for vital training to keep up essential skills and less time for people to spend with their families, and will inevitably lead to an increase in the depressing cycle of overstretch as the infantry struggles with the many tasks that the Government give it.
Superficially, the proposals for large regiments have some logic and may appear attractive. Indeed, there is every reason for the Army to increase its usability, and to modernise the way in which it organises itself in this expeditionary age. My party believes, however, that at the same time we must at all costs retain that which makes the British soldier the extraordinary animal he is. The Secretary of State must remember that in these regiments are some of the qualities that set the British Army apart from all others, and that therefore the significance of the regimental system must be retained in any restructuring that takes place. All that these regiments stand for, and all that they have given over the years in the fighting efficiency of the Army, is not to be lightly tossed away as it has been this afternoon.
Does not the Government's astonishingly keen desire to present themselves as a wholly owned subsidiary of the American armed forces, and their attempt to keep pace with our most regular coalition partner, threaten some of the British military's more excellent traditional strengths? And what about homeland defence? How many civil contingency units are organised, manned, equipped and trained to deal now with a major terrorist incident in the UK?
Does the removal of responsibility for ground-based air defence from the Royal Air Force regiment to the Army not sound the death knell for a regiment dedicated to the defence of valuable air assets? Will not the accelerated scrapping of the Jaguar fleet deprive the Royal Air Force of an invaluable, cost-effective, recently upgraded ground attack aircraft? Over what time scale will the substantial cuts in manpower take place in the RAF and when does he expect to follow up the closure of RAF Coltishall with the announcement of further RAF airfield closures?
352
However powerful new ships may be, they cannot be in two places at once. However smart new systems may be, they cannot replace troops on the ground. As the implications of what the Secretary of State has begun to announce today sink in, will it not seem extraordinary to the British people that there should be such deep cuts across the board when our armed forces have never been so busy or in such demand, and at a time of such an accelerated threat?
The incoming Conservative Government—[Interruption.] The incoming Conservative Government will fully fund and equip our armed forces to carry out their agreed tasks and commitments. We will see to it that order and competence are restored to the management of defence and particularly to the business of procurement and logistics. If we are required to increase our defence spending, increase it we will.
Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to see from his closing observation that the hon. Gentleman has not lost his sense of humour. What he has lost in the course of his remarks today is any credibility. If he is going to challenge the Government's spending plans and how those plans will meet defence needs in future, he has to say how he will fill the hole in spending created by his shadow Chancellor, who has made it clear that the Conservative party's spending plans involve a freeze in defence spending. Under its plans, by the time the substantial increase that the Government will commit to defence expenditure reached its conclusion, there would already be a gap of £2.6 billion.
From the hon. Gentleman's comments today, and earlier today on the radio, it seems that he is committed to reversing all the adjustments that we propose to make in defence capabilities. How much will that cost? What kind of calculations have the Opposition done on those arrangements? If he is to talk to the men and women of the armed forces about their future, he has to explain where the money is coming from. He has to explain to his shadow Chancellor what it means exactly to freeze expenditure—not the substantial increase in spending that the Government propose.
That is a serious problem for the hon. Gentleman. His own leader, when asked how much he would spend on defence, said:
"I can't tell you how much we will be spending on defence".
He did not know. The shadow Chancellor says that there will be a freeze in defence spending. What has been the reaction of the hon. Gentleman? He says that the plans are outrageous. What is the policy of the Conservative party? What exactly is it saying to the men and women of Britain's armed forces?
It is no good Conservative Members coming here and ritually saying how much they support the men and women of the armed forces. They have to explain how they are going to achieve that. The men and women of the armed forces live and operate in the real world. They have a real job to do with real equipment. It is no good coming along with fantasy figures, pretending that all these things can be restored, when there is a huge hole in Conservative spending plans.

353
I would have hoped that, after three years as Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Gentleman realised the difference between out-turn spending in defence—the money that has been spent on operations—and planned expenditure. I would have thought that, during those three years, the excellent civil servants in the Ministry of Defence would have explained that to him but unfortunately he did not appear to have learned the lesson.
One of the difficulties for Conservative Members is that, if they attack the proposals for restructuring our armed forces, they are attacking the Army board's proposals. I accept responsibility for these changes. I think that they are good for the men and women who are serving in our armed forces, but those who are tempted to attack the proposals need to explain to those men and women why the Army board has recommended those proposals, in the interests of the men and women of the armed forces and their families. That is vital to future capability—not dwelling in the past, not existing in some idyll of the past, which Conservative Members seem to believe is appropriate in respect of defence, but working out what is important for the future of the men and women in our armed forces.
The same arguments apply to each of the points that the hon. Gentleman made in relation to the Royal Navy. The proposals are strongly supported by the First Sea Lord, who recognises the importance of modernising our armed forces. There are similar changes in relation to the Royal Air Force.
The hon. Gentleman has come to the House over and over again and talked about overstretch of the infantry, but the pressure points in relation to our Army personnel are precisely in the areas that we intend to strengthen. We have a reduced requirement in Northern Ireland for four infantry battalions. We will use those posts to reinforce existing infantry units and to ensure that the logisticians, the engineers, the signallers and the intelligence people, all of whom have been under huge pressure in recent years, have more resources at their disposal. That is an entirely sensible arrangement. For him to talk about cutting infantry battalions as if that will add to overstretch is nonsense. If he thought about it for half a second, he would realise that.
What we see here is a feeble Opposition. If they ran our armed forces, they would end up sailing wooden ships. We would have squadrons of Sopwith Camels. Frankly, we would still have the cavalry. Those are the kinds of armed forces that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would visit upon his country.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement and pay tribute to the members of our armed forces.
Under Labour, our armed forces have seen an unprecedented tempo of action not only in combat in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq, but in filling vital gaps in the public services at home during the fuel crisis, foot and mouth disease and the firemen's strike. However, today, members of the armed forces will feel little reward for their unparalleled commitment. There is more money but the Government are desperately trying to do more with less. I agree with
354
the MOD that there is a need to look at the defence budget, but Labour seems to be looking in the wrong places.
The most unbalanced part of the defence budget is the procurement programme—it is not infantry regiments, warships or RAF units. When it comes to cutting costs—or cutting corners—it is easier to cut current capabilities than future ones. Future capabilities take a long time to come on stream. Cuts are made instantly.
We welcome the decision on carriers that was announced today. It is right to take time to look at that, but why cut the number of surface ships and why order Type 45s without land attack capability? We welcome the decision on the C-17 announced by the Government today. We should have bought the four in the first place but which RAF bases are the Government considering cutting and why proceed with so many Typhoons that may never have an enemy to fight against?
On the Army, why invest so much in network-centric capabilities and effects-based operations, when the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that winning the peace is more difficult than winning wars? That depends on low-tech soldiering, not high-tech weapons. We agree with getting rid of the arms plot but why cut the troop numbers? Which battalions are now under review?
The UK has a deserved reputation in conflict prevention and in peacekeeping. Spending on prevention should increase, so that we do not need to spend so much on cleaning up when it is too late.
The Secretary of State talks about redundancies. Can he give a cast-iron commitment today that no individual currently or recently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan will receive compulsory redundancy as a result of the announcements today? Does that mean that manning control is back? If 10,000 civil service jobs are to go, does that mean more work for uniformed members of the armed forces? Our armed forces are ridiculously overstretched, so why not use spare capacity to reduce overstretch? We do not know what the future holds. A little spare capacity would be a good thing. We do not need to issue redundancy notices.
The Secretary of State, however long he is in his current job, will be judged on whether he has the balance right—high tech on one side, troops on the other. The Liberal Democrats believe that today he has got that balance wrong.
Mr. Hoon: I also look forward to a detailed assessment by the Liberal Democrats of their spending proposals on defence. So far, they have promised a lot but they have not delivered a great deal of detail. I know that the hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place but, if he will forgive me, I sometimes wonder where his head is. I was somewhat puzzled that he started by criticising our expenditure on new equipment and then immediately—almost without a breath—suggested the purchase of an extremely expensive piece of equipment that he thought we had failed to announce. When he looks at his remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he might note a certain inconsistency about that.
As the hon. Gentleman travels the country, telling the workers of BAE Systems and other companies such as Rolls-Royce that the Liberal Democrats intend to cut remaining versions of Typhoon—which, incidentally, will be a multi-role version that is capable of ground

355
attack, a rather vital military requirement at present, and is in no way outdated or redundant—he will be able to explain to the tens of thousands who work in the high-tech defence industry that the Liberal Democrats also want us to go back to wooden aircraft, presumably for flying across the fields of France. The idea that Typhoon—the latest and best fast jet available anywhere in the world—can be cancelled is nonsense and if he thought about it for a second, he would realise that.
As for redundancies and so on, there will have to be a reduction in numbers consistent with my announcement but I am confident that that can be done largely through natural wastage and confident that we can do it in consultation with the people affected.
Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving real growth in the defence budget for the third year running, which will be welcomed by the defence community. I agree about the importance of achieving value for money in support services to make way for expenditure on new equipment. Will he confirm his commitment to awarding contracts for support services, particularly for surface ship refits, on the basis of competition, rather than allocation? Does he understand the concerns of people in Plymouth that that was not borne out in the recent award of the contract for HMS Edinburgh.
Mr. Hoon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her thoughtful and measured approach to these difficult and complex issues. I agree that it is important that we look at the way in which defence funds are used effectively and competitively to provide the best equipment and the best repair. I have indicated that I will be willing to discuss with her the basis of the decision in relation to HMS Edinburgh. I understand why she makes such effective representations on behalf of her constituents.
Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the Eurofighter Typhoon. Will he put on record the numbers of aircraft that he is negotiating to purchase in tranche 2? Given the length of time it is taking him to negotiate best value in this context, will he also tell the House what are the barriers to further progress? When does he expect those matters to be resolved and when will the four partner nations be able to announce the purchase of tranche 2?
Mr. Hoon: I am consistently grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's interest in Typhoon. I share his view that it is a vital asset for Britain's future military capabilities. Seven aircraft have now been received by the RAF and are performing better than anticipated, but these are commercial issues. The contract for tranche 2 will be signed when I judge that we have an offer on the table that is affordable and delivers the kind of capability that I judge to be necessary for the future of this country. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's help in persuading the parties to the contract to produce a sensible proposal.
Mr. Bruce George: Does the Secretary of State accept that this is déjà vu all over again? I have listened on at least 10 occasions when
356
announcements of cuts have been followed by promises of great improvements; I need to be reassured. Will he keep his diary free for the first week in September, as we will be inviting him before the Defence Committee to explain his statement, where he will face not rhetoric but real and serious questions? I accept that some of what my right hon. Friend said is good; I hope he accepts that. But who was the idiot who thought that we could cut the infantry at a time when the pressure on it was enormous? Has he consulted Gerry Adams or maybe the Fire Brigades Union about whether they will behave themselves over the next few years?
Finally, he may not know that the Staffordshire Regiment is to celebrate its 300th anniversary next year. Will it do so? Or, having seen off the French, Germans, Americans, Bolsheviks, Burmese, Zulus and assorted African and Indian armies, will it see off or be seen off by my right hon. Friend's Government?
Mr. Hoon: I always enjoy my right hon. Friend's rhetoric and I accept that, during the deliberations of the Defence Committee, we will avoid rhetoric. I look forward, on a date of his choosing in September, to explaining to the Defence Committee in greater detail than I have done today why it is necessary to restructure the armed forces in the way the Government are proposing.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question on the Staffordshire Regiment? Will he accept an invitation from me to come to Staffordshire in March next year to celebrate the 300th anniversary? Will he give a speech, assuring the people of Staffordshire that the regiment in which they have such wonderful pride will have a fourth centenary?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has been an absolutely consistent supporter of the armed forces and has set out on many occasions in my hearing the importance of the Government supporting those men and women in their difficult and dangerous job. This restructuring is in order to allow those men and women to continue to do their job in the 21st century. The world has changed beyond recognition in terms of the kind of external threats faced by the men and women in our armed forces and by their families. Frankly, the idea that we can move those men and their families around every two years for essentially traditional reasons is long past its sell-by date. It is absolutely vital that we provide greater consistency in terms of our future requirements. As I said in my statement, identity is vital, as is maintaining the regimental tradition and history by which the hon. Gentleman rightly sets such store. There is no reason why, under our proposals, those traditions and that history cannot be maintained in the course of the restructuring.
Rachel Squire: Once again, I very much welcome the award of the work on HMS Edinburgh and HMS Walney to Rosyth dockyard—purely on the basis of much deserved merit—earlier this week. But I should greatly welcome a full and independent investigation into whether a competitive level playing field has existed between the two yards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in

357
terms of the tremendous asset, standard and merit of our armed forces—particularly in peacekeeping operations—the key has been having skilled men and women on the ground, relating to the local population wherever they are in the world? What assurance can he give—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady but we have precious little time left for questions and an awful lot of people are seeking to catch my eye. Many will be disappointed if we do not have much shorter questions and, perhaps, short questions from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hoon: I will also try a few answers, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has consistently supported the armed forces and I know that she gives a great deal of her time travelling around the world, seeing our forces deployed in a number of different theatres. On warship maintenance, perhaps I should invite her to the same meeting that will be attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), where we can discuss those matters in the round. Inevitably in a competitive environment, there will be winners and losers. But I certainly agree that we should regard this restructuring as part of the need to ensure that Britain's armed forces are equipped and trained to deal with the challenges that they face in this new and very difficult century.
Angus Robertson: This statement has confirmed that the sword of Damocles hangs over every single one of Scotland's historic regiments. One will be scrapped entirely and all the rest will be amalgamated into synthetic regional units; that signals the end of Scotland's six distinct infantry regiments. The Ministry of Defence also confirmed in a letter to me the devastating news for my constituency of a cut in the number of Nimrod aircraft at RAF Kinloss, the further privatisation of services at Lossiemouth and an uncertain future for the RAF Regiment. Both Kinloss and Lossiemouth will be reviewed with a view to making substantial reductions. Any closure or run-down of those bases has been—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question, please.
Angus Robertson: The local head of the enterprise company has said that any run-down or closure will have the biggest impact on the highland economy in living memory. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would indeed be a terrible blow to the local economy?
Mr. Hoon: I have always had some difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's arguments about defence, given that his party is committed to pulling out of NATO. If we did pull out, we would immediately no longer need the reconnaissance aircraft that he is championing. He should consider carefully what I said about regimental identity in Scotland. I am confident that, through these new and larger organisations, we can find a way to look after the interests of the men and
358
women currently serving in the armed forces, and to provide them with a proper and sustained future. If the hon. Gentleman had any concern whatsoever for the people serving in those regiments, he would recognise the importance of these changes.
Chris McCafferty: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on winning a substantial increase in defence funding, but will reducing by four the number of battalions also mean that all un-amalgamated battalions will be re-organised into larger regiments? Will that proposed reduction change the received wisdom in the Ministry of Defence that an infantry battalion should always have a clear 24 months between operational tours? I ask that question because my own local regiment, the Duke of Wellington, which has a history of more than 300 years, is returning to Iraq in October after a stand-down time of only 14 months. If the answer to my questions is yes, will my right hon. Friend ensure that relevant Army officers are allowed to participate in discussions about the future of their battalions?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations. I should emphasise that in essence, the posts of the four infantry battalions no longer required for duty in Northern Ireland will be redistributed to strengthen existing battalions and to provide extra resources for those elements of our armed forces that have been under the most pressure in recent times. This entirely sensible and pragmatic change is necessary to ensure that the pressures about which Members have expressed concern are alleviated.
On the re-organisation of single-battalion regiments, there is a hybrid structure throughout the United Kingdom, in that some regiments consist of a number of battalions and others of a single battalion. It is certainly the Army Board's ambition to create a new structure in which single-battalion regiments are subsumed into larger organisations. But as I have emphasised, there is no reason why traditional regimental histories and distinctive uniforms cannot be maintained within that new structure and those larger organisations.
Mr. Peter Viggers: We support the concept of transformation—led by NATO's Allied Command Transformation, in Norfolk, Virginia—with which our troops are very well attuned. Such transformation will bring higher technology, greater flexibility and an asymmetrical capacity, but is the Secretary of State aware that if we prepare for it by cutting equipment and manpower, there will be an immediate defence weakness and—perhaps more seriously—a continuing weakness that will take many years to rectify?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of NATO transformation, and the United Kingdom has led the way in ensuring that NATO's doctrine and military capabilities are transformed to face the challenge of the 21st century. But as he knows better than almost any other Member, NATO's capabilities are made up of contributions from nation states. If we fail to transform our own capabilities, we will be unable to offer the modern forces that we need to contribute, in order to allow NATO

359
itself to develop and modernise. Such decisions have to be taken here and now in the United Kingdom; otherwise, we will be unable to make the effective contribution to NATO that the hon. Gentleman rightly says is necessary.
Mr. Eric Joyce: I commend my right hon. Friend on ending the arms plot and on stressing the importance of quality of life for serving personnel. Will he confirm that he will continue to invest in accommodation—the fundamental marker of troops' quality of life—which was disgracefully run down by the Tories when they were in government?
Mr. Hoon: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's observation, which is based on considerable experience. We need to continue to invest in armed forces' accommodation; indeed, that bequeathed to us in 1997 by the then Conservative Government was appalling. We have put in place a significant number of programmes to improve such accommodation, and it is highly necessary that we continue to improve it.
Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State said that the details concerning the new organisation of infantry regiments will be worked out by the Army, and that an announcement will be made by the end of the year. He knows that a tremendous fight was previously put up to ensure that the Staffords were not reduced to a sludgy amalgam. Will he ensure that proper consultation takes place, and will he be taking personal responsibility for such matters or passing the buck?
Mr. HoonOf course I take personal responsibility, but there is another, equally important issue. If the hon. Gentleman's concerns about serving members of the armed forces are genuine, he will recognise that it is vital that we make these changes in the interests of those men and women and, crucially, of their families. The arms plot cannot be sustained in the 21st century. Servicemen and women's partners have jobs and their children are in school, so a degree of domestic stability is vital to allow them to serve their country so successfully. If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about those people, he would support these changes.
Mr. Peter Pike: As a former national service Royal Marine, I should point out that no Army regiment has a greater reputation than the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, and that it is able to recruit all its personnel from within the Lancashire area. May I assure my right hon. Friend that, despite what he said a few moments ago about maintaining uniforms and so on, his statement today will be regarded with grave concern in Lancashire?
Mr. Hoon: I had the privilege recently of meeting senior figures in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, and I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point about how successful it has been. But I am confident that within the reformed structure that the Army Board and I are advocating, the distinctive tradition of such regiments can be maintained and preserved.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I remind the Secretary of State of the fact that three naval
360
bases are capable—[Interruption.] I am grateful for that invitation. If 11 fewer platforms will be available to the Navy by 2007, there must be serious concern about its ability to provide the capabilities that the Government require of it. What is the value of the cuts that he is making to the existing defence budget? Many of the people whom I represent regard those cuts as the price that they will have to pay for the failure of smart procurement to deliver the dividends that the Ministry of Defence promised.
Mr. Hoon: There are no cuts to the defence budget, and the figures given are clear. This Government are committed to increasing consistently the amount spent on defence, over a prolonged period of more than 20 years. On platforms, it is vital that the hon. Gentleman recognises—I know that he spends a lot of time thinking about these issues—that there has been an enormous change in terms of what modern equipment can do. If we continue to preserve the equipment that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex seems to think we should maintain for as long as we possibly can but that is increasingly inflexible and was designed for another era and another conflict, we will not be able to invest in the modern equipment that delivers the greater effects that can be achieved.
An obvious example, which I mentioned in the statement, is the accuracy of modern ordnance. We no longer need to fly huge formations of bomber aircraft across targets in the hope that perhaps 10 per cent. of the bombs will hit. A single aircraft with a single weapon is usually enough to deal with that target in modern warfare. The effects created by a single aircraft or a single Royal Navy platform are now so remarkable that we necessarily can adjust our platforms to go on investing in modern technology that will deliver those modern effects.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: So following that, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), may I ask what is the use of Eurofighter, which is hugely expensive? Are we simply enmeshed in contracts that we cannot get out of?
Mr. Hoon: On the contrary, Eurofighter will be an aircraft for the 21st century. It will provide air capabilities and have a swing role, with a ground attack facility. It is already attracting considerable interest. I was in Farnborough yesterday, and many of the overseas visitors at the exhibition were enormously impressed by Typhoon's capability. It is already winning competitions around the world, and I am confident that it will provide not only significant employment in the United Kingdom but a potent capability for the Royal Air Force.
David Burnside: Can the Secretary of State clear up some serious concerns and omissions in his statement, regarding the future of security in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm what will be the future battalion strength of the Royal Irish Regiment, and does it include the three home battalions necessary for backing up the police for internal security in Northern Ireland? Secondly, what is the future for RAF Aldergrove, and does it include the various forces involved in aerial surveillance for internal security in the

361
Province. Thirdly, why are we losing the three Royal Navy coastal patrol vessels, when in the past 12 months an illegal load of imported arms came into the port of Belfast for a so-called loyalist terrorist organisation? To lose all three seems dangerous.
Mr. Hoon: I accept that the defence role in Northern Ireland must be kept under constant review. We have to work closely with the Chief Constable to ensure that our view of the security situation is up to date, but as that situation is maintained at a much improved level from years gone by, it is right to consider carefully the level of resources required. Obviously, I take account of the hon. Gentleman's observations, and we must not take risks with security in Northern Ireland, but the four battalions that I have mentioned repeatedly today have not been based in Northern Ireland for some time, so I judge it appropriate to say that they are now no longer required for duty there. If there is, as I hope there will not be, a serious deterioration in the security situation there, we will have the flexibility and the capability to take appropriate action.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome the recognition in the statement that warship building and maintenance require an accompanying industrial strategy from the Ministry of Defence. There was some recognition of that in the two refits commissioned for Rosyth. There is a need to do something similar for Swan Hunter on the Tyne. If my right hon. Friend cannot say now what that something similar will be, will he at least agree to meet me and the other Members representing the area so that we can discuss what can be done?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend has been a strong and determined champion of Swan Hunter and his constituents employed there, and obviously I will be delighted to meet him. He is right to say that we need a co-ordinated industrial strategy for our shipbuilding, alongside the requirements of the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy. I will be delighted to discuss that with him on some suitable future occasion.
Patrick Mercer: There is no doubt that the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry have handled everything that has been thrown at them over the past few years, and they have done so admirably. The fact remains that three quarters of battalions are now heavily undermanned. Those based in Nottinghamshire—the Secretary of State's area and mine—now have a ridiculously short time to rest, retrain and see their families between operational deployments. One regiment is so undermanned in Basra that soldiers are getting less than four hours—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, some hon. Members have not been listening to what I have been saying. Will the hon. Gentleman now put his question briefly to the Secretary of State?
Patrick Mercer: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful.
362
Will the Secretary of State admit that reducing the number of fighting soldiers in the Army is an act of madness created by financial strictures rather than any tactical analysis?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. The hon. Gentleman and I have had some very thoughtful discussions about the problems of the modern Army as it faces the challenges of the 21st century, but he will recognise that the key challenge is how to maintain a number of concurrent operations. The real pressure has been not on infantry or on armoured units but on the logisticians, the support elements, the engineers and others who maintain the front-line forces. We propose to augment such staff in the restructuring, to allow them to have the full intervals that we have set out, so that we can maintain simultaneously a number of smaller but necessarily concurrent operations in a modern, more difficult world.
Mr. Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is some disquiet on the Labour Benches about a reduction in the size of the Army. In my constituency, and the rest of Cumbria and north Lancashire, we have no military bases at all, so we keep our contact with the armed forces through the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, and it would be a great pity if that tradition were to go, and we would have great difficulty in recruiting from these areas if the regiment were no more.
Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that it is important to maintain a footprint and identity right across the country. One of the problems, though, with the arms plot as it currently operates, and in particular for single-battalion regiments, is that they may not even be based in the traditional recruiting area from which they come, so it could well be that the regiment to which he refers is not even located in the area from which it is recruiting. I certainly anticipate a much greater identity between the recruiting area and the location in which people serve following the restructuring. That will be good for the footprint of the Army across the United Kingdom, as well as for the families of those who serve.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: This shameful statement would be recognised by Kipling's Tommy Atkins. This Government neither understand nor value the work that soldiers do on all our behalf. The Secretary of State mentioned reservists, on whom such reliance has been placed in Iraq. Where does he intend that they train? Is it the case that Cultybraggan training area has cancelled all bookings for next year? Does he intend to sell that training area, and if so, does he intend to sell any more training areas in some sort of fireside sale?
Mr. Hoon: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's tirade, but his real difficulty is that the proposals have been advocated and strongly supported by the Army Board and indeed by the chiefs of staff. For him to suggest that the Government are somehow forcing these reforms on the armed forces is frankly nonsense. Unless he can show how the chiefs of staff are somehow

363
uncomfortable with what is proposed, he is merely substituting his own prejudices for the reality of what our modern armed forces have to do.
Mrs. Joan Humble: I warmly welcome the statement on Eurofighter, but may I reinforce the concerns in Lancashire about regimental restructuring and ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that we have had four regimental restructurings in Lancashire in the past 45 years and that the message from the QLR, and the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, which also recruits in north Lancashire and in Fleetwood, is that enough is enough? They want security and stability for the future.
Mr. Hoon: I am mindful of my hon. Friend's point about the number of changes that have occurred over the years. It is certainly part of our determination to ensure that we provide a structure that is capable of lasting: it will be based on a regional organisation that will allow the distinctive identity of traditional regiments to be maintained and will mean that we do not need to change the structure every so often.
I would be glad if my hon. Friend would do two things for me. First, if she looked at existing arrangements across the country, she would see what a patchwork it is with multi-battalion regiments in certain parts of the country and single-battalion regiments elsewhere. In the interest of consistency for our armed forces, our proposals will deliver a second factor, which I hope that she will take back to Lancashire. What we are proposing is in the interests of the men and women serving. That may not be liked by the armchair generals of the Opposition who believe that their prejudices are more important than the reality of modern life for serving men and women. That is what it is all about—improving the way of life of people in service, not of the retired generals on the other side of the House.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State has talked today about an improved security situation in Northern Ireland, but he must be aware of the continued, very real and serious security threat along the border and in other parts of Northern Ireland. Can he give the House an assurance that whatever resources are required by the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland to meet security needs will be available?
Mr. Hoon: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, although I hoped that I had already given it. We certainly remain in close consultation with the GOC and the Chief Constable and if there is a significant deterioration in the security situation, we will take appropriate action.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Scots, which recruits from the Edinburgh area, returned from Iraq earlier this year and is on call to go back there later this year? Does he realise that in that regiment there are men with wives and young families who have not been at home for Christmas for four years in a row?
364
Given their potential contribution, including to UN peacekeeping in the future, surely we should not be considering disbanding any of the Scottish regiments.
Mr. Hoon: If my right hon. Friend thinks through the premise of his initial observation, he will see that the proposals are designed to ensure much greater stability and consistency in the lives of those who serve and, indeed, for their families. That is well recognised by the Army Board—[Interruption.]I hear critical cries from Opposition Members, but, frankly, they need to talk to those who serve rather than to those who are retired.
Ann Winterton: Just like me, the Secretary of State has never served in the armed services or worn the Queen's uniform. Why has he not learned three basic, simple facts? First, technology can never replace manpower. Secondly, when we have serious problem of overstretch, it cannot be solved by cutting the number of troops. Thirdly, there are benefits from our regimental system, which is about loyalty and identity. I say to the Secretary of State: hands off the Cheshire regiment, because it has the support of the whole county and will fight to head off attempts to get rid of it, as we did before. The Army Board was wrong last time, and it is wrong this time.
Mr. Hoon: I will check in Hansard, but I do not recall the hon. Lady speaking with such passion when her Government were cutting defence by 30 per cent.
Mr. Soames: She did.
Mr. Hoon: I said that I did not recall it, but if she did, I am delighted to allow her the opportunity of making representations to her Front Benchers who are proposing to cut defence, should they be elected. If the hon. Lady is really concerned about the safety and security of the men and women in the armed forces, she will recognise that technology provides enormous protection for them. The programme that I announced yesterday—the Watchkeeper programme, which is the latest and best technology available—will provide us with intelligence and reconnaissance information well over the horizon, allowing those men who serve to be properly protected. That is what technology is about. It is not an either/or: we need both effective, well-trained people and effective modern technology.
Mr. Russell Brown: The further increase in departmental spending is to be welcomed and it has to be better than what the Conservatives would do with a standstill budget. However, my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the strong support for the King's Own Scottish Borderers. History and cap badges are but two aspects of regiments, but recruitment and retention of personnel are vital and the KOSB has an excellent record. Over the coming weeks and months, will the Secretary of State make time available in his diary, because I will be coming to lobby him—and I suspect it will be on more than one occasion?
Mr. Hoon: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his thoughtful approach to the subject. At least he is prepared to consider the

365
arguments. Unfortunately, too many right hon. and hon. Members among the Opposition have already formed their own prejudices.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if he goes ahead with the proposal to move RAF Boulmer to Lincolnshire, he will have to find at least £15 million—probably a lot more—to replace the facilities just being completed at Boulmer, and that the revenue savings, already greatly exaggerated, will quickly be eaten away by having to meet those capital costs?
Mr. Hoon: That decision has not yet been taken, but it will have to be discussed in future.
David Cairns: My right hon. Friend rightly rejected the option of buying two second-hand aircraft carriers from the Americans and is pledged to plough ahead with building the two new aircraft carriers. In view of that, is it not about time that BAE Systems stopped moaning about perceived injustices and got on with working together with Thales and the UK Government to deliver on time and on budget? It is very important for Clydeside constituencies that BAE Systems clarifies its intentions with respect to the marine division.
Mr. Hoon: I want to emphasise how co-operatively we work with BAE Systems and how pleased I am that it has agreed to the alliancing proposal that will ensure that it works closely with the Ministry of Defence and Thales in delivering those two magnificent aircraft carriers for Britain's armed forces.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: As one of the armchair majors, may I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests? Does the Secretary of State agree that network enabled capability, like any other system, relies ultimately on the quality and calibre of the servicemen and women who operate it? The maintenance of morale will therefore retain its fundamental importance. What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the impact on morale of his statement today?
Mr. Hoon: I indicated to the House that we intend to update the remuneration and rewards available to those who serve so well as reservists. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his efforts. I ask him—he has spent some time working with the men and women of our armed forces—to consider the question of morale. The truth is that one of the most damaging aspects of lower morale, particularly in the Army, is the disruption caused to family life by the constant rotation that the arms plot involved. That is extremely damaging to personal morale. In my judgment, it is one of the reasons why many highly trained, expert men whom we would have liked to retain in our infantry battalions leave before they originally planned to leave—simply because of the effect on their families of moving around the country so frequently.
Mike Gapes: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the Ministry of
366
Defence has learned the lessons about equipment from Operation Telic in Iraq. Does he believe that, as a result of the statement, there will be greater or lesser urgent operational requirements in the future?
Mr. Hoon: The whole purpose of urgent operational requirements is to ensure that we have the right equipment for the particular operation being conducted. In our longer-term planning, we are trying to ensure flexibility—and flexibility is at the heart of the proposed changes—for the capabilities that we have available. Nevertheless, there will always be a requirement for some urgent operational requirements, since they are specific to the particular operation in hand.
Sir Robert Smith: Many constituents have approached me with their concerns about what might appear in the statement today. They recognise that high technology and what happened in the initial phase of the Gulf war demonstrated some of the Secretary of State's points in the statement, but believe that the real lesson that has still not been learned relates to what happened after the initial phase and the crucial role played by troops on the ground and the infantry. Does he recognise that it is vital for the restructuring that he does not squander what we will get by reducing numbers in Northern Ireland, but maximises the impact and availability of those forces for future peacekeeping roles?
Mr. Hoon: Implicit in that entirely proper observation is the idea that technology is relevant only to the war-fighting phase, and somehow irrelevant to peacekeeping. The truth is that it is absolutely vital when one puts soldiers into a potentially hostile environment. For example, technology ensures that they can receive information and intelligence from commanding officers and that they can be evacuated by search and rescue from places of danger. The technology that we are providing—at the organisational level and to individual soldiers—will transform how they are able to conduct both the war-fighting and peacekeeping roles.
Mr. Doug Henderson: In last week's spending review, the Ministry of Defence was committed to making a contribution to the dispersal of civil servants' jobs, enthusiastically or otherwise. My right hon. Friend said today that he aims to make savings of £2.8 billion. I strongly support that and believe that it can be achieved. Will he clarify whether that figure includes an element of saving to be achieved by the dispersal of MOD activity to the regions? If not, when will he be able to make a statement on the matter?
Mr. Hoon: The figure does include the dispersal element. Indeed, I am very proud of the MOD's record in providing opportunities for people to be employed outside central London and the south-east area. It has led the way among Government Departments in that, but there will be a further dispersal of jobs across the country. We anticipate that some 3,800 jobs will be dispersed in the near future, but that will be in addition to what has already been achieved.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement heralds the most substantial changes to the armed forces since the end of the cold war, that that has been driven largely by technological change and that a lower share of the nation's wealth, in terms of gross domestic product, is now devoted to defence? When I was in uniform, I was told that the inevitable logic of technological change was that, in 100 years, our armed forces would consist of one aircraft, one ship and one tank. Representations have been made by hon. Members of all parties about the importance of boots on the ground. Does the Secretary of State accept that war fighting has been the easy bit in the conflicts that the Government have undertaken and that the difficult bits are the subsequent peace enforcement and nation building? Is he prepared to accept that he and his Department may have got the balance wrong? Will he be prepared to listen over the coming months?
Mr. Hoon: Obviously, I am prepared to listen. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman speaks with some knowledge and experience of these matters, as a serving soldier and as someone who in the past was involved in defence policy. He is right that it is necessary to ensure that we get the right balance between existing equipment, new equipment and numbers of people, but I do not accept the logic that he describes. A comparison between the numbers of aircraft needed to attack a target in the second world war—often with poor results but at huge risk to the airmen involved—and modern precision strike operations that may involve only one aircraft makes it possible to see the changes that have taken place.
I always recognise that this is a question of balance and judgment. I believe that the MOD and our armed forces have the balance right and that we must continue to invest in the new technology. In that way, we can continue to deliver the war-fighting successes that have been achieved in recent times. In addition, as I said in response to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), we can ensure that our armed forces are properly protected in an increasingly difficult peacekeeping role.
Mr. David Crausby: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment recruits its full complement from its own region? It will be much more likely to do so if it continues to exist under a Lancashire cap badge.
Mr. Hoon: I accept the vital importance of the identity that is associated with traditional and historic regiments. I have answered similar questions several times already, and my hon. Friend makes his point very precisely. However, Lancashire covers a large area, and any organisation that replaces the existing single-battalion regiments in such areas will have a close regional identity.
Mr. David Laws: The plans for additional investment in military helicopters over the next 10 years will be very welcome at Westland Helicopters in my constituency, as will the Secretary of State's remark that ours is one of the most capable helicopter forces in Europe. Does he agree that, to
368
maintain that capability, an early and positive announcement on the upgrade of the Lynx helicopter would be extremely helpful?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. We have had a meeting already to discuss the future programme for helicopters. Yesterday, I went to Farnborough to see the magnificent stand organised by AugustaWestland, at which a tremendously impressive range of capabilities was on display. It is from that impressive range that we will select the helicopters that will provide continuing and excellent support to our armed forces. The total of £3 billion is a significant sum of money and I am sure that it will benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Helen Jones: Several of my hon. Friends have asked about the Queen's Lancashire regiment, so may I tell my right hon. Friend that while it recruits from within Lancashire's current county boundaries, it also recruits from the old Lancashire towns and even from parts of Manchester? Does the regiment not fulfil already, therefore, many of the objectives that he has set out, in that it is locally based and recruits locally? Does not the maintenance of an effective infantry depend on retaining those traditions and local connections, so that regiments such as the QLR can recruit?
Mr. Hoon: I broadly agree, and that is pretty much the answer that I just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), who raised the same point.
Peter Bottomley: Knowledge of the armed forces can be gained by serving in the regular forces, by doing national service—that is for the more mature of us—or by taking part in the valued armed forces parliamentary scheme.
However people gain that knowledge, does the Secretary of State accept that we all understand that new technology has to be merged with the traditional virtues of those who serve in our armed forces?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, although local links matter, what matters most is that we have a defence force that can also do good around the world? Does he also accept that local links are important for manufacturing and recruitment?
Mr. Hoon: I certainly agree. One of the absolutely fundamental observations made to me by successive chiefs of staff is that troops who are good at peacekeeping are also good at war fighting. If training is directed only at peacekeeping, that will be of significant detriment to the overall capability of the armed forces. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the interrelated nature of the training that is required, and to point out the industrial implications.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Last but not least from this side, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure my right hon. Friend that history is important. The Queen's Lancashire Regiment won 19 Victoria crosses and more battle honours than any other regiment, and it has fought on every continent. However, that is no reason

369
for its continued existence. Does he agree that that should depend on its continued ability to recruit its full strength from Lancashire, without encountering problems? Also, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Typhoon announcement, but noticed that he made no mention of the A400M.
Mr. Hoon: There is no satisfying my hon. Friend. I anticipate that, in the months ahead, I shall learn a good deal more about the history of the QLR, and I shall be delighted to do so. In the course of my attendance at the Farnborough air show yesterday, I was able to visit the Airbus stand. I was thanked profusely for the British Government's commitment to A400M. Of course, I mentioned my hon. Friend's name and said that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's commitment.
Bob Russell: The Secretary of State said that the Army is to be reduced in size by 6 per cent. and that there will be four fewer battalions. However, he also said that the new structure would be based on regiments of two or more battalions. He made no reference to any regiments being merged or closed. Will he explain how he will achieve his objectives? If he has managed to square that circle, and if there are going to be regional regiments of two or more battalions, may I invite him to reverse a Tory defence cut of 1992 and reinstate the 3rd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment—the former Essex Regiment?
Mr. Hoon: Of course, the Royal Anglian Regiment is the perfect example of a successful regional organisation that is multi-battalion and that can provide a degree of stability. It is a lesson to the rest of the Army in proper organisation and recruitment. That is one of the reasons why the Army Board is so keen to establish a more consistent structure across the country. That is why the hon. Gentleman is right to assert the interests of the Royal Anglians. I regret that in the circumstances I am unlikely to be able to provide the answer to his question that I know he would like.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State talks about increased capability and agility replacing the shameful cut in numbers, but that will require the training that is required for professionalism. Will he tell the House why there are so few major exercises planned, and why Warminster, which is the heart of the infantry's professionalism, is being temporarily stripped of its demonstration battalion? Will he even answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the future of Cultybraggan training area?
Mr. Hoon: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions can be found in the observations that he and other Opposition Members have made consistently on several occasions. Our armed forces are extremely busy and engaged in real operations around the world, in difficult environments such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. Inevitably, in such circumstances, the number of exercises is bound to fall.
Mr. Michael Moore: The King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots have proud military heritages and are woven into the fabric of the communities of south-east Scotland. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he is talking about disbanding a battalion in Scotland rather than a regiment? Will he clarify how the KOSB and the Royal Scots will fit into the new divisional structure in Scotland?
Mr. Hoon: The precise answer is that it is necessary for the Army to discuss with the battalions in Scotland and other parts of the UK how best to satisfy the need to end the arms plot and to provide the diversity and consistency that is required for the members of the armed forces and their families. Those issues will be discussed publicly by the Army in different parts of the country and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make appropriate representations on behalf of his constituents and the Army units in his area.
Mr. John Randall: I assure the Secretary of State that I will ask the many men and women who serve in the Royal Air Force in my constituency what they think about his statement today. Will he now answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) put to him and confirm the survival of the RAF Regiment?
Mr. Hoon: Yes, I can confirm its survival.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: I cautiously welcome the Secretary of State's statement, especially his keeping the door open—or not closing it yet—for the Nimrod MRA4 project. I understand from local press reports in the Cambridge area that Marshall Aerospace of Cambridge has won the contract for the test phase for Nimrods 1, 2 and 3. Can he tell us whether the production phase, if it goes ahead, will take place at BAE Systems in Woodford?
Mr. Hoon: Those matters are still under discussion. As I said in my statement, we still need to find an appropriate financial package to allow us to be able to deliver that capability. It is an important capability that I regard as essential to the commitments that I have made today to ensure that our armed forces have access to high-quality technology and network-enabled capabilities.
Mr. Anthony Steen: To conclude the questions, may I ask the Secretary of State about the article peddled in a major splash in The Daily Telegraph on Monday about his intention to run down and close Dartmouth royal naval college? Will he make it plain that he has no plans to do so and that it will not be downsized?
Mr. Hoon: I know nothing about the article in The Daily Telegraph other than what I saw when I opened the newspaper. There is a defence training review, but we have not reached any conclusions about its implications. As soon as we do, I will inform the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom)
2.54 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about fishing and the discarding of fish; and for connected purposes.
Everybody knows that I am no Euro-fanatic. I have always been somewhat sceptical and am against further political integration. Nor do I see any merit in the constitution. I certainly do not suffer from Europe hysteria: I am perhaps more of a Euro-pragmatist and a Euro-realist. The Liberal Democrats would vote for the constitution and the euro, and they back a federal Europe. They do not favour referendums. That explains why the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and for St. Ives (Andrew George)—I see the latter in his place—have declined to sponsor this measure.
My concern is the criminal destruction of the environment, the horrendous devastation of fish stocks, and the impact on the ecosystem, resulting in a distortion of the balance of nature in and around our waters. What kind of policy actively encourages catching millions of fish, only to throw 50 per cent. back dead? Eating more fish is essential for a healthy diet, but we are signed up to a policy that exhorts fishermen to destroy the very fish they catch—what madness in a world where millions go hungry!
Two thirds of Europe's main commercial fish stocks, such as cod, hake, plaice and sole, are on the verge of collapse, with undersized fish, which could have matured, being discarded and left dead to pollute the seabed. The largest fish at the top end of the food chain are caught en masse leaving smaller fish lower down multiplying at an increased rate. Such fish are swallowed by massive industrial fishing vessels to feed farmed fish, about which serious health questions have already been raised. The ecosystem has flipped over, with the fish that were formerly low down the chain now being at the top. The only living organism that is safe in the seas is plankton. I am told that the CFP has plans for them as well.
One hundred years ago, one acre of good North sea fishing ground produced a ton of fish a week; it now produces just a tenth of that. A 90 per cent. decrease in fish stocks around our shores inevitably has major repercussions. If wildlife on the plains of Africa were savaged in the way the seabed is, there would be a worldwide outcry. Although national game reserves have been created to protect animals and we have national parks to protect the environment, similar arrangements have not been made to protect underwater life.
If the CFP resulted in fish being caught to feed people, that would be one thing, but it does not: it is just a massive, indiscriminate destruction of underwater life. Among the victims are cetaceans such as dolphins, and it has been estimated that 10,000 dolphins and porpoises are mindlessly killed in the English channel and the Bay of Biscay each year, with ever-increasing numbers being washed up on the coasts of Devon and Cornwall, the victims of the bass trawler nets. If in an attempt to maximise beef and lamb output we stretched mile-long
372
nets across the European countryside, there would be utter devastation: homes, trees and whole landscapes—not to mention all the living animals—would be scooped up. Why, then, do we tolerate such devastation of the ancient landscapes of the seabed? The coral reefs in the English channel will take 100,000 years to grow back, having been destroyed by trawlers hoovering the sea bed.
Fish are not the only inhabitants of our seas, nor are dolphins. Thousands of birds die in fishermen's nets every year because they feed off live fish just below the surface. Dead fish that have been thrown overboard from fishing boats have caused a tenfold increase in scavenger birds, such as gulls. That is an extremely interesting fact.
Subsidised tuna-fattening operations in southern Europe have caused the overfishing of one of the ocean's most prized assets, the blue fin tuna, which I note is on the menu in the Adjournment restaurant in Portcullis house this week. I hope that colleagues will boycott that and go for the pork cutlet instead.
The basic problem with the common fisheries policy is the concept of "common" responsibility. The Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which I piloted through Parliament, was designed to safeguard common land on Dartmoor from over-grazing. As no one owned the land, farmers took advantage of it; so, too, with water that is common—there is no sense of responsibility. People use it for individual gain and with no recognition that the activities of one fisherman impact on another. Again, the fact that fishermen from different nations are all involved in the plunder of the stock makes it a free for all—anything goes, any time, anywhere. The fisheries protection vessels never stand a chance.
The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union said—I paraphrase—that the problems of fisheries management are compounded by an interaction between biological and economic factors, which leads to the failure of the free market to deliver an acceptable solution. Such problems are overcome only when fishermen are given a long-term interest in the health of fish stocks, and the ecosystem on which they depend, by being allocated some form of property rights.
Existing tools for fisheries management, as far as Europe is concerned, are excessively reliant on total allowable catches and quotas, which have been demonstrated to be wholly ineffective. Furthermore, fisheries management in Europe has become excessively politicised, largely due to the haggling by the Council of Ministers when it renegotiates total allowable catches each year.
As the House of Lords Committee concluded, the widely supported proposals made by the Commission to reform the CFP have been emasculated and held hostage by some member states acting quite perversely in the short term, with the interests of their fishing constituents uppermost in their mind, rather than the long-term common good—the conservation of marine resources for the whole community.
As we go into the summer recess, the whole House should feel deeply uneasy that millions of fish will be slaughtered for no rhyme or reason, but simply due to a bureaucratic policy that has got tangled up with political expediency and European rules and

373
regulations. The seas are a huge death trap. In this country, we are custodians of the sea bed and we should be responsible for conserving not only the fish but the ecosystem and the checks and balances that exist around our island.
The common fisheries policy prevents national and local control; its concept is a socialism of "common" sharing and "common" responsibility, and it does not work. It never has worked and it never will. The policy must be abandoned so that we can take back control of our fishing grounds—whether to the median line or to the 200-mile limit is a matter for debate. We are net contributors to the EU and major players in the EU. After 30 years, it is quite wrong that we should remain silent and accept the environmental devastation for which all in the House must bear responsibility.
I seek the leave of the House to bring in a Bill that will start a process of repair, regeneration and renewal.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Sir Michael Spicer, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Austin Mitchell. Mr. David Amess, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Andrew Turner, Mr. Martin Salter, Peter Bottomley, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. John Horam and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom)
  FISHERY LIMITS (UNITED KINGDOM)
  Mr. Steen accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about fishing and the discarding of fish; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 7 September, and to be printed [Bill 147].

  Devolution
  3.4 pm
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
  That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
  That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
  Mr. Raynsford: Together with the three orders already considered Upstairs, confirming the dates for referendums and the options for local government reorganisation, these orders represent the package of secondary legislation necessary to provide for the proper conduct of this autumn's regional and local referendums.
  The orders set out, first, the rules and procedures for the referendums, including the postal ballot; secondly, the amounts counting officers can receive for their fees and expenses in connection with the referendums; and, thirdly, the spending limits for those campaigning in the referendums. I shall deal with each in turn.
  The Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004 details the procedures for the conduct of the referendums by all-postal ballot. During the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003, which enables the referendums to be held, concerns were voiced about the level of turnout. Indeed, some hon. Members were so concerned about the legitimacy of any result that they called for a threshold to be set. However, we considered that a threshold other than a simple majority vote would be arbitrary and unfair. Why should non-voters be able to veto a yes vote by those who bother to turn out?
  Mr. George Osborne: In the past, the Minister has said that he would discount a yes vote if the turnout was derisory. Will he provide the House with a definition of derisory?
  Mr. Raynsford: Oh dear. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework or he would know that I have frequently said both in Committee and in the House that if turnout was derisory we should not feel obliged to proceed with the outcome, if that involved setting up an elected regional assembly. I have also explained, repeatedly—most hon. Members know this by now—that to give a figure automatically sets a threshold. That threshold then automatically provides an incentive for people not to vote. There would be the most perverse and absurd consequence: rather than voting to express their point of view, people would use

  375
  the device of not voting to try to frustrate something. That is a perversion of democracy and I have explained on many occasions why it is not appropriate.
  Mr. Osborne rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: No, the hon. Gentleman must do his homework more thoroughly in future if he wants to be taken seriously in this place.
  Secondly, let me remind Members of what happened in Scotland in the 1970s. There was a threshold and the people of Scotland voted substantially—by a significant majority—to have a form of devolved government, but they did not vote in sufficient numbers to meet the threshold. The net result was that for almost 20 years the people of Scotland were denied the opportunity for devolution that they wanted and for which they had voted. They were denied it—they were frustrated—and the Conservatives would do well to reflect that their persistent opposition to Scottish devolution has cost them dearly in that country. The absence of Scottish Conservative representation in recent years has been a simple reflection of the response of the Scottish people to the way in which the Conservatives treated their legitimate aspirations for devolution with contempt.
  Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to give way to him again.
  Mr. John Taylor: But will the Minister give way to me?
  Mr. Raynsford: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he reassure me that in his proposals for postal voting he has taken careful account of what happened in Birmingham before 10 June? That was very disturbing to midlanders, such as me.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal specifically with that question later. He raises a legitimate point about concerns as to the safety of the ballot. We have given the matter careful consideration and I shall set out our response in a moment. However, I was talking about turnout and I should like to focus on that.
  I said at the time, and I am happy to repeat it, that if the turnout for the referendums were so low as to be derisory, the Government would not be bound to implement their proposals. None the less, we consider it our duty to do everything in our power to maximise public participation in the debate over the governance of our regions. That is why, last October, we announced our intention to hold the referendums by all-postal ballot, against the backdrop both of successful pilots at local government elections in 2000, 2002 and 2003 and of the Electoral Commission evaluation of the 2003 pilots, which recommended that, subject to certain safeguards, all-postal voting should become the norm for future local government elections—[Interruption.]
  376
  I understand why the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is showing such derision from a sedentary position; he indicated in the previous debate on this subject that he did not care a fig for the view of the Electoral Commission, which carried out the evaluation. It is an indication of the cavalier approach of those on the Conservative Front Bench that they show such contempt for the considered views of the Electoral Commission.
  The Electoral Commission's conclusion reflected the evidence from the pilots, which had demonstrated the ability of all-postal voting dramatically to increase turnout—sometimes more than doubling it. The announcement was made early to give electoral administrators certainty in their planning and was welcomed by the Electoral Commission.
  A month later, in November, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I launched the Government's information campaign to raise awareness of the forthcoming referendums and the issues involved. Since then, debates have been held in each of the regions focusing on the main arguments for and against regional assemblies, and we have conducted a number of hearings to give local people the opportunity to feedback their views on the powers to be contained in the draft Regional Assemblies Bill.
  As a result, individuals and groups have already begun to organise their campaigns on what they see as the key issues, with yes and no groups established in each of the regions. Their expectation is quite properly that the issue will be decided at the referendums this autumn, so it is important that the House confirms the arrangements set out in these orders. To avoid administrative and voter confusion, the provisions drafted in the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004 are broadly similar to those for June's European and local elections.
  At the European elections, the average turnout was 42.6 per cent. in the pilot regions compared with 20.2 per cent. in 1999—an increase of more than 100 per cent. In the non-pilot regions, turnout also increased, largely because the European and local government elections were held at the same time, but by only 50 per cent. compared with 1999. There is absolutely clear and incontrovertible evidence that all-postal voting substantially increased the number of people voting, and we have seen that evidence repeatedly, in 2000, 2002 and 2003. The evidence does not come simply from a single election but has been repeated, time and again, and I can quote example after example of local authorities that have conducted all-postal local elections and achieved a doubling, or near doubling, in participation rates compared with previous elections.
  Mr. Edward Davey: What does the Minister have to say to the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which has been very concerned about the impact of postal voting on partially sighted and blind people? What measures will he take in the forthcoming referendums to ensure that those people have a choice of how to vote?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an absolutely valid issue, and we have made provision, to which I will refer in due course, for electoral officers to

  377
  visit individuals who have difficulty in filling out all-postal voting forms for reasons of visual impairment. Provision is specifically made for that in these orders, and I am sure that he will welcome that.
  The evidence is clear that all-postal voting can substantially increase turnout. Despite that success, we recognise that media coverage of the pilots this June highlighted various concerns. The first group of concerns relates to the administration of the process, which generally worked well, albeit to a very tight timetable. Similar concerns will not apply to regional referendums, which have a much longer lead-in time and no constraints, such as are created by nomination dates for candidates, which prevented the advance printing of ballot papers.
  The second group of concerns relates to allegations of possible fraud and malpractice associated with postal voting. Many of the concerns raised at the time and subsequently in debates in the House relate to postal voting outside the all-postal pilot areas. Indeed, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the west midlands a moment ago. That was not one of the all-postal pilot areas, but concerns were expressed, as he said, about the use of postal balloting.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: There were, of course, problems with postal voting outside the pilot areas. Does the Minister think that those problems apply to the pilot areas? Anyone looking at this dispassionately would think that the problems apply to postal voting, whether voluntary or compulsory, full stop, and that they must be addressed before we go down the route of all-postal voting.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, as he looks into the subject, will establish that problems are associated with any form of balloting. Electoral administrators will advise that difficulties are associated with all types of voting, so it is necessary to have in place proper safeguards and measures to guard against possible abuse to the greatest extent possible. That is essential—it is our commitment—but the fact that, this year and in previous years, allegations of problems and malpractice associated with postal voting have been made does not in itself raise specific problems in relation to all-postal pilots. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it does."] It does not; it raises an issue to do with postal voting generally, not with the intention of holding—
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, of course, I will give way to him.
  Mr. Jenkin: The problems with postal voting have arisen as postal voting has increased in importance in our electoral system. If we vastly increase postal voting, the scale of those problems will vastly increase. We have a well-developed body of law for voting at ballot boxes and polling stations; we do not have a well-developed body of law and practice for large-scale postal voting. That is the problem.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is simply not supported by the evidence. He should listen to the views of the returning officer for the north-west region, where probably the largest number of problems were reported. The chief executive of Manchester city council, Howard Bernstein, said that, if anything, the number of problems with fraud was probably less this year than in previous years. So I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's argument about scaling up the extent of all-postal voting is simply not substantiated.
  Mr. Graham Stringer: I have heard my right hon. Friend and other Ministers use that quote from Sir Howard Bernstein a number of times. It is accurate, but partial—the rest of the quote goes on to say that there has been an increase in the number of cases of intimidation. That is a joint statement from the regional returning officer and Greater Manchester police. What weight does my right hon. Friend put on the fact that intimidation apparently increased in the north-west?
  Mr. Raynsford: Clearly, we must wait for the report from the Electoral Commission, which is carrying out an evaluation, and we will give very considerable attention to that report when it becomes available. However, my hon. Friend will be conscious of the fact that a number of the complaints were associated with actions seeking to ensure the success of individual candidates in elections where candidates were seeking office, which can attract substantial allowances, and there may be something of a financial incentive. Most commentators who consider the referendums, where no such incentive applies, would recognise that the kind of instances that he alludes to are much less likely to occur in the context of a simple referendum question, where no individual stands to gain election as a result.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with the Minister: the case for an all-postal ballot in a referendum is much stronger because the incentive for fraud is much less. Given that logic, is he saying therefore that the case for all-postal ballots in local elections is much weaker?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, what I was saying—[Laughte]—as the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, whose mirth indicates their reluctance to listen, should be aware, is that we will await the Electoral Commission's response, because it is the body charged by the House—[Interruption.] Frankly, for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, from a sedentary position, to talk about ignoring the Electoral Commission's views when he said, from the Conservative Front Bench, that that was exactly what he did shows a degree of inconsistency that I find quite astonishing—but, sadly, we are all too used to that from the Conservative party.
  In the light of that media coverage, the Electoral Commission suggested that we delay laying the referendum orders until after it had published its evaluation of the pilots in September. However, as we pointed out to the commission, if we are to hold referendums this autumn, as is widely expected, and allow an adequate campaigning period and public information in line with the commitments that we have given, Parliament needs to approve the necessary

  379
  referendum orders before the summer recess. For that reason, I repeat the undertaking that I have given to Parliament
  "not to proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned if"
  the Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2004 pilots
  "produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1260.]
  Mr. David Curry: What will be the nature of the advice given by the Electoral Commission? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect it to say, "We do not therefore believe that the Government should proceed with this", or does he expect it to propose a series of factors that the Government should evaluate to decide whether they add up to a significant barrier?
  Mr. Raynsford: My understanding from the Electoral Commission is that it will, in its report, specifically address the issue of the all-postal referendums proposed for this autumn and report, which it is required to do by statute, on the experience of the all-postal pilots that took place in June. It is entirely up to the commission to decide how it wishes to address the issue, but it is conscious of the significance of what it says. As I have said, if the evidence is convincing that it would be unsafe to proceed, we shall certainly react positively and be prepared not to proceed with an all-postal referendum. However, we must obviously wait to see the evidence.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister has been very generous in giving way. I hope that the Government have no intention of hiding behind the statement made by the Electoral Commission. I hope that he will recognise that its report is advisory, as the Government have reminded the House on many other occasions, and that the decision about whether to go ahead with a referendum lies with Ministers and not with the Electoral Commission.
  Mr. Raynsford: I entirely accept that; we have always accepted that. However, we take the advice of the Electoral Commission seriously and we have, on occasions, disagreed with it. When we do so, that is not because we simply state arrogantly that we do not care a fig for its views. We set out objective and fair reasons why we take a different view. There have been few such occasions. Overwhelmingly, we have gone along with the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, and we intend to give proper and serious consideration to whatever it says.
  Mr. David Clelland: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the matter? If the Electoral Commission finds that there are problems with postal ballots in a region, will that rule out postal ballots in all three regions or only the region that has the problem?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. As he will know, his region—the north-east region—probably has the greatest experience of all-postal balloting. Most authorities have adopted it and his authority of Gateshead has been a pioneer in showing in one of the earliest pilots the capability of doubling participation. It has sustained high levels of participation in
  380
  in subsequent pilots. Therefore, experience in the north-east is generally overwhelmingly positive, and I have received very few indications of anxieties from north-east authorities about potential problems. If there are concerns, it is right to address them wherever they are rather than adopting a blanket approach that would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
  Ms Dari Taylor: I seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend that he is not losing confidence in postal ballots. I am bound to remind him that we in the north-east and my constituency of Stockton, South voted in significantly greater numbers because of the use of postal ballots, even with the witness statement, which was an absolute nuisance. The Electoral Commission said that there was no cause for concern, no evidence of improper behaviour and no evidence of fraud. I seek reassurance that my right hon. Friend is not losing confidence in postal ballots as an important way of supporting our electorate.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will have heard the remarks that I made earlier in which I made it clear that I believe that there are considerable advantages with all-postal ballots. We certainly want to maximise participation. However, we take seriously all genuine and substantial allegations of fraud or malpractice, and we want to ensure that there are proper safeguards in place to ensure that public confidence in the voting system can be maintained. That is the proper balance to maintain, and it is the position that we have adopted.
  Mr. Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which postal ballots might take place in fewer than three regions—in other words, in one or two—and that the entire ballot might be deferred in one or two or take place at a later date by traditional methods of voting? That is really the question that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) posed.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Government brought forward all three orders and the three separate orders that were debated Upstairs two days ago on the basis that we propose that the referendums should all be held on the same date this autumn. It is implicit in what I have said about our response to the evidence and, in particular, to the views of the Electoral Commission that if it were suggested that it were unsafe to proceed in one region but not in others, we would by the nature of our response be prepared to proceed in one region on the basis already proposed while deferring or adopting a different approach in another one. That has to be the way forward. I shall not speculate on that; the issue is purely speculative. Implicit in the approach that we have adopted is an indication of our commitment to proceed according to the timetable that we have set out and our willingness to listen carefully to the evidence brought to the House as well as that of the Electoral Commission. We shall reach a considered view in the light of that evidence.
  Mr. Curry: The right hon. Gentleman referred to deferring or using a different approach. Is it therefore conceivable that, let us say, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber will vote by postal ballot on

  381
  4 November as anticipated—I understand that it would not be possible to arrange a manual ballot by that date—but that the north-west might vote on a subsequent date but still within this Parliament?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Were one of the orders not to be passed tonight or tomorrow when the other place considers the matter, there would need to be alternative orders because it would not be possible for a simple shift in the method of voting to take place without that being approved by the House. There clearly would be a need for additional parliamentary consideration if that course of action were pursued.
  Mr. Mark Field: I appreciate the Government's desire to raise turnout, and the Minister has concentrated his comments on administration and fraud, about which Conservative Members have concerns. However, he has not concentrated on—the Electoral Commission has not made great play of this—the credibility of an election or a referendum. A campaign takes place that culminates in one day with the public at large collectively making its decision. The great power of an election or a referendum depends on that. Does he not see that that notion of an election or referendum is entirely undermined if the system of postal voting is made compulsory?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I do not. I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's premise that there should be a formal period for campaigning. However, we have accepted as part of our democratic arrangements for decades that some people can vote either by proxy or by post. There were provisions—most spectacularly in the 1945 election, which did not help his party—for the forces to vote at a different time to other people. Arrangements can be made for voting at different points during the campaign period, and that does not undermine the validity of a ballot. The important things are for arguments to be presented and for the public to have a full opportunity to hear the arguments debated, after which they form a judgment. That is one of the reasons why we have insisted that there should a proper period throughout the referendum to allow people to hear and consider the arguments of the yes and no campaigns, which will be registered by the Electoral Commission and given access to funds to promote their points of view. It is right for that to be in place before people receive their ballot papers. People may vote at different times, but there will be a proper campaign so that they may form a judgment based on the arguments to which they are exposed.
  We are confident that problems highlighted in the media coverage of the pilots would not apply to the referendums. I have already said that there will be no candidates seeking election, so the risk of fraud prompted by self-interest on the part of candidates would be eliminated. Secondly, there would be a much longer lead-in time for the printing and dispatch of ballot papers in the referendums—six weeks instead of a week—because that need not be done over such a concentrated period to allow for the nomination date
  382
  for candidates. In June, there were reports that votes could not be counted because witnessed declarations of identity were incomplete, so the Government intend, in line with the advice of the Electoral Commission, to use security statements that do not require witness signatures for this autumn's referendums. The Electoral Commission's view was that
  "the traditional form of declaration adds nothing to the security of the process but introduces significant risks".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) highlighted the fact that evidence shows that people were deterred from voting in the June pilots because they found the requirement of a witness statement complex and possibly intimidating.
  Joyce Quin: I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about not continuing with witness statements in the unhelpful form that they took in June. Does he agree that the experience of authorities such as Gateshead, which had three years of successful postal ballots without the witness declaration, is in accord with the policy change that he is announcing?
  Mr. Raynsford: I entirely concur with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend, who has a lot of experience of the matter and has watched the process over those years. As I said in response to our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South, who shares the same local authority as my right hon. Friend, there is considerable evidence of successful all-postal voting in Gateshead. The evidence from this summer's pilots suggests that the witness statement might have adversely affected the turnout compared with that in previous pilots, but we will wait for the measured and considered response of the Electoral Commission before reaching a firm decision. However, we do not intend to use witness statements during the course of the referendums.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that Liberal Democrats are worried by the Government's current attitude to witness statements. We have heard from his colleagues about some of the problems with them, but postal votes have traditionally had witness statements, so the Government are moving away from the way in which postal voting has operated in this country. I hope that he will give due weight to people's concerns that the danger of electoral fraud will remain until we get individual voter registration. The Government need to be careful if they really are to discard the witness statement.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have considered the matter carefully and acted in line with the Electoral Commission's advice. As I said, its view is that
  "the traditional form of declaration adds nothing to the security of the process but introduces significant risks".
  One problem is that individuals are nervous that the existence of a witness statement compromises the secrecy of the ballot—it does not, but people are fearful that it might. People who live alone face a problem because they may not find it easy to have someone available to witness their declarations at a convenient time. Those and other factors are probably some of the

  383
  reasons behind the situation in June when turnout fell in some areas that had experienced high levels of participation in previous all-postal pilots.
  Mr. Davey: May I come back to the Minister on two points? First, the Electoral Commission favours individual elector registration as a long-term goal—I think that there is cross-party consensus on that point—but how do we insure against fraud in the meantime? Secondly, if there is misperception among the electorate that the secrecy of a ballot could be jeopardised, surely we should tackle that by proving through clearer information that that is not the case.
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's second point first. It is absolutely right that good information should be available to everyone who votes, whatever method is used. There is evidence that the authorities that have explained the all-postal voting process most thoughtfully have achieved the highest levels of participation because they have allayed fears and ensured that people were on side. Several authorities that have done that over three years or more—Gateshead has done it for four years—have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve sustained high levels of participation. We should pay close heed to the experience of those authorities, many of which are in the north-east, that have operated the system successfully without problems on separate occasions.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: After I have responded to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
  The Electoral Commission's recommendation on individual registration is important and we are giving it serious consideration. We intend to move forward on the basis of its proposals. However, that cannot be done without legislation and quite complex administration, which will not be in place before this autumn's referendums. The Electoral Commission was aware of that when it welcomed our decision to proceed with an all-postal referendum. They knew that it would not be possible to accompany that with individual registration and took its decision in the light of that evidence.
  Mr. Jones: Chester-le-Street in my constituency has had postal voting for the past three years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the confusion in the European election was caused by the need for people to sign a witness statement, and turnout went down whereas in previous elections it had been going up? For example, last September we had a record turnout in a council by-election of 64 per cent. Surely the fact of the matter is that the witness statement causes more confusion.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend also speaks from considerable experience. Most hon. Members will be highly impressed with that figure. Sadly, we are not used to a 64 per cent. turnout in a council by-election. It reflects the remarkable success of all-postal voting in achieving higher turnouts.
  384
  My hon. Friend also makes a fair and considered point about the problems associated with the witness statement. I think that I dealt with that thoroughly and I gave the undertaking that we do not intend to use witness statements. We propose instead to use security statements in the referendums, in line with the Electoral Commission's recommendation.
  Mr. Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I want to make some progress first.
  Another difference between the pilots held in June and the referendums this autumn is that we have made provision for more assistance and delivery points of at least one per 50,000 electors, to be open on the date of the referendum and the preceding seven working days, during normal working hours, to enable those people who want to vote in person to do so.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) asked in a previous debate whether that provision would be adequate in rural areas. We have reflected on that and I am pleased to tell him that electoral administrators will be empowered to make additional arrangements in areas where they think that the 50,000 figure is inadequate, so there can be greater provision if they think that it is justified. In addition, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, there will be provision for electoral administrators to visit individuals who are not able to vote because of a disability, in particular visual impairment, and who might need assistance.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that common-sense provision. The Craven area barely has 50,000 inhabitants, let alone 50,000 electors, and they are spread over the north Pennines, so it is an obvious difficulty. For people who are visually impaired or who have difficulty getting to a poll or filling in a ballot paper, will there be a mechanism by which they notify the returning officer of that disability or problem so that they can be visited? What will be put in place to enable them to take advantage of that facility?
  Mr. Raynsford: The chairman of the Electoral Commission, who is overseeing the process, and the returning officers who will be responsible within each region, must give thought to that matter. We will encourage them to publicise the availability of assistance from electoral administrators for those people who will find it difficult to vote without the presence of an administrator in their own home to help them through the process.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: On the figure of 50,000, if a returning officer decided that there should be a collection point for every 10,000 or 5,000 inhabitants, would the Government reimburse the local authority for the additional cost incurred?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a question that clearly will have to be considered by the electoral administrators. We would certainly want to make certain that there was proper provision to ensure that people were able to vote in person where they wished to do so. I do not want, at this stage, to speculate about any

  385
  particular ratio of assistance and delivery points to electors because circumstances will vary enormously from one place to another.
  Mr. Betts: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have one or two problems with the whole idea of the referendum. However, if we proceed, we must encourage the greatest number of people to participate, so will he ensure that the instructions are in plain English so that people can understand them? That is an important point. In June, the instructions issued in Yorkshire and Humber were virtually incomprehensible and caused many people to make a complete mess of voting. In London, despite the complexity of the elections, the instructions were a lot clearer.
  Mr. Raynsford: I can assure my hon. Friend that the orders that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), dealt with in Committee on Monday specifically set out the referendum question, the dates and other necessary information as well as matters relating to local government reorganisation, so those issues have already been the subject of considerable scrutiny and of consideration by the Electoral Commission.
  There is no justification for the Opposition's claims that we are compelling people to vote by post. Electors would have the choice as to whether to return their vote by post, to deliver it by hand or to vote at a place supervised by electoral officials at the forthcoming referendums. The count would commence after close of poll on 4 November.
  Mr. Curry: Having just congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on doing something sensible, I now find that he has said something that he is far too intelligent to believe. He knows very well that in a normal, physical election there are polling stations in every village—in the village hall, in the school or perhaps in a caravan. Even by the wildest imagination he is not proposing that, certainly not with the doubts over who would finance it. There is no analogy between the facility that he has just announced and a normal, physical ballot, and he is far too intelligent to pretend that there is.
  Mr. Raynsford: I was not suggesting that there was an analogy; I was suggesting that arrangements had been put in place to ensure that those people who want to vote in person will be able to do so. The assistance and delivery points to which I referred will be open for a whole week before the close of ballot, and most people, even in rural areas, would find it possible in the course of a week to visit such a location. I have also referred to our intention to allow electoral administrators to make individual visits. There might be mobile polling stations to call in certain areas at specified times. It is our intention that everything possible should be done to encourage participation. This is all about making it easier for people to vote. We know that all-postal ballots are very welcome to many people, who find that the most convenient way to vote. We want to extend that, but we also want to ensure that there is provision for those people who would prefer to vote by other means. I have to say that we are not going to have any electronic
  386
  voting in this particular election; that is not an option on this occasion. We have had pilots elsewhere and we will come back to those in future years, but not on this occasion.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister has been generous in giving way, particularly to me. He has given reassurances that people with visual impairment will be assisted by the electoral administrators who will visit them. How will the cost of that provision be met? That is important, and I hope that he is not leaving the question to the Electoral Commission to work out in due course. One can imagine a large number of electoral administrators having to be recruited specifically for that purpose.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with us, we will come on to the cost issues in the subsequent orders. It is our intention to reimburse reasonable costs, but they must be reasonable—we do not want unjustified expenditure. We want to take these measures in a way that gives real benefits and makes it easy for people to vote, but in the most cost-effective way.
  To enable local people to identify how their particular area has voted, each counting officer would certify for his area the number of ballot papers counted and the number of votes cast for each referendum answer. The chief counting officer would do the same for the whole of the referendum area. To ensure that there is confidence in the final result, the order makes provision for recounts, both in a particular voting area and the whole referendum area.
  The Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order also seeks to establish a fair and transparent framework for regulating campaigners. The purpose of the framework is to level the playing field between different permitted participants—registered campaigners—by placing limits on their spending. Those limits are set out in the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order.
  Political parties would be subject to a sliding scale of limits, determined by their vote share at the last European elections. Parties receiving more than 30 per cent. of the vote at June's European elections would be entitled to spend up to a maximum limit of £940,000 in the north-west, £820,000 in Yorkshire and Humber and £665,000 in the north-east. The figures obviously relate to population differences between the regions. Those maximums also apply to the lead yes/no campaigns, as appointed by the Electoral Commission. Parties receiving less than 5 per cent. of the vote would be able to spend no more than £100,000, the same limit as applies to permitted participants that are not political parties. There is a sliding scale determining maximum limits for political parties between these extremes. The framework also provides for the lead yes/no campaigns in each of the regions to receive a grant from the Electoral Commission, a free mail shot to either households or individual voters, free TV broadcasts and free use of rooms for public meetings.
  As the explanatory memorandum to the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order makes clear, the cost of holding the referendums will be approximately

  387
  £1.52 per elector on a 100 per cent. turnout. That gives a total cost of £16.6 million, which would fall with turnout.
  Mr. George Osborne: What are the rules regarding expenditure by the Government during the referendum period? Clearly, the Minister has already spent money informing people, as he would put it, or trying to influence the vote, as I would put it. What are the rules during the referendum campaign? Can the Government spend any money "informing" people?
  Mr. Raynsford: No. The rules are spelled out clearly in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which sets the overall framework. That places an absolute prohibition on the Government spending any money at all in the 28 days prior to the close of poll. Because this is an all-postal election and the ballot papers will be sent out approximately three weeks before that, we have agreed in our discussions with the Electoral Commission that we will apply the 28-day cut-off to mean 28 days from the date at which the voting papers are likely to be sent out, so it is more likely to be 28 days plus three weeks from the final date of the poll.
  There is provision, as I said, for the Electoral Commission to provide funds for both the yes and no campaigns, and we would envisage them to be incurring expenditure supporting the arguments—yes and no—during that period of approximately a month from the end of the Government's information campaign until the point at which the ballot papers are sent out and after that, if they choose to do so. It will be up to them how they spend the money. However, the Government will play no role at all in publicity during that period, other than answering factual questions that are put to us.
  Mr. Osborne: How would the expenditure incurred by Ministers be handled? I would expect the Minister to go around trying to campaign for a yes vote. Would he be doing so as a Minister, with transport and so on paid for by the Government, or as a representative of the yes campaign in whichever region he was, with the expenditure incurred by the yes campaign?
  Mr. Raynsford: Individuals Ministers, as individual Members of Parliament and as advocates of a particular cause, would be free to speak on behalf of the yes or no cause, but they would not be performing a function as Ministers during that time. They would be acting as individuals, not as Ministers.
  Mr. Jenkin: It is important that that should be seen to be fair. For example, if the right hon. Gentleman were to travel to the north of England during the referendum period to make a speech in favour of a regional assembly, the funding for that trip could not come out of public funds, otherwise it would not be fair, would it?
  Mr. Raynsford: If I visited the north-east, the north-west or any other region solely and specifically to promote a particular position—in my case, it would be the yes position on elected regional assemblies—I would pay for my travel. [Interruption.] It happened when the Conservative party was in government. In the normal course of events, one conducts official ministerial visits
  388
  and one also involves oneself in political campaigning. Because of our other responsibilities, Ministers do not have the freedom to travel around the country that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) might expect. The provisions properly cover the position, and we shall observe them scrupulously.
  Mr. Osborne: The Minister said earlier that Ministers would be free, as Members of Parliament, to campaign for either a yes vote or a no vote. Is he therefore saying that Ministers can campaign for a no vote?
  Mr. Raynsford: I cannot imagine that any Minister in this Government wants to do that because the Government are committed to extending devolution. Our position is clear on supporting the opportunity to have elected regional assemblies, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I will strongly advocate a yes vote in our personal capacities during the campaign.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been extremely generous in giving way. I have two further questions about expenditure. First, when the 28-day period, which will be advanced by three weeks, cuts in, what obligation is there to ensure that advertisements on hoardings and buses are removed and are not left to linger? Secondly, will the Minister ask the Electoral Commission if it will consult the yes and no campaigns, so that both sides are satisfied that the information that it puts out during the campaign is impartial, which is not the feeling about the Government's campaign?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. All the information that the Government have put out and will continue to put out has been cleared through all the normal channels, including vigorous legal checks, to ensure that it complies with the obligations imposed on us to be fair and impartial. We have observed that principle and shall continue to do so.
  The process will end the Government's provision of information before the yes and no campaigns publicity campaigns begin to kick in. The Government will not issue paid advertisements when the yes and no campaigns have been approved by the Electoral Commission and are campaigning. The hon. Member for North Essex knows that in the normal course of events I cannot guarantee that no hoardings will be left over, but we intend to end all publicity and advertising well before the yes and no campaigns are launched.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that during the time in which the Government are allowed to give objective information to people about this extremely important constitutional occasion, they will use that opportunity to give a great deal of information to everyone who can vote?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to provide that assurance. Last week, I attended a hearing in Blackpool, which is not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend, where the debate was intelligent and sensible. The no campaign fielded an expert on local government, whom I respect greatly, and the yes campaign fielded a councillor with considerable experience of a local authority. I presented the factual basis and the yes and no campaigns argued

  389
  their cases, which is right and proper. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex laughs, but he would be surprised if I went into the detail of what the advocate for the no campaign said, which did not accord with the views expressed by Conservative Front Benchers—I have more respect for that particular spokesman and his expertise than I do for them. [Interruption.] I will take one more intervention, but then I must end my speech because other hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Neil Turner: Sub-paragraph (c) of "Limits on referendum expenses by participants in the North West region" refers to
  £100,000 in the case of an individual or body falling within"
  a certain Act. What provision is there to prevent a very rich person from setting up a number of bodies and putting the £100,000 into the fund, thus skewing the debate one way or the other?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a difficulty with the existing regulations. Having examined them carefully, we believe that there is scope for individuals to support different organisations, all of which could register separately. It will be for the Electoral Commission to decide whether, in its opinion, there is an abuse of the system in such circumstances. I trust the judgment of the commission, which is of course empowered to register participants. Without its endorsement, those participants are not entitled to spend more than £10,000.
  The orders are essential to enable referendums on elected regional assemblies to be held this autumn. I believe that they provide a proper basis for the achievement of our objectives. Those objectives are to give the people in the northern regions an opportunity to express their views either for or against elected regional assemblies, to do so on the basis of the highest possible participation, and to be well informed of the outcome. I commend the orders to the House.
  3.56 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I think the whole House is extremely grateful to the Minister for the time he has given us and the number of interventions he has taken. He is an extremely nice man, and also an extremely honourable man; but sometimes, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, he must wonder what on earth the mess is that he has got himself into.
  Even if Parliament approves the orders this week, everyone will be left wondering whether the referendums in the north of England will take place at all. It is difficult to imagine how the Government could have created more of a mess for themselves. Here we are with the date of the referendums set, with the Government spending millions of pounds of public money on their own propaganda campaign, and with the yes and no campaigns up and running in three northern regions not yet recognised by the Electoral Commission or the Government, facing the fact that the referendums may never be held.
  390
  The problem is that the Government have become obsessed with conducting the referendums by means of all-postal ballots. We must ask ourselves why. The conventional ballot box was good enough for the Scottish referendum, good enough for Wales and good enough for the London mayoralty and the London Assembly. Why does it not do for referendums on regional assemblies? Why does the Deputy Prime Minister—against all the advice of the Electoral Commission, after the chaos of the all-postal pilots in the June elections and after the collapse of public confidence in all-postal voting—still insist on all-postal referendums? He is effectively putting the whole policy at risk, because the Government may yet have to call them off.
  The real danger with the referendums is the massive opportunity for vote-harvesting. I use that phrase advisedly. Unscrupulous individuals or organisations collecting unwanted ballot papers from doorsteps, from the doormats of multiple-occupancy residences or even from people's rubbish sacks and bins could forge signatures and post the papers off, and no one would be the wiser. There is no way of checking whether the votes are genuine.
  I hear what the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) say about the self-interest of candidates not being a factor in a referendum, but reduced motive does not improve the security of a system that is fundamentally unsound.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Is it not easier to impersonate someone under the present ballot-box system than under the postal-vote system? I could turn up at the hon. Gentleman's polling station, give his name and address, receive a ballot paper and walk out. There would be no audit trail to establish that I had been there. Surely what the hon. Gentleman is saying is nonsense.
  Mr. Jenkin: Logistically, it is much more difficult to organise large-scale impersonation in a polling station than behind a closed door with stacks of ballot papers. In order to impersonate me, another voter and another voter several times, the hon. Gentleman would have to go into separate polling stations to avoid being identified voting more than once. That is not necessary if he is voting behind a closed door using ballot papers with forged signatures. It is possible to vote hundreds and hundreds of times under the system that is being promulgated in these orders. It would not be possible to do that with the conventional ballot box.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Would the hon. Gentleman be more relaxed if there were a declaration of identity, as there was in the all-postal ballot pilots? It is important for him to say that. If he can join our party in making that point, perhaps we can persuade the Government that, until we get individual elector registration, that is the way to go to prevent the fraud that he has expressed concern about.
  Mr. Jenkin: A witness statement is an additional safeguard. None the less, it is unsatisfactory because it can be forged, too, and there is no way to check that. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be preferable to have a witness statement.

  391
  I still think that it would be preferable to have conventional ballot box voting. That would be a more secure way of conducting the referendums. How could anyone check whether the signatures on the ballot packs were real or fake?
  Ms Dari Taylor: The House is well aware that evidence was produced that fraud took place in parts of the midlands. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us whether there was any evidence of similar fraud, on any scale, in the northern region.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the system is unsound in the midlands, it is unsound in any other region. I will come to what the leader of Birmingham city council said in a moment, but the other place insisted on a witness statement in the postal pilots because of the need for some check on all-postal balloting. I agree with the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who is longing to be the new Miss North-east in the regional assembly: it probably would reduce the turnout because it would complicate the system, but it would make it safer. We must accept that.
  That is why the Electoral Commission wanted the Government to delay these referendum orders. It is all very well to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is no longer here unfortunately, would not listen to the Electoral Commission. When it does not suit the Minister for Local and Regional Government, even though his Government set up the Electoral Commission, he does not listen to it—well, he listens to it and ignores it. That is what he has done in this case.
  It is widely known that the Electoral Commission would have preferred the Government to delay the orders until it reported on the pilots. I am sure that the Minister will not be disingenuous enough to insist that that is not true. What it wants ideally is to implement individual voter registration, so that a record of every voter's signature is held centrally on file and signatures on ballot papers can be cross-checked if there is any doubt or any need. Indeed, they could be spot cross-checked to discourage anyone from forging a signature on a ballot paper.
  In these referendums, apathy will be rife. The majority in all three regions probably do not care, or hardly know, about the Deputy Prime Minister's precious regional assembly proposals. Few people will care what happens to the ballot papers that they never asked for. Again, despite the chaos last time, live, validated ballot papers will pour out across the north of England and, from that point on, no one will know where individual ballot papers have been, who has completed them and whether any fraud has taken place. That is what the postal pilots clearly proved last month.
  The other problem is the state of electoral law. As Sir Albert Bore, Labour leader of Birmingham city council, said last month:
  "At present, in relation to postal ballot papers, the law is so general that almost anything is legal."
  That is why the Electoral Commission is pushing for an increase in the number and type of offences with regard to postal voting to protect the integrity of the ballot.
  392
  I put it to the Minister that there is no consensus on this matter. He has the support of neither the Liberal Democrats nor the Conservative party on the question. Why are the Government galloping ahead with their own way of conducting ballots without any party consensus? This has hardly ever been done before with such a cavalier attitude. The only conclusion that one can reach is that it is being done because it is in this miserable, rotten Government's interests; they see political advantage in it. An all-postal ballot is the only hope of avoiding the humiliation of a totally derisory turnout. That is not an excuse for hijacking the voting system.
  The other advantage that the Government now have is a convenient exit strategy. I can well imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has been detailed by the Prime Minister to try to extricate the Government from the mess that the Deputy Prime Minister has made. If the Government really do face humiliation in all three regions, they can use the Electoral Commission's report as a pretext to call the whole thing off.
  Last month, the House was told that the referendums would not proceed if the Electoral Commission were to conclude that it was "unsafe" to proceed with all-postal voting. Rather like "derisory", what does "unsafe" mean? The Minister told us in the same debate that not to proceed the Electoral Commission would only have to produce
  "evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe".—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1260]
  He has also said that only
  "a suggestion that new regulations were required"
  would be enough to postpone the referendums. There is plenty of wiggle room there; we know that the commission already wants additional regulations to protect the integrity of the ballot. It will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to interpret the Electoral Commission's report however they so choose.
  Mr. Raynsford: I should make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is quoting my remarks in the previous debate out of context. When I talked about possible changes to regulations, I was asked about the impact on the timetable of any recommendations that the Electoral Commission might make. I tried to draw a distinction between recommendations that would involve legislation, which clearly would involve a long delay; recommendations that might involve a change in regulations, which would involve a delay; and recommendations that might involve administrative changes, which might not involve a delay if those could be done expeditiously. I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that we had to take account of a range of possible circumstances. The hon. Gentleman should not imply that a suggestion that there might be a modest change to administrative procedures is a justification for not taking action. That was certainly not what I implied.
  Mr. Jenkin: I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it does not alter the substance of the point I am making, which concerns what the real test of "unsafe" is. In the end, it that will be a decision for Ministers; we cannot expect the Electoral Commission to make the decision about whether the referendums

  393
  should go ahead, any more than we could expect Hans Blix to decide whether we should invade Iraq. It is a question for Ministers, and not something that the Minister will be able to define today. It leaves him all the room for manoeuvre that he wants.
  The real test of the word "unsafe" will be a political judgment, not a legal or technical one. If it looks likely that Labour will lose one or more of the referendums, that may well be what the Government conclude to be "unsafe". It will be the Prime Minister who makes the ultimate decision, not his hapless deputy.
  The Minister refuses to define "unsafe" and "derisory". This kind of confusion, chaos and deceit has characterised the Government's proposals for elected regional assembles from the start. I ask for one simple reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman failed to give the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Either all the referendums go ahead, or not. Does the Minister agree that there can be no conceivable excuse for cancelling one or two of the referendums? Either he will consider postal voting to be an unsafe system, or a safe one.
  How can the system be safe in some places and not in others? That is the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Do we think people behave differently in Bradford than in York? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is an interesting comment. All citizens in this country should be treated as equals. To cast aspersions on one part of the population but not another is a very nasty thing to do; yet that is the implication of the Government's position. Either the system is sound or it is not, and if not, none of the referendums should proceed on this basis.
  Mr. Raynsford: I should make it clear that there is no question of casting aspersions on any section of the community or individual area. However, the fact is that the complaints made about the problems associated with all-postal voting—or, indeed, with postal voting—tended to be concentrated in certain areas. That factor clearly has to be taken into account, and it would be quite wrong to draw general conclusions from what might be localised problems associated with particular candidates in individual elections. I drew a clear distinction between circumstances that might prove an incentive to commit fraud—in which a candidate has an incentive to get elected—and the very different circumstances that apply in a referendum. The hon. Gentleman should accept that in that regard it is possible to draw distinctions between different areas of the country without implying the kind of slur that he suggested might lie behind our position.
  Mr. Jenkin: I do not accept that that should be the determining factor. I repeat: if the system is unsound, it is unsound anywhere. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is that because we do not have competing candidates, no vested interests are involved in this process, but of course that is not true. Huge vested interests are involved. The reputation of the Deputy Prime Minister is on the line; the careers of the "jobs for
  394
  the boys" Labour councillors who want to be members of the regional assemblies are on the line; the career of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West is on the line. Lots of people have a vested interest in the outcome of the regional assemblies referendum.
  In any case, what about some of the organisations that might be involved in the yes campaign or the no campaign? I certainly do not want to have anything to do with the British National party. However, it is on the record as saying that it will apply for designation as a permitted participant. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the BNP to behave as well as any other political party behaves? I certainly do not.
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has asked a question of the Minister and in order to avoid ambiguity, I want to explain to my hon. Friend my understanding of the Minister's reply to my earlier intervention. I do not understand why we are being so squeamish about saying what we believe, which is that there appear to have been problems with the conduct of the ballot in certain ethnic minority areas. That is what we are talking about; we are simply trying to avoid using that expression. As I understood it, the Minister said that it is not impossible that there could be three ballots, two ballots or one ballot, and that they could all take place through postal voting or through a combination of postal and manual voting. In the latter case, manual voting would take place at a later date than postal voting because it would not be possible to make the necessary arrangements in time, given the need first to pass the relevant legislation through this House. That is my understanding of what the Minister said.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the Minister will confirm that that is so—[Interruption.] He nods, but I have to say that that was not my understanding of his response to the intervention of my right hon. Friend. The point is that, as my right hon. Friend will agree, we are faced with an extraordinary mess. There is a very high likelihood that what we are debating—and possibly approving—is what will not happen. This is a mess of the Government's own making, and one made over a remarkably short period.
  Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the all-postal ballot is an unsound system. On what does he base that judgment, given that all-postal ballots have operated in the north-east for some three to four years without the problems that he describes?
  Mr. Jenkin: My point is that if a system is unsound in one place it is unsound, full stop. If it can be defrauded in one part of the country, it can be defrauded anywhere.
  Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I note from what the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West says that she has absolute confidence that the BNP, for example, will not try to interfere with the system. Her faith is very touching.
  We have had an outbreak of honesty in other quarters, from the chairman of the yes for Yorkshire campaign, Lord Haskins. Just over two weeks ago, he

  395
  labelled Ministers in the Departments for Education and Skills and for Transport "Stalinists" because they did not want to let go of some of their powers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who some of these Stalinists are. Lord Haskins was also reported to have said that he thinks the referendum is unwinnable. Helpfully, he later clarified his remarks, saying that he is merely concerned about the tight timetable being laid down by the Government. In other words, he thinks the Government are in a horrible mess and he thinks he is going to lose.
  That reminds us that the Labour party is hopelessly split. On Monday, it was reported that 27 north-west Labour Members, including three Ministers, have written to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for the regional referendum to be scrapped. The truth is that Labour Members are queueing up to tell him to ditch the project. Just two days ago, the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) called for the Yorkshire referendum to be scrapped, and added:
  "I have no doubt that the views I have expressed are the views of the majority of Yorkshire Labour MPs."
  Mr. Clelland: We may as well be honest about these things, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, and it is also true that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) expressed reservations about the referendum. Of course there is a division of opinion in some areas of the north-west, and in Yorkshire, as we have heard today. However, let me make it crystal clear that no such divisions are apparent in the north-east, where we are only too keen to pass the orders and get on with authorising the yes and no campaigns, setting them in motion and holding the referendum.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the referendum in the north-east goes ahead, we shall see how the people vote there, what the turnout is and whether people really want an elected regional assembly.
  Mr. George Osborne: It is worth reminding the House that when some related orders were debated on Monday, one was carried by only nine votes to seven, and indeed would have been lost by the Government without the support of the Liberal Democrats, because of the number of Labour Members put on that Committee by the Whips who voted against the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope).
  Mr. Jenkin: It is little wonder that even pro-assembly Members are running for cover when The Journal, the pro-assembly Newcastle paper, runs headlines such as "Bosses line up to urge 'no' vote". The fact is that the proposals are losing support by the day. No wonder the Prime Minister has asked his man in the ODPM to sort out an exit strategy.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only today in the north-west, the business leadership team, representing the top businesses in the region, is urging a yes vote?
  Mr. Jenkin: May I point out that the business leadership team is a little team appointed entirely by the Deputy Prime Minister? Its members are well-known
  396
  supporters of the yes campaign, but I promise hon. Members that if we took a poll of business men in the north-west, there would be no doubt about the sentiments they would express, and it is the same in the north-east and in Yorkshire.
  We still do not know what powers an elected assembly would have. Throughout the past 12 months, we have had ministerial claim and counter-claim about what the powers are to be. Why have the Government not simply published the draft Bill as they originally promised? What do they have to hide? Even staunch advocates of elected assemblies, such as the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, pressed them to publish it before the orders were debated. One can only conclude that Ministers are deliberately withholding information that would serve to inform both this debate and the public, because they fear telling the truth.
  This is the last occasion on which the House will debate these issues before the people themselves consider the question as set out on the referendum ballot paper, as contained in the orders.
  The preamble on the ballot paper, which every voter will read before voting, says that
  "the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies".
  That is what the Minister believes to be correct, but we have not seen the draft Bill, so we have no idea whether it is, in fact, correct. Will it contain new policies that the Deputy Prime Minister has hinted at—on learning and skills councils, police authorities and perhaps even a Barnett formula for the north-east, which was promulgated with the north-west business leadership team at a meeting in December last year? Will it contain those new powers or, as the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) told my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in a letter, will it simply reflect what was set out in the White Paper? In that case, we certainly dispute the fact that the functions are mainly carried out by central Government bodies.
  I have to tell the Minister that that statement is, at the very least, a subject of political dispute and controversy. It is not undisputed fact. The Government could perhaps have settled the matter by publishing the draft Bill, but instead they have put something on the ballot paper that is obviously designed to skew the debate in their favour.
  Mr. Raynsford: We have always committed ourselves to publishing the draft Bill as soon as the House approves the orders, because it is important to provide information to the public. That is the purpose. If there were not going to be a referendum because the orders were not passed, there would clearly be no purpose in publishing the Bill for information. That is why we are committed to publishing the Bill as soon as the orders are passed.
  I referred a short while ago to the representative of the no campaign at my hearing in Blackpool. Robin Wendt, a very distinguished person with previous experience of local government, made it clear that he wholly agreed with our view that the powers that we proposed for regional assemblies came overwhelmingly from central

  397
  Government and agencies. In other words, the view of the Opposition that powers were being taken from local government was simply wrong.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have not met the gentleman concerned, so I have no way of assessing the veracity of that statement. The fact remains that there is a long list of powers in the White Paper—including powers to deal with waste, transport and housing—that are currently carried out at local government level, but will subsequently be interfered with by regional assemblies. That is not what local government wants: it is not decentralisation, but fake devolution.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the spending review the Chancellor talked about options for transport powers being devolved and that in a statement last week the Secretary of State for Transport talked about the devolution of such powers. If that were the case, would the Conservatives welcome it?
  Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to be suckered by what is in the White Paper. Let us consider what it actually says. Under the heading "Where we want to be", paragraph 9.4 states:
  "We will improve the current arrangements for making decisions on transport. Central to this will be giving regional and local bodies more influence".
  But what is "influence"? Influence means not having the final decision. These new organisations will be empowered with strategies, consultation and influence, but virtually no executive powers whatever. Even such executive powers as they will have, such as the appointment of directors to the regional development agencies—something that those agencies do not want—will be subject to the Minister's veto. That is not devolution; it is more centralisation.
  Mr. Davey: If the hon. Gentleman is right about that, it would be worrying and we will not be suckered if that is what happens. However, the Chancellor said very clearly in the spending review that the Government would publish indicative budgets for transport early next year. We will hold the Government to that, because we believe that financial power is the key to the regional assemblies having real power.
  Mr. Jenkin: But we know how the Government treat local authorities. They allocate transport spending to them, but say that they cannot spend it on one thing and have to spend it on another—otherwise they will not get it. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Government will treat regional government any differently? His faith is touching, but perhaps he should talk to his Liberal colleagues in the north-west who have decided to oppose elected regional assemblies in the referendums—[Interruption.] Many of them have. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) will confirm that they are supporting the no campaign in the north-west and that campaign can expect to recruit a lot more Liberals as time goes on.
  Mr. Neil Turner: My understanding is that Liberal Democrats in the north-west have not decided to
  398
  support the no campaign, but to wait until the September meeting before they make up their minds. That is not unusual for Liberal Democrats, but it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that they support the no campaign. They do not.
  Mr. Jenkin: I think that we should leave the Liberal Democrats to their private grief on that matter.
  The preamble makes a claim that cannot be substantiated, and the Government refuse to publish the Bill before we vote on these orders, which would enable us to evaluate the claim for ourselves. We have to take the matter on trust. The Government do not intend to publish the Bill until after the orders have been approved, which means it will be available tomorrow. I put it to the House that they have effectively broken the substance of the promise that they made to publish the draft Bill in good time.
  Why do Ministers consistently slink away from any proper debate on the powers that elected assemblies will have? It is because their only chance of winning any of the referendums is by hiding the truth, running their propaganda campaign at the public expense, twisting the question on the ballot paper, issuing hundreds of thousands more ballot papers than can possibly be used legitimately, and then refusing to say how they will assess the result.
  The whole process stinks of manipulation, propaganda, spin and deceit. Labour does not trust the people, as we have seen time and again. Labour does not tell the truth about hospital waiting lists, class sizes, rising crime, the real crisis in asylum or about intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  We Conservatives do trust the people. The people of the north will see through Labour's cheap and despicable attempt to manipulate the result of these referendums. If the Government let the referendums go ahead on 4 November, the people of the north of England will show their contempt for the unwanted and wasteful talking-shop assemblies that will not create not one extra doctor, nurse or police man. That is what the people of the north really want.
  4.27 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: I strongly support the orders, because they will enact the will of the House. The people of the northern regions should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want directly elected regional assemblies.
  The choice will be between the new assemblies and maintaining the current system and all its inequalities. A child born today in the north-west is likely to live 10 years less than one born in the south-east. Overwhelmingly, the country's deprived wards and local authorities are concentrated in the north-west, and funding for scientific research continues to be concentrated in four higher education institutions—the Oxbridge colleges, and two colleges in London.
  Mr. Jenkin: We often hear about the life expectancy disparity between north and south. It is possible to find wide disparities in life expectancy between people born in leafy Surrey, say, and the worst ward in Newcastle, but the greatest disparities exist between the good and

  399
  bad areas of individual regions. The average disparity in life expectancy between regions is actually quite small, so can we have truth in this matter? I have checked the figures, and I challenge the hon. Lady to produce region-wide figures that bear out her assertion, because it is not true.
  Mrs. Ellman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am being untruthful. If he is, I ask him to withdraw the suggestion. The figure that I quoted is correct, and is borne out by numerous statistics put forward by other people. It is clear that there is a concentration of deprivation in the north-west—in terms of wards, special areas, local authorities and life expectancy, and in many other ways.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disparity in constituencies such as hers and mine was made worse by the last Tory Government?
  Mrs. Ellman: I certainly do agree and we are attempting to change the situation in which deprivation and inequality continue. Those people who oppose the proposals—the orders that will give effect to the choice that we want to offer the people of the north, to decide whether they want to change the system—want to maintain the status quo, with all its inequalities.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Lady mentioned science moving from the north-west to Oxbridge and she will know that the Government took the decision to move the synchrotron from Daresbury to Oxfordshire. That was a damaging decision for the north-west, but does she really think that a regional assembly would have been able to stop a decision taken by the Minister for Science and Innovation in Whitehall to move the facility? Even if the referendum were to be won, such decisions would continue to be made by the Minister and the Cabinet.
  Mrs. Ellman: The decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers was one instance, although it was a serious instance that outraged the north-west and started to bring the region together. One of the consequences was the formation of the North West Science Council, with people from the academic and scientific sector working together with Members of Parliament and local authority representatives. We realised that unless we worked together, the system—of which that decision was only one example—would continue. It would have been inconceivable for that decision to have been taken for the areas represented by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. It is essential to have an organisation to represent the region as a whole, to deal with those issues that are regional—not local—and to give clout to the north-west and the other northern regions, and to argue for change and a better allocation of resources.
  The hon. Gentleman refers to a decision taken by a Minister, but it was taken after concentrated lobbying and threats from the Wellcome Trust as to what it would do if the decision were not taken in its favour. The real decision was taken by that magic inner circle—the people who know one another and who are convinced that the only centres of excellence are to be found in London and the south-east. That is one of the very
  400
  strong reasons why it is so important that we have an elected regional body to speak out for the needs of the region and to work with people in our centres of excellence. By mentioning that example, the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to one of the strongest reasons for going forward with an elected regional assembly.
  Reference has been made in the debate to the postal vote. From experience, it gives people the maximum opportunity to vote. Indeed, in the recent elections in my area, turnout was almost doubled in some areas by the postal vote. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the caveats about the postal vote in terms of any comments that the Electoral Commission might make. The hon. Member for North Essex said that he believed that people in the regions did not know about the opportunity that they will have to vote for a directly elected Assembly. If that is the case, that is all the more reason to pass the orders. The yes and no campaigns can be officially organised, with sufficient resources to argue their cases.
  I find that people in the north-west are most interested and concerned about how the region has been treated in terms of transport, jobs, planning, housing and public health. Those are all areas in which the elected regional assembly will have specific responsibilities and powers. Reference was made earlier in the debate to housing. The housing powers that would go to the elected regional assembly under the White Paper are currently exercised by quangos at a regional level, which report to a Minister. They are not powers for local authorities; they relate to the allocation of housing investment within and between local authorities and housing associations. An elected body should decide such extremely important matters. I suspect that few people in the regions know that such decision making is taking place, let alone the names of the individuals and organisations taking those decisions. It is thus essential that the powers promised in the White Paper go to the elected body.
  Jobs and skills are extremely important. Under the White Paper, regional development agencies would be accountable to the region and not solely to Ministers, as is currently the case—although of course Ministers discuss various issues with the regional chambers.
  The north-west has had a bad deal on transport. The rate of progress on the west coast main line leaves much to be desired. If we had an elected assembly, much more would have happened in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made several statements recently about devolving transport matters locally to passenger transport authorities and to regional bodies, but unless such bodies are directly elected, those powers would be devolved to quangos—to unknown people who are not accountable in the region.
  Proposals have been made about setting up transport boards, especially in regions where there are directly elected assemblies. That, too, will give power to people in the regions and to people who are elected and thus accountable.
  Mr. George Osborne: From my dealings with the hon. Lady, I have no doubt about her sincerity and I know why she speaks with such strength on these issues. I ask

  401
  her to consider the M6 toll road—probably one of the most important issues facing the north-west, which we both represent. Does she really think that decisions such as whether to proceed with the M6 toll road will have anything to do with a north-west regional assembly? That decision will be taken by the Secretary of State for Transport, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, possibly, the Cabinet. Those vital decisions for the north-west will continue to be taken in London.
  Mrs. Ellman: Some decisions will be taken locally, some regionally and some nationally, but a directly elected body would have the clout and legitimacy to ensure that decisions such as the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned would be dealt with much more seriously and quickly. Without such a body, things would lapse and decisions would increasingly suit the south and the south-east where strength already lies, with no need for direct elections—although it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the existence of the Mayor and the London assembly have brought increased strength to London and its power to attract more and more resources. Unless there is an equivalent body in the north-west, we shall find that power and resources are increasingly sucked to London and the south-east. The north-west and the other northern regions will continue to be left behind.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is right. Furthermore, if the powers of the Highways Agency were devolved to the north-west regional assembly, the assembly would have powers over trunk roads, such as those devolved to the Greater London authority. That would be especially welcomed by county councils in the north-west, as they are annoyed when investment decisions on trunk roads are made in London and by the Highways Agency, rather than by the people of the north-west. Devolution of powers for trunk roads would be a substantial improvement on the current situation.
  Mrs. Ellman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations. Regional assemblies should be involved with such important matters.
  Another important issue in the north-west is the second Mersey crossing at Halton, which the Government are considering at present. Again, an elected north-west assembly would ensure that the arguments were put to Ministers and when they took their decisions, the whole strength of the north-west would be behind them, supported by its elected assembly.
  There is often much dissention in such debates about whether the people of the north-west or, indeed, the other northern regions want an elected regional assembly, but there is considerable evidence that they want them. Only very recently, the ICM poll carried out in the north-west showed increasingly strong support for a directly elected north-west assembly and the business leadership team—derided, unfortunately, by the hon. Member for North Essex—has come out in strong support. I found his suggestion that the business leadership team was some kind of organisation set up by the Deputy Prime Minister pretty amazing. In fact, the
  402
  business leadership team, with which I have worked very closely since its inception, was set up in 1982, and I do not recall that it was set up by the then Deputy Prime Minister.
  In 1982, I was leader of Lancashire county council, and I recall bringing together people in the north-west to argue the case for an elected north-west regional body. The businesses of the north-west responded by getting together themselves and saying that they did not believe that the current system served business or the people of the north-west well. Among those businesses currently represented in the business leadership team at senior level, usually chief executive, are Pilkington, BAE Systems, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Manchester Airport, McAlpine and Littlewoods—hardly a little group set up by the Deputy Prime Minister, but an extremely powerful body. Indeed, it advocates that it is time that the north-west had a stronger voice with clout and the ability to get things done, which is supported in votes taken across the north-west at the moment by various chambers of commerce.
  Joyce Quin: I strongly support the case that my hon. Friend is making with great force. Does she welcome, as I did earlier today, the statement made by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about increased devolution in rural development policy to the regions? Does she agree that that is a way to help regional development agencies and regional assemblies, if established, to work effectively?
  Mrs. Ellman: I very much welcome the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Indeed, in doing so, she draws attention to the importance of regional assemblies not only representing interests that are regional in their essence—such as, for example, science research and transport issues that affect the whole region—but being able to consider the differing needs of various parts of the region, including those of rural as well as urban areas. All that diversity of interest can be represented by elected regional assemblies, working with local authorities—I hope that they will continue to be strengthened—and central Government, where appropriate.
  Mr. George Osborne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for generously giving way to me a third time. She keeps saying that chambers of commerce support regional government. Let me read what the Wirral, Warrington and North Cheshire chamber of commerce says. It asks the Government
  "to abandon this project before it wastes a great deal of money on a level of government that few people want and even less people need."
  That is what chambers of commerce actually say about the proposal.
  Mrs. Ellman: That quote does not represent the view of all chambers of commerce—certainly not that of those in my area. Clearly, there is continuing debate about whether people want elected regional assemblies. There is only one way to find out: to go ahead with the referendums with the easiest possible way for people to register their vote. That is why I hope that the orders will be passed. I hope that both Houses will continue to support the important issue of giving the people of the

  403
  north a choice on whether they continue with the current system, which has not served them well and increasingly results in inequality.
  Mr. Dawson: Given that devolution is a dynamic process, not a single event, does my hon. Friend share my anxiety that, if the people of the north-west choose not to go for an elected regional assembly and other regions, such as Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east, choose to do so, the north-west could find itself swiftly losing out in comparison not only to the south-east, but to those other northern regions?
  Mrs. Ellman: I share my hon. Friend's concerns. Devolution has already started to happen in the United Kingdom. Scotland has its Parliament; Wales has its Assembly; and London has its assembly and a directly elected Mayor. If other parts of the United Kingdom start to gain more powers, the northern regions will increasingly lose out.
  That is why it is important that the people of the northern regions have the earliest possible opportunity—on 4 November—to vote in referendums to decide whether they want to continue with the current system that has produced inequality or whether they want to start the vital process by taking the great leap forward of having directly elected assemblies that will start to reverse the decline of many years and open up new opportunities for the people of the north.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has made a powerful and passionate speech. She has put the argument for elected regional assemblies exceedingly well by talking about the voice for the north-west, about the need to get businesses behind the economic development needed to reduce the inequalities that she mentioned and, above all, about the need to democratise the many quangos. She made a point early in her remarks with which I very much agree—we have regional government already; this is about regional democracy. That is why I find the Conservatives' position so bizarre. We hear time and time again from the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that we should trust the people and let them speak. The referendums are all about that; that is the whole point.
  The last time we debated the issue, we had a change of position from those on the Conservative Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), being his usual perceptive self, noticed that shift of position and intervened on the hon. Member for North Essex and got him to accept that the Conservatives' position had changed and say:
  "I say let the people speak."—[ Official Report, 30 June 2004; Vol. 423, c. 317.]
  We are in an interesting position.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Davey: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but I hope that he will be able to answer the following point as well. This issue is rather like Iraq for the Conservatives. They are now in favour of the campaign, but they are not prepared to vote for the motion to let
  404
  that campaign happen. This is about democracy and we should let people have the choice. I would have thought that those on the Conservative Front Bench would be behind all the measures that will make that happen.
  Mr. Jenkin: I explained the position to the hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room before we came into the Chamber. The Government have promised the referendums and we should hold them to that promise. I am a politician who likes keeping other politicians to their promises. However, the referendums should be conducted according to a verifiable and safe electoral system. The Government are putting the process at risk by insisting on all-postal balloting instead of having the conventional ballot boxes that would provide the certainty that the referendums would actually go ahead.
  Mr. Davey: I think we understand the Conservatives' position, but it could change later in the debate. We seem to be clear that they would support the referendums if they did not involve all-postal ballots. I think that that is their position, but we shall wait to see whether it is clarified.
  The Liberal Democrats certainly support the referendums. We support the orders, but not without some concerns and caveats. The proposals are generally right. Indeed, we took the same position on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. We supported the principle behind it and its direction, but we voiced our concerns and the Government reacted to them constructively.
  I have three concerns with the all-postal voting aspects of the first order, but they have largely been dealt with. The first related to blind and partially sighted people, and I see that, in paragraph 29 to schedule 1, the Government are trying to listen to the views expressed by the Electoral Commission, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Select Committee and the Royal National Institute of the Blind.
  I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will be able to say a little more about how he expects the administrators of the elections to assist voters. The idea that voting administrators will knock on people's doors and say, "Can we help you?" will be an unusual exercise and an interesting initiative. We need to understand how that will work and we need to be clear that there are no dangers in the process. We also need to be clear about how people will be able to apply for such a visit. How will that be marketed and how do the Government expect the Electoral Commission and administrators in the regions to advertise the availability of that option? That will be critical to answering the concerns of the RNIB and others.
  Our second concern, which I have already raised with the Minister on an intervention, relates to whether the Government will try to hide behind Electoral Commission reports on the all-postal pilots in June.
  Mr. George Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Electoral Commission that the regional referendums should not be held on the same day as

  405
  another kind of election? I ask only because the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is in the Chamber and he might be interested in that.
  Mr. Davey: We can always make an exception if there should be a by-election, but the hon. Gentleman is right about what the Electoral Commission said. The Government found that there was no statutory power to ban by-elections, and council by-elections especially, during the relevant period, so his point does not directly relate to the order. He made his political point interestingly.
  Will the Government ensure that they will not try to subcontract out the decision on whether the referendums should go ahead? It is vital that a political decision is taken for which the Minister is accountable to the House. The Electoral Commission's judgments and research are important. We have heard that it will make a separate statement on all-postal votes and the referendums, so there will not be a review of only what happened in June. We have also heard that the statement will be brought forward and made before the House returns in September, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that we will have time to debate the Electoral Commission's findings on our return. Although that information is all very well, the decision is fundamentally political. The Minister might decide to go ahead, pull the plug on everything, or go ahead in one or two regions, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) inferred, but the decision will be political.
  I argue that the Minister should not pull the referendums—we want them to go ahead—but there is concern in the north-west, especially, that the Government have not taken our advice or that of many other people and made the elected regional assemblies attractive to people who live in the regions. If they are to be more attractive, more powers must be on offer. The White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" timidly and limply proposed the powers to be devolved, which was why during our negotiations with the Government when the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill was in the other place, we pressurised them to publish a draft powers Bill. The hon. Member for North Essex made an awful lot of that, but the Government agreed to do it due to our negotiations. We did not have draft powers Bills before the referendums in Scotland, Wales or London. We will have such a Bill for the first time—it will be a major improvement to the process—thanks to negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government.
  Joyce Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: In a moment. I know that the right hon. Lady played a part in that process, if I may pre-empt her.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that devolution is a process rather than an event, and the Government have made it clear that they are open-minded about, and keen for, further devolution. We saw that in the spending review and the
  406
  Secretary of State for Transport's statement last week, and I hope that we will see it when the draft powers Bill is published.
  Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman's last words partly pre-empted what I was going to say. Recent announcements such as the transport strategy that he mentioned and the rural strategy that was introduced today represent welcome moves. Does he agree that the Government are pursuing a devolution agenda, which we hope will be reflected further in the draft powers Bill?
  Mr. Davey: I think that the Government are doing that, but as the hon. Member for North Essex rightly pointed out, we do not intend to be suckered. We want not only promises and words, but provisions in the draft powers Bill. That is important not only for us and the right hon. Lady, but for the people who will be given the choice. They will want to know that they are voting not for a talking shop, but for something that will be able to make a difference to their lives.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Hon. Members might be worried about the Government's intentions on the draft powers. Later this afternoon we will debate the Fire and Rescue Services Bill. We had the opportunity to give the elected regional assemblies the same powers that have been given to Wales. The Government declined to go down that path, which implies that they are not as willing as other hon. Members to give powers to the regional assemblies.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right to suggest caution. We reserve our judgment on such matters, but are keen to see the colour of the Government's money when the draft powers Bill is published later this week.
  My third concern with the all-postal vote process is the security statement, which was raised earlier. It is not a matter of such concern that we will vote against the order because, as I told the Minister in other debates on the subject, a referendum does not have an individual candidate so the incentive for fraud is reduced massively. In that respect, I disagree with the hon. Member for North Essex. However, we would have preferred the Government to retain what happened in the pilots—namely, a declaration of identity in a full witness statement. I regret the backsliding on that and hope that fraud will not increase. I am hopeful that when the Electoral Commission makes its statement in early September or possibly late August it picks up that point having read the debate.
  I am concerned about the order on expenditure limits, and the Minister was frank in saying that he shares those concerns. We are not convinced that the legislation that established the framework—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, not the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003—is tight enough. There is a danger that a loophole will be exploited in the first test of the 2000 Act as it relates to referendums.
  A range of organisations could be set up, register themselves as permitted participants and, under the order, spend £100,000 each. One individual, using friends, relatives and other associates, could set up those organisations, which he would fund to get over his attitude and views. That could undermine the

  407
  democratic process. An individual might try to buy a referendum. The Minister said he would leave it to the Electoral Commission to use its best judgment on that. I hear what he says if we do not have statutory powers to turn to, but it is a concern and both sides of the House are responsible for the mistake of letting a loophole remain in the legislation. I hope that the Minister will say a little more on the Government's thinking because we do not want this important democratic experiment undermined.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Does hon. Friend have in mind an individual in Yorkshire who has said that he wants to spend a large amount of money on fighting regional assemblies in the election? There is a clear and present danger that such abuse will take place. It is not just theoretical.
  Mr. Davey: I do have an individual in mind. Let me make no bones about it: it is Paul Sykes. The United Kingdom Independence party is under the bizarre belief that the proposal for regional assemblies comes from Europe, but the Liberal Democrats have argued for them for decades, even before we went into the European Union. To be fair, many Labour Members also argued for them. The idea that regional assemblies are proposed by Europe is total nonsense.
  Mr. Curry: Paul Sykes is one of my constituents and I have a schizophrenic view of him. I disagree entirely with some of the things on which he wishes to spend his money. In other respects, for all the wrong reasons, he may turn out to do a powerful public good. Is it not a fact, however, that if the matter is left to the discretion of the Electoral Commission, it will become locked into legal proceedings? Someone who sets up an organisation that is challenged or disallowed by the Electoral Commission might decide to go to law to challenge that decision in the absence of clear legislation. That could halt the outcome of the whole procedure.
  Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that had not occurred to me. We face the prospect of confusion and chaos for months after 4 November. That is not in the interests of the Government or others who want to see powers devolved from Whitehall, and it would play into the hands of those who want a centralised system of government in this country. [Interruption.] I give way to one who does.
  Mr. Jenkin: We believe in real decentralisation to existing layers of local government; that is the alternative to this regional bureaucracy.
  The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution on the question of expenses, which of course reads across to other referendums, of even greater importance, that may take place in future. Two things need to be said. First, constraints on expenditure work in elections because candidates aspire to be respectable, responsible people and are in danger of being disqualified if we wilfully overspend. However, in referendums we are dealing with one-off organisations, and perhaps even individuals, who care not for their long-term political reputation but only for the issue, and it is difficult to imagine what sort of constraints would limit their activity if they wished to circumvent whatever rules were in place.
  408
  Secondly, is it not much more of a concern that the Government still have the panoply of the state at their disposal throughout the referendum period? There may be scrupulous rules in place to try to control what they spend money on directly, but the real problem is the fact that the machinery of government is a superb platform from which to make a political case which will have far more influence than any individual.
  Mr. Davey: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I think that the Government have in many ways been scrupulously fair. They have tied themselves in knots on what they can and cannot spend, but they have failed to plug the loophole for the individual whom I mentioned or others like him. That is the concern that I am expressing. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the wrong target in mind. I hope that when the Minister returns to the Dispatch Box, and possibly in discussions with the Electoral Commission, he can use other election law relating to money used in collaboration. Those rules say that an individual, in this case a permitted participant, cannot work with another individual, another permitted participant, to promote a cause. That may be one way to thwart abuse of that loophole. I certainly hope that the Minister can give me that assurance tonight.
  I do not want to detain the House further. I made most of my points on interventions. I simply say to the Minister that the draft powers Bill, which we expect to see on Thursday, will be the key test. My colleagues in the north-west will look at that when they decide how to vote. They are waiting to see whether the Bill provides for true devolution. The Liberal Democrats believe in devolved political decision making, and the Liberal Democrats in the north-west, as a regional party, will take the decision on the Bill. They are waiting to see the colour of the Government's money, so if Ministers want to make sure that the Liberal Democrats in the north-west are united behind the Government, they need to make sure that the Bill contains significant powers, particularly, as I have said, with respect to transport, learning and skills councils and the environmental agenda.
  More generally, with the people, the Government need to overturn the apathy that was mentioned. There is concern that out there in the regions there is a degree of apathy and a lack of knowledge about these proposals. I know from my own experience that when people are engaged with these ideas they are excited by them, and they see their value. I talked to some sixth-formers on a visit to Durham a few months ago. One could see that they were passionate about regional devolution. They did not see why their lives in the north-east should always be controlled from here in London. They wanted these powers, and more—more than the Government were offering in the White Paper.
  It may be late in the day, and it may be that the parliamentary draftsmen need to work late into the night, but if we are to win the yes vote on 4 November we need to say to people in the regions that real powers are to come down from Whitehall, and that this is the first down-payment on major devolution in our country.
  5.4 pm
  Tony Lloyd: I begin by saying to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that I, too, look forward to seeing the

  409
  Government's draft Bill. I will support the yes campaign in the north-west almost regardless of what the Bill says, because we know that it will be a significant move to devolve power from Westminster to our regions. But I also say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it will not be enough. Many of us guarantee that, during the referendum campaign, we will spend our time campaigning to create the groundswell for even more devolution to our regions over the months and years to come, until there is a proper constitutional settlement for regions such as the north-west.
  Across the north, among even those who are against regional devolution and among those who are passionately for it, there is a passionate belief that now is the time that we should get down to the serious business of letting the people decide. We heard an interesting speech from the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). There was little spirit left in his speech—perhaps that is a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister—and little from the Opposition today that was serious. There was a lot of posturing and bogus point-scoring, but little of substance. Even the Tories now realise that it is the people, not the Tory party, who will decide in the referendum.
  It will certainly not be south-east based politicians on all the Front Benches who will make a decision for the people of the regions of the north, particularly the north-west. I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He has realised that the way to get through the process is to give the decision not to Whitehall or to Westminster, but to the people of our regions. That is a decision that the Conservative party has tried to block for a considerable time.
  Mr. Clelland: Is my hon. Friend as curious as I am about why those who are opposed to regional government are so opposed to the referendum? Given that they are so convinced of their case that regional government is not popular in their area, one would have thought that they would welcome the referendum to put the matter to bed once and for all.
  Tony Lloyd: I would hope that that is the nature of democracy, but we all know that those who speak the language of democracy but use the procedures of this place to try to prevent the public from having the right to decide are no democrats. They do a great disservice.
  Not that many years ago, when I came into Parliament, there were still a significant number of Conservative Members of Parliament in the north-west. The Labour party in my region was berated from the Conservative Front Bench. There are disagreements among members of the north-west parliamentary Labour party, but at least there are enough of us to have agreement and disagreement. There are no longer enough Tories from the north-west even to have agreement on these issues. The Tory party in the north-west was massively distrusted because of the Thatcherite legacy, particularly because the Thatcherite Government were identified as government of the north by the south-east, and it will be many, many years before the Tory party is considered a respectable voice for the north-west.
  Mr. Neil Turner: My hon. Friend mentioned the parliamentary Labour party. Does he agree that the Labour party in the north-west is 100 per cent. behind a campaign for a successful yes vote, as it decided at its annual conference in February this year?
  Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. It was in the 1930s that the north-west regional Labour party first made the decision to support regional government, and I am not aware that it has ever changed its mind since. Within a democratic party there must be room for dissent, and our colleagues on the Government Benches will debate the issue in a proper and acceptable fashion, not using the specious tactics that have sometimes been used by Opposition parties.
  This is an important debate about the future of our region. As somebody from the region, I deeply resent the fact that the disparities between the north and the south are so enormous and have been growing during my lifetime. In particular, they grew in the period between 1979 and 1997, when we had that imposed Thatcher Government here in Westminster—a Government who were so uninterested in what took place in the north.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made the powerful and important point that the life chances of a child born in my constituency today are far less than those of somebody born in the south-east. The matter is not simply about comparing inner-city Manchester with the home counties but about how Governments have swept away any semblance of equality across this nation of ours, which is not acceptable. When Tory Members who represent constituencies in the north-west speak, I expect them to bemoan the fact that people in the region that they represent have such a rotten chance in life, and they should take some responsibility for what previous Tory Governments did.
  Mr. George Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some indicators show that regional disparities have grown under this Government. I am not sure whether his point about a child in his constituency having fewer life chances than someone born in the south is statistically correct. I hazard a guess that someone born in Greenwich and Woolwich or Tower Hamlets would have similar life chances to someone born in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so he should not generalise.
  Tony Lloyd: It is not generalisation but reality that a child born in my constituency will die 10 years earlier than a child with the same origins as the hon. Gentleman. The simple truth is that the funding system has favoured certain parts of the country at the expense of others. There are, of course, differences within regions—that has been and always will be the case—but the average difference between the south-east and the north-west is significant and not a statistical quirk. A gulf exists between the south-east and the north-east, which does not suit the south-east because of the problems caused by the overdevelopment at the expense of the life chances and opportunities for people in the northern regions.
  Mr. Stringer: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's conclusions, but I agree with much of his analysis.

  411
  Differences within regions do not obviate the fact that inter-regional differences exist too, and the huge differences in London do not mean that people at similar levels in society are not worse off in the north-west than elsewhere. Public expenditure is the biggest driver in putting those differences right, and, as the noble Lord Rooker said in the other place, what is wrong with the proposals on devolution is that the north-west will not get an extra penny.
  Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend and I agree on the analysis but draw different conclusions. He is right that the disparity in spending is a fundamental driver behind the disparities in regional performance, and we must begin to address that point. He also mentioned regional disparities, which raises the question where London fits into the south-east. Unlike the northern regions, Greater London can vocalise and negotiate with central Government.
  My hon. Friend's point is important: how do we get the northern voice in the corridors of power? Over successive generations, we have failed in the north under both Labour and Conservative Governments—the disaster up at Daresbury was referred to earlier. Yesterday, the Government made the interesting announcement that Crossrail will go ahead in London and that the Metro system in Greater Manchester is up for serious discussion. If we had a devolved strategy for transport, it would be easier to make the case for Greater Manchester in the debate in the north-west. It would also be easier if a strong northern voice, speaking together and operating together, had debated the matter with central Government, where London's voice is heard. The voice from the north has been consistently ignored over the years by all kinds of Governments.
  We have the opportunity to seize control of some of the system, which is what today's debate is all about. Today's debate means that the starting pistol has gone off and that it is down to the people of the northern regions to take control of their own destinies and make their own decisions. If Conservative Members campaign against us, we will have a debate, which will occur where it matters—in the region. We must ensure that the debate takes place in the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west, and that it is dictated by the needs of those regions rather than by the posturing of the various Opposition parties.
  Electoral fraud is central to the debate about our electoral system. The system must be respected. As the Minister recognises, worrying issues arose from the recent local elections. They must be investigated, but I must tell those who use the charge of fraud as a reason for not supporting postal voting that the increased turnout is the best single guarantee that we have that the decisions are being made by the public in general, rather than by factional and sectional interest groups. It is important to convey that message.
  In fact, our system is relatively free of fraud. That was the case even in the local elections. We should root out every instance of fraud and, if the Electoral Commission says that we must look at certain issues again, we must do so. I emphasise to the Minister that there must be serious exemplary penalties for fraud: fraudsters must know that they will go to prison and that no tolerance
  412
  can be shown to those who are caught and convicted. We must make clear that fraud—which is difficult to prove in the case of both the conventional system and universal postal voting—cannot be tolerated. Nevertheless, we should not confuse the issue and use fraud as an argument against increased participation.
  The referendums will be desperately important. We can have different opinions, but in the end it must be left to the people of the northern regions to decide whether this form of devolution takes place. I guarantee to the Minister that, after the draft Bill and beyond, I shall continue to say that we want more and greater powers for our regions. We need those powers.
  The debate is a continuous one, but let me say this to the Liberal Democrats. Although they respect devolution to their party in the regions, they should explain to people there in simple terms that, if they miss the opportunity to support the yes campaign, they will betray not just the party but the people of the north.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. David Curry: The only point on which I disagreed with my Front Benchers was the claim that apathy was rife. "Rife" suggests a certain enthusiasm and activity. In a sense, apathy is unrife: no one is very interested.
  I occupied the Minister's position when we were trying to extricate ourselves from the problems of local government reorganisation and the Banham review. Looking at the Labour Benches, I have a feeling that the regional agenda is rapidly getting this Government into a situation analogous to ours then. They will be very glad when they can bail themselves out of it.
  As I learned when I was trying to take an annuities Bill, which depended on calculations of life expectancy, through the House, life expectancy is overwhelmingly a function of income and education. Of course, on aggregate, certain regions will have a shorter life expectancy than others, but within the regions those in similar social circumstances are likely to have similar life expectancies.
  Mr. Stringer: Have not various reports, from the 1981 Black report onwards, said the opposite—that when factors such as age and class are excluded, there are still regional disparities?
  Mr. Curry: That does not contradict what I said. It depends on the social and economic composition of the regions involved. I am merely saying that people in similar categories in different regions might well have the same life expectancy.
  I feel that the Minister is trying to deliver a wholly undesirable outcome as honourably as possible. Of course, he has had a very busy week. I welcome his efforts to ensure that postal voting does not militate against convenience and equality of opportunity for people in rural areas, but we shall end up with a curious system. There will be peripatetic polling stations and, apparently, peripatetic welfare officers helping people to fill in their forms. Polling stations will open in different places. The outcome will be colourful at least. That does not alter the fact that there will be a denial of choice. Anyone who wants a postal vote can have one under the

  413
  conventional manual system of voting. People have a free choice under that system. There is no analogy between that and the system that is proposed.
  The Minister will be aware that, in other countries where postal voting has become the norm, in free elections, the turnout tends to revert to what it was before. The improvement in turnout tends to be temporary. That was the experience in Australia and New Zealand.
  With low turnouts, there is always a danger of dealing with the problem by focusing on the process, whereas often the electorate are trying to tell us that we do not seem to be listening to them and that we are not responding to their needs—the substance of the politics needs to be addressed, rather than the process. Politicians may find that unwelcome. Sometimes, the messages are not congenial to hon. Members on both sides of the House. They just happen to be the truth.
  The issue of the allocation of expenditure is serious. We discovered in the European elections that the proportional system of representation allowed the expression of a far more diverse range of views than under our traditional first past the post system. In my constituency, the three conventional parties, if I may describe them like that, performed roughly as one may have expected. However, the Green party had a significant vote, the BNP had a reasonably significant vote, and UKIP had a more significant vote, although not as much as in other parts of the country, such as the south-west. In some constituencies, it led the vote.
  That means that the number of people contending for designation and the number of players in the campaign could represent a confused picture—quite a kaleidoscope. Because there is no consistency, views on this issue may cut across the normal alliances that one would expect to find on general issues. Therefore, it is possible that one could find oneself in a difficult situation where individuals or even unions seek to express themselves through a number of front organisations. The Electoral Commission would have to decide whether they could be designated. There could be a legal challenge to that designation. Curiously, the equivalent of hanging chads could arrive in our political system, with a great dislocation. I hope that the commission will be able to set out in advance some general principles or rules that it will apply, so that there can be some scrutiny to try to minimise the chances of being challenged on an ad hoc basis, according to who comes forward.
  I have great respect for the Minister's honesty but, when he argues against a threshold, he is being perverse. He is saying that we must not set a negative target. Is he saying that he is unconfident of the vote and frightened that, if we set the target of a threshold, we will all set out not to vote in order not to hit the target?
  When they decide not to vote, the British people have a powerful determination not to vote. When one canvasses, one finds people who are more resolute about not voting than some people are about voting. The best way to decide something is to vote on it. I will urge all my constituents to vote. Of course I shall tell them to vote no, because I do not want the reorganisation of local government that would be a consequence of a
  414
  regional assembly, and I want to return power to traditional representative bodies. The Minister will know that yesterday I expressed again my personal belief that business rates should be returned to local government, so I am willing to take the necessary steps to make that a reality. However, we are not going to have a threshold, so there is no point in banging on about that. I will not go into the arguments for and against the assemblies because we have debated that. I am sure that we will get a chance to debate the powers. During the September session, everyone usually scrambles around to try to find something useful to do; this would be helpful.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) once again used the wonderful phrase, "take control of their destiny." If he thinks that the assemblies will give anybody a handle on their destiny, he is living in a Harry Potteresque world that is a million miles removed from reality. Some might say that the assemblies will lead to some great destiny; others say that they will lead to precisely nothing. In my view, which is well known and frequently quoted—almost entirely by Members on the other side—they are neither "nowt nor summat", to use the great Yorkshire expression. While they are neither nowt nor summat, I want nothing to do with them and I hope that we will vote no tonight.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I welcome the opportunity to make a short speech. I am very much against the orders. There is huge disquiet on the Labour Benches among my colleagues for the three northern regions.
  The issue of turnout has been with us for a long time. The Minister will not give his definition of derisory, but my fear is that turnout in the referendums, if they go ahead, will be modest indeed. In the Scottish devolution referendum in September 1997, turnout was 60 per cent. That was followed by the referendum on Welsh devolution, where the turnout was 50 per cent. We then had a referendum on devolution to the Greater London authority, at which the turnout was 34 per cent. In the northern regions—certainly in the north-west—the turnout could be embarrassing, to be frank.
  In the process that triggered this—the famous soundings exercise—there were 10,841,000 electors in the region and 3,069 people called for referendums, representing 0.028 per cent. That persuaded the Deputy Prime Minister that there was sufficient demand in the three northern regions for referendums.
  I will speak frankly and bluntly, echoing the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. If the referendums go ahead, Labour will get a good kicking. I will tell the House why. It is a scandal that we still do not have the draft Regional Assemblies Bill. We had a debate in Committee a couple of days ago to discuss a couple of orders and we are having this debate today. There is much speculation. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said that the new assemblies would transform the north-west, but scandalously we do not have a definitive list of their powers. We are pointed to the White Paper that was published ages ago.

  415
  If the assemblies are to be talking shops with planning and strategy responsibilities, people will not vote for them. They will not go out and vote for a body with next to no powers. We need to know precisely what the powers will be. It is not good enough for Labour Members to say that the region will be transformed, that housing will be transformed and that there will be new transport interchanges as a consequence of the regional assembles. People will say, rightly, that we have had a Labour Government here in Westminster for seven years and nothing has changed.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Nonsense.
  Mr. Prentice: The Barnett formula has been mentioned. It is up to this Labour Government, if they wish, to renegotiate the Barnett formula and have equity between the regions. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) wants to intervene on that point, I will happily allow him.
  Mr. Neil Turner: I do.
  Mr. Prentice: Indeed.
  Mr. Turner: You talked about the powers and about the fact that we do not have a draft Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not be referring to me. It would also help if he did not turn his back on the Chair.
  Mr. Turner: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend mentioned the draft legislation. Did he vote for the legislation on Scottish and Welsh devolution, before which there was no draft Bill?
  Mr. Prentice: I did vote for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and we have now experienced those bodies. I have very firm views about the unity of the United Kingdom, and a Labour Government at Westminster should ensure fair allocation among the English regions. I do not want to witness the balkanisation of England that is being introduced by my own Government. I stress that we can revisit the Barnett formula and ensure that money is distributed equitably between the various parts—
  Joyce Quin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Prentice: I must make progress. The wind-ups start in about 10 minutes and I have a number of points to get through.
  We are told that this reorganisation will save money—the leaflets distributed to all households in the three northern regions say so—but of course, the Electoral Commission used a Government-devised financial model that excluded transitional costs and the ongoing costs of change, which will be considerable. Whenever we have embarked on local government reorganisation, it has always cost more than people predicted at the outset.
  416
  There is another important point. If these regional assemblies are born, the Labour party will not be running them. We are introducing proportional representation, with constituency members and list members, and as sure as night follows day there will be coalition regional government—even, I suspect, in the north-east. In the light of the results of the elections on 10 June, there is no way that a single party will be running the show. The Deputy Prime Minister constantly tells us what a great first-past-the-post man he is, but yet again this Government are introducing a system that will definitely lead to coalition government.
  As a consequence, there will be a democratic deficit and we will lose hundreds of local councillors. My own local authority, Pendle borough council, will disappear and be subsumed into a "Burpendale" plus Ribble Valley body. Burnley, Pendle Rossendale and Ribble Valley combined have a population of 300,000. There is no way that people in my area will have easy access to local councillors, because their numbers will obviously reduce.
  I am also concerned about all-postal ballots. Five election petitions are outstanding and they will go through the courts in the normal way. I believe—others may not—that all-postal ballots make it more likely that the integrity of the ballot will be compromised. I have read some of the debates that took place in 1872. In that year, legislation popularly known as the "Ballot Act" introduced the secret ballot for parliamentary and municipal elections. It was hugely controversial at the time; now, we are casually throwing all that away.
  I was also disappointed to learn that there is no guarantee of funds for returning officers who want to establish polling stations in areas with modest populations. I am troubled by the thought that, in those circumstances, returning officers will not get their costs reimbursed.
  I hope that these orders will not go through today. I suspect that, if the referendums are held, the Labour party will lose them heavily. In my view, there is no demonstrable demand for regional assemblies. It is doubly unfortunate that the Government have impaled themselves on this particular hook, because they probably have no way of getting off it.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with every single sentence of what the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said—and I was looking out for something to disagree with. He spoke with great force and candour, because what he said about the consequences for the Labour party in the north-west was absolutely true: we will end up with coalition Governments in which the Liberal Democrats will no doubt hold the balance of power and decide whether it is a Tory or a Labour Administration between elections.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke the great truth that these are unwanted referendums for unwanted regional assemblies. As he said, when the soundings exercise was conducted in the north-west, just 4,000 people responded out of the 7 million who live in the region, and half of them did not want a referendum. There is a growing number of north-west Labour Members—I do not know the proportion of Back Benchers and

  417
  Ministers, some of whom are not holding to the collective Cabinet line—who have come out against. They include the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Pendle, for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), for Stockport (Ms Coffey)—a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister, I believe—and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  Now Labour Members in other regions are starting to speak out, including the hon. Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), and to say that this is not what the Labour party membership wants. If that is the public statement of Labour Members—taking a brave position, as it is not easy to stand up and oppose one's party and one's Government—one can only imagine what the private position must be. The other great unspoken truth concerns what Ministers must be saying privately. It is an open secret that the Prime Minister is not especially keen on regional government but has decided to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to pursue his pet project. It is an open secret that the Foreign Secretary, with his Blackburn constituency, is against regional government. It is an open secret that the Minister for Local and Regional Government himself was not a great enthusiast but decided to go along with it. He will probably get up and deny that, but it is true.
  The great problem is that the Deputy Prime Minister has succeeded in getting this on the agenda—the orders are a measure of his political success in getting this on the Government's programme, although I agree with everything that has been said about there now being various let-out clauses—but unfortunately he has not been able to match that political success with success in Whitehall in getting any powers for the proposed assemblies.
  Again, it is an open secret that there has been a Cabinet battle with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills over learning and skills. Guess what? The Education Secretary has won. It is an open secret that there has been a battle with the Home Secretary over policing powers. Again, the Deputy Prime Minister lost. Lord Haskins, the chairman of the Yorkshire yes campaign, said that "Stalinist" Ministers were stopping the powers being handed over to regional assemblies.
  I can see the disappointment of people such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who takes an entirely principled position in favour of regional government. She must be deeply frustrated that the Deputy Prime Minister has not been successful in seeking many of the powers that she wants to be devolved to the regions.
  Mrs. Ellman: In fact, I am deeply delighted that after so many years of arguing the case for directly elected regional assemblies, it is the Deputy Prime Minister who has succeeded in enabling the Government to introduce a referendum so that the people can decide.
  Mr. Osborne: For a start, they are not directly elected—some will be elected by proportional representation, as the hon. Member for Pendle said. The
  418
  problem for the Deputy Prime Minister and the various yes campaigns is that the Government have not given people anything worth voting yes for. People will face a simple choice: do they vote in favour of an expensive talking shop that will have the power to produce reports and to consult and be consulted, but no real powers over important decisions affecting the future of the north-west? Such a talking shop will, on the Government's own estimates, cost £25 million to set up and £25 million a year to run—just in the north-west.
  Mr. Jenkin: And only in the first year.
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point in reminding us that that is only for the first year. None of that will produce what the people of the north-west want—more investment in schools, hospitals, the police, roads and so forth. None of that £50 million in the first year will be spent on those things. The costs will be borne by people when they pay their council tax bills.
  There is also no real democracy. In Cheshire, there are likely to be two assembly members, each representing 300,000 people—the size of a US Congressman's district. That is not democracy or closeness to the people. [Interruption.] What is being replaced is a system of district councils with much smaller constituencies. Powers will be taken from local government and district or county councils will be abolished to create a new and expensive re-organisation, which is not democratic.
  The regional assembly will do nothing to strengthen identity in the north-west. There is a belief in some quarters that by passing these motions, issuing flags and all that sort of thing, a north-west identity will be created. In practice, such an identity does not exist. People are Mancunians or Liverpudlians, or they come from Cheshire, Lancashire or Cumbria. By the way, Cumbria is not even clear whether it should be in the north-west or the north-east. Identity is not really being created and I believe that it is deeply dangerous to create political institutions where no natural identity exists.
  Mrs. Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the MORI poll showed people's very strong identification with the north-west region, and it need not be a substitute for other identifications with localities?
  Mr. Osborne: We are replacing Cheshire or Lancashire identities or local government identities built on established relationships that have existed for a very long time with an entirely artificial north-west identity. It is a huge region. If someone gets in a car at the Scottish border and drives to London, more than half their time would be spent in the north-west region. As the hon. Member for Pendle says, the Government are riding for a kicking—if that is the right way to put it.
  I speak as vice-chairman of the no campaign—a position that I share with a Labour MP, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). Our campaign has involved many Labour and Liberal Democrat party members. We are the only broadly based coalition in the north-west—the yes campaign is not a cross-party coalition in any sense of the term—we have the arguments on our side and we

  419
  represent the views of people rather than regional quangos and organisations, so I think that, when the referendum comes, we will win it.
  5.43 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: I support the orders and I shall campaign with the majority of, if not all, my colleagues in the north-east to support a yes vote in the referendum for a north-east regional assembly.
  It is inevitable that many of us speak from a historical perspective. I grew up as a young woman with a young family in the north-east in the 80s. That period more than anything else inspired me to believe that if we cannot trust in our own, we most certainly cannot trust a Westminster Government—especially a Westminster Tory Government. I say that intentionally. I was part of a group in Sunderland that watched ferry boats being built that could not be sold. We had to take them to bits, even though they were there on the Wear, because the Tory Government said that we were outside the regulations.
  I saw a Tyneside naval shipyard of considerable value—probably the best in the country—being told, "Sorry, but you are not competent to build naval ships; we are going to take them across to Barrow". They took our work force with them.
  Tyneside's Kvaerner shipyard was closed. Shipbuilding and repair went down the pan, thanks to the vindictive regional policy of the Tory Government. I believe that a regional government would never have allowed that to happen. It would have secured the yards, and ensured that they worked well, as they do today.
  I understand that I am upsetting Opposition Members, but I remind the House that the Teesside regional development corporation emptied factories and built warehouses in their place. It then had the audacity to decide to place a leisure facility in one of the most beautiful parts of my constituency, even though no one wanted it or could afford it. In the end, we made sure that it was not built, but that is an example of what Conservative Westminster Governments think about the north-east.
  It is possible that a Labour Government would have done as badly, but I do not believe that. Even so, I do not wish to have to trust a Westminster Tory Government in future. It is important that local people are able to take robust, focused and principled decisions, because they know best what is needed.
  Over 16 years—not 18 years—of a Westminster Tory Government, and after £17 billion had been invested in research and development, product diversity and the local infrastructure, selective regional assistance disappeared from the north-east, to the benefit of the south-east. After that experience, I have every reason to trust a regional government. I never want a Westminster Tory Government to have that influence on my region again. We had a level of unemployment that was second to none, yet we lost manufacturing jobs at an exponential rate.
  Our history is bitter, and we will never forget it. We will never trust a Westminster Tory Government again—ever. There is only one Tory Member of Parliament in the northern region. If we had worked a little harder in 1997, it is probable that we would have won that seat as well.
  420
  The agenda justifying regional assemblies is not merely negative. Although it is a bitter experience when one sees communities being destroyed before one's very eyes, I believe that there are positive reasons to support the orders. A regional assembly will allow us to develop transport and to spend money on the arts and housing. We will do all that, and those powers will be very valuable for us.
  I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government that, of course, we want to take responsibility for the Learning and Skills Council as well. We want regional assemblies to have more powers, but they must be accountable and visible, so that people in our regions can say what they want and do not want. I make it clear to him that we will want more powers, not fewer.
  I shall spend the two minutes that I have left discussing the electoral process, about which there has been much debate this afternoon. Considerable concern has been expressed about electoral fraud, and I respect what hon. Members have said. Of course, it is very important that our electoral system does not allow fraudulent activity.
  So far, in the northern region, there has been a little trouble in Newcastle and Gateshead, although there have been few, if any, problems in Stockton and Middlesbrough. Even so, the Electoral Commission has never stated that it considered our voting activity in any of the pilot postal ballots to be a cause for concern. There has been no evidence of improper behaviour or fraud.
  Moreover, the participation rate in the pilots was up significantly—staggeringly so. If I were to say anything about fraud in the recent European elections, I would say that it was most evident in the fact that 19,000 voters lost their vote because they put their witness statement in the wrong envelope. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that fact on board—we want no more witness statements.
  It is my hope that the orders will be approved tonight, and that we have an effective, robust and good campaign for a regional assembly. We have talked today about the values and strengths of our different regions. I have no doubt that after we win the votes tonight—and after the referendums take place in November—we will see for the first time the start of open governance being enjoyed by people from the region, who will deliver the best policy for the people of the region. It is the start of the devolution of real power to the north-east, and I welcome that. I shall support the orders.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: I am delighted to wind up the debate. I shall be brief, because I want to give the Minister the maximum time to answer the many points that have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, it is remarkable that the Government should have jeopardised the credibility of their albeit incredible policy through their near obsession with postal ballots. I shall deal with that issue at some length, but I shall first say a word about regionalism in general.
  The truth is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, that regionalism will not deliver for localities. It is local government, rooted in

  421
  communities, time-honoured and with the respect of communities, that will deliver for local people. Those of us with histories in local government, and who believe in local democracy, also believe in empowering local councils—made up of locally elected people—to take decisions on behalf of the communities. We do not believe in ceding power from them to some remote anonymous region, with which they have little connection and less affinity.
  Does anyone in this Chamber really believe that people in my constituency in Lincolnshire would owe any loyalty, feel any affinity or offer any support to a regional government that would inevitably be centred on Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, where the people and the money are? The considerations of rural Lincolnshire would be far from the minds of those elected to that regional body. That local case is replicated across the whole of this kingdom. Members on both sides of the Chamber know that, which is why Members from all parties have criticised the Government's regional agenda. The Government know that their regional policy lacks popular support, which is why they are prevaricating and hesitating on the referendums.
  The postal ballots add further chaos to what would anyway be a faulty process because of the lack of support for regional government. Three points were made in the debate that I wish to amplify. First, democratic elections are not just about turnout. Their legitimacy is founded on the integrity of the ballot and the electorate's perception of its fairness and honesty. Voting in person, on a particular day and in the locality in which one resides, combines convenience and openness. Casting a vote in a sealed ballot box inspires faith in the system because it delivers fair, honest and free elections.
  Turnout is important, but not at all costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, blaming declining turnout on the process ignores the fact that elections are about people, policies, ideas—hearts and souls. It is for people in this Chamber, who were democratically elected, and others who aspire to be so to increase turnout by the way they behave, by advocacy and by example. Simply tinkering with the process will be no guarantee of that.
  The second point, which was made the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and others—indeed, the Minister referred to it earlier—is that all-postal ballots disadvantage particular groups disproportionately. We heard something about people who are partially sighted, but what about people who live alone, who have literacy problems or who, for one reason or another, find it difficult to have a vote witnessed? The Minister's response is. "Ah well, we will get rid of witnessing. We will get rid of one of the safeguards of the fairness of the system in order to increase turnout." The Minister will abandon witnessing because of the very real points that have been made in this debate, and which I have highlighted.
  The Minister knows that many people want to continue to vote in person as they have done in the past. I offer the House two examples from my locality. First, a young person, who had just come of age and wanted to vote for the first time, said they felt deeply frustrated
  422
  that they were unable to go to the polling station and put their voting paper into the ballot box, as their parents and forefathers had done before them. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is correct. We set aside that right at our peril; it was hard earned and is being treated in a cavalier and careless fashion, as he said. Secondly, an elderly lady told me that she had voted in every election that she could and felt angry that she was not able to cast her vote in person. The idea that mobile voting stations can be set up conveniently for people in remote, far-flung areas is nonsense and the Minister knows it.
  My third point is that participation is about active involvement. The Minister knows that there is an aesthetic to democratic elections that should be neither disregarded nor derided—campaigning, the drama of election day, the opening of the ballot box and the count in front of people who have participated in the process. The election is seen to be fair, transparent and open. The balkanisation of Britain that would arise from regional government—in the words of the hon. Member for Pendle—would be exacerbated by a system for electing regional authorities in which local people felt they had no faith.
  We have received no assurances about the cost to local government. We have been given no persuasive guarantees about the countering of fraud and impropriety. There has been no draft regional Bill, because there is no popular will for regions and no convincing case for all-postal ballots. There is no good reason to support the orders and I urge the House to vote against them.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: The debate has been wide ranging, with some rather curious contributions as well as some valuable contributions and perceptive comments.
  The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was remorselessly negative in his tone. He revealed the position of the Conservative Opposition, who remain utterly hostile to devolution. The tragedy for the Conservative party, which still does not realise why it has been rejected time and again by the electorate, most recently last week in the by-elections, is that it still hankers—[Interruption.] The Conservatives were in third place, rejected in seats where they had previously come second. They have no future and no prospects—as the public recognise—because they are locked in the past and do not realise that the world has moved on.
  The hon. Member for North Essex made the preposterous claim that the Conservative party trusts the people. The Conservatives' record shows just how ludicrous that claim is. They did not trust the people of Scotland. They did not want the people of Scotland to have devolution, and agreed only after the people of Scotland had voted decisively for it that it was probably a good idea.
  The Conservatives did not want the people of Wales to have a referendum and voted against giving them a choice. Again, after the event, they had to relent and change their mind about that, too. In London, not only did the Conservatives not want to give people the opportunity of a referendum, they even took democratic government away from London when they were in power—without a referendum, giving people no say at

  423
  all and showing no sympathy with them. It is preposterous to claim that they are in favour of trusting the people.
  We gave people the opportunity and they voted in Scotland, Wales and London. We are giving people in the English regions the same option. It is absurd to claim that what is good enough for Scotland, Wales and London is not acceptable for the English regions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made a passionate speech in support of regional devolution. I shall not go over the valid points she made, but will simply reinforce her message that a number of decisions that have gone against the interests of the north-west might have been different had there been a powerful voice speaking for the region. Many, many people who care about devolution recognise the importance of that.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton supports the Government position in principle, and we are grateful to him for that. He voiced three caveats. First, he mentioned people who are visually impaired, and he accepts that we are making provision to deal with that issue. Secondly, he wanted us to not give the decision to the Electoral Commission, while listening to its views, and that is exactly our view. We will listen carefully to the Electoral Commission's views, but it is ultimately a decision for Ministers to take. I hope that he accepts that. He also expressed support for the idea of witness statements, but we believe that such statements can reduce participation. There is quite a lot of evidence that the requirement to make those statements deterred people from voting in June. Although we are very clear that there must be safeguards for the proper conduct of all-postal ballots, we accept the Electoral Commission's evidence that witness statements are helpful.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about people who could get assistance at home. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who made the Opposition's winding-up speech, has clearly not read the orders or taken any care to do his homework. People who are illiterate will also be eligible for assistance in the same way as people who suffer visual impairment. There will be scope for electoral officers to visit them to assist them in filling out their ballots papers, and I should have thought that the Conservative spokesman welcomed any such measure that helps to encourage participation. His position was remorselessly negative, against a form of voting that has hugely increased participation. He is fundamentally anti-democratic in arguing against giving more people an opportunity to vote.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also asked about costs—an issue also raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—and suggested that the provision of either additional voting points or visits by electoral officers might increase the costs. Obviously, we will give the returning officers in each region a figure to work with for the costs, but there is provision for exceptional claims where good reasons are given for exceeding those figures. We will consider such claims if they are made. As I said earlier, we expect returning officers to operate in the most cost-effective way and to minimise costs, but provision is made for those circumstances.
  424
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) raised the issue of election fraud and said that, although concerns arise from the local elections, he believes that the increase in turnout is a proper safeguard against a small number of people exercising disproportionate influence in low-turnout elections—a very valid point indeed. That is one of the strong reasons to make all-postal provision.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon welcomed the steps that we are taking to extend options for people to vote, but he argued that, on international evidence, increases from postal voting are likely to be short lived. The evidence so far is that improved turnouts in those local authorities that have held all-postal ballots have been sustained, but we need to continue to look at that issue. Our objective is to increase turnout.
  I am afraid that I do not have the opportunity to cover the many other points that have been made.
  Mr. George Osborne: What about the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)?
  Mr. Raynsford: Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made a series of allegations that are simply unsubstantiated; there is no evidence for them at all. We have heard speech after speech from hon. Members from the north-east who have made it perfectly clear that they have the greatest experience of all-postal voting and that it has been conducted without problem. He should listen to them, rather than trying to scaremonger in that the way that he did.
  We have had a good debate. The orders are necessary to conduct regional referendums and to give people the opportunity to have a say on devolution—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [14 July].
  The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 140.

  Division No. 236]

  [6.4 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allan, Richard

  Borrow, David

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Breed, Colin

  Brennan, Kevin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Austin, John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Baird, Vera

  Browne, Desmond

  Baker, Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barrett, John

  Burnham, Andy

  Battle, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Beard, Nigel

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cairns, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Berry, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Best, Harold

  Caplin, Ivor

  425

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hain, rh Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Chidgey, David

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heyes, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Corston, Jean

  Holmes, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Crausby, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hutton, rh John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  David, Wayne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Keetch, Paul

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Follett, Barbara

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foulkes, rh George

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lammy, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lepper, David

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gidley, Sandra

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Linton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  426

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCabe, Stephen

  McCafferty, Chris

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  MacDonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonnell, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacDougall, John

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKechin, Ann

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  McNulty, Tony

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Short, rh Clare

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

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

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moore, Michael

  Southworth, Helen

  Moran, Margaret

  Spellar, rh John

  Morgan, Julie

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Organ, Diana

  Teather, Sarah

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Perham, Linda

  Tipping, Paddy

  Picking, Anne

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Prescott, rh John

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Purnell, James

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Claire

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rendel, David

  Wicks, Malcolm

  427

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Willis, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woodward, Shaun

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Woolas, Phil

  Mr. John Heppell

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Amess, David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Bacon, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jack, rh Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Blunt Crispin

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Leigh, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Burnside, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Loughton, Tim

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cameron, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maclean, rh David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clappison, James

  Maples, John

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, rh David

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Evans, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Redwood, rh John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Selous, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Goodman, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grayling, Chris

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gummer, rh John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hague, rh William

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hendry, Charles

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  428

  Syms, Robert

  Wiggin, Bill

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, rh Sir George

  Walter, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waterson, Nigel

  Gregory Barker and

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

  REGIONAL ASSEMBLY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUMS (COUNTING OFFICERS' CHARGES) ORDER 2004
  Resolved,
  That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

  REGIONAL ASSEMBLY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUMS (EXPENSES LIMITS FOR PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS) ORDER 2004
  Resolved,
  That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

  FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES BILL (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 Fire and Rescue Services Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26th January 2004:
  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order 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.—[Paul Clark.]
  The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 132.

  Division No. 237]

  [6:17 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Austin, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bailey, Adrian

  Allan, Richard

  Baird, Vera

  Allen, Graham

  Baker, Norman

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barrett, John

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Battle, John

  429

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dodds, Nigel

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Beith, rh A.J.

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bennett, Andrew

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Berry, Roger

  Edwards, Huw

  Best, Harold

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Betts, Clive

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Borrow, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brake, Tom (Carshlton)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Breed, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brooke Mrs Annette L

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Buck Ms Karen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burnham, Andy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burstow, Paul

  Gidley, Sandra

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cairns, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  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

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Chidgey, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heyes, David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cotter, Brian

  Holmes, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hutton, rh John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  David, Wayne

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, rh John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  430

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Olner, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Owen, Albert

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Perham, Linda

  Picking, Anne

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Plaskitt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prescott, rh John

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Purnell, James

  Lepper, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Linton, Martin

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Rendel, David

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooney, Terry

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  MacDougall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McKechin, Ann

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Short, rh Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

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

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Julie

  Southworth, Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, rh John

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  431

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Stunell, Andrew

  Ward, Claire

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Watts, David

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Teather, Sarah

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Willis, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wills, Michael

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Winnick, David

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Trickett, Jon

  Woolas, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Mr. John Heppell

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Amess, David

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bacon, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Collins, Tim

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel

  Burnside, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Fallon, Michael

  Cameron, David

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Cash, William

  432

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Redwood, rh John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Greenway, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Gummer, rh John

  Salmond, Alex

  Hague, rh William

  Selous, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hancock, Mike

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Heald, Oliver

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hendry, Charles

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, rh Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Syms, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Watkinson, Angela

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Weir, Michael

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maclean, rh David

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Wishart, Pete

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, rh Sir George

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gregory Barker and

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Fire and Rescue Services Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments No. 10. If the House agrees to the amendment, I will arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 2

  POWER TO CREATE COMBINED FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITIES
  Lords amendment: No. 1.
  6.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 13.
  Phil Hope: Before I come to the amendments, the House will be aware of yesterday's tragic events, which resulted in the death of two London firefighters, Bill Faust and Adam Meere, who were both from Whitechapel fire station. In paying tribute to them today, the Prime Minister recognised the debt that we owe firefighters and the risks that they run to protect people at home and at work. I echo those sentiments and express my personal sadness at those tragic events. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the families, friends and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere, to whom I extend my heartfelt sympathy.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: May I associate everyone on this side of the House with the Minister's remarks and the message of sympathy that he sent to the bereaved families and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere? No one in this House needs reminding of the risks that firefighters take day in, day out in their duty to protect the public, and no one needs reminding of the vital service that our fire and rescue services deliver to the community.
  Phil Hope: I shall deal first with Lords amendment No. 1, which was tabled in response to arguments put forward by Members of both Houses. As originally drafted, clause 2 generated a good deal of concern. It was seen—we remember the debates in Committee—as giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to create regional fire and rescue authorities, whether or not a referendum was being held on the creation of a regional assembly. Because it left the matter of holding an inquiry to the Secretary of State's discretion, some also felt that it allowed the Government to ride roughshod over local objections.
  434
  We have not, of course, always accepted those interpretations, and we made it clear throughout the Bill's passage that we have no plans to regionalise the fire and rescue service outside those parts of England in which an elected regional assembly is supported in a referendum. Assurances have been given in both Houses that the only circumstances in which we envisage using the original power in clause 2(2)(b) involve urgent public safety—in particular, if authorities fail to co-operate on a key resilience requirement such as the creation of a regional control centre.
  In the light of the Opposition's continued attempts to present that power as a licence to regionalise by stealth, however, we decided to make our intentions clear in the Bill. Hon. Members may recall that we responded to an Opposition amendment in Standing Committee by agreeing that an inquiry into a combination scheme will be mandatory apart from in a very limited number of circumstances—for example, if the authorities themselves suggest the scheme or where urgent public safety needs cannot tolerate any delay. In our view, clause 2 now addresses all the legitimate concerns raised by Members in both Houses.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 also respond to arguments put forward in both Houses. There has been considerable debate about whether local authorities, as well as fire and rescue authorities, should be included in the list of those consulted on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes. To allay the concerns expressed, we have stated and restated our aim to allow for the widest possible involvement of all affected stakeholders, including, of course, 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 accept the argument that local authorities are in a unique position and that the Bill should reflect that. Local authorities are the democratically elected bodies representing the people of the areas involved in any proposed combination scheme, and they are also, of course, the bodies from which the existing fire and rescue authorities are themselves constituted. Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 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 their area forms part of the area which would be, or is, covered by the scheme. I hope that hon. Members recognise that that demonstrates our commitment to an inclusive approach and the Bill's non-partisan nature.
  Lords amendment No. 13 is consequential and simply adds a new clause in order to define the term "local authority" for the purposes of the Bill—specifically, the amendments relating to consultation.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sorry the Minister feels that he must refer to the Opposition parties' attempt to paint this as some sort of covert regionalisation. Perhaps during the next few minutes we shall discover just how far the Government have backed away from that covert regionalisation—or not, as the case may be.
  As the Minister said, clause 2(2)(a) of the original Bill allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority here that was

  435
  "In the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness".
  I do not think anyone has ever argued that the Secretary of State should not have that power. The original Bill, however, went on to create a second ground, quite independent of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would have allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply on the ground that the area he proposed to be the area of the combined fire and rescue authority was that of a regional development agency—in other words, one of the Government's nine English regions.
  The Government have made no secret of their proposal, in the event of elected regional assemblies being established in any of the English regions—perhaps I should say "the increasingly unlikely event"—to create a regional fire and rescue service covering an entire region. Be it the north-west region with its 6 million population, stretching from the Scottish border to Crewe, or the rather smaller north-east region with its population of 3 million, the Government in their wisdom have decided that it would be appropriate to have a single fire and rescue authority there.
  Many Conservative Members, as well as Liberal Democrat Members—not noted for their hostility to the Government's broader regional agenda—and indeed Labour Members, have expressed serious doubts about the appropriateness of that proposal. We could argue until late into the night about whether regions are appropriate for other purposes, but they were clearly not designed for the purpose of operational effectiveness of fire and rescue services. I am sure that others will cite instances in which regionally organised fire and rescue services might not be the best idea.
  I think there was a broad feeling that if the Secretary of State wanted to proceed with combined fire and rescue authorities based on the nine English regions—or the eight outside London—he should justify that by demonstrating, as he would in the case of any combined fire authority whose boundaries were not coterminous with an RDA region, that it was in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service. He should not be able to get around that test.
  When we introduced amendments to that effect in the Commons, the Government rejected them. They were introduced again by my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, and again were not accepted. A little later the Government presented their own proposal to amend clause 2, broadening the definition of economy, efficiency and effectiveness to include public safety. That was curious, as we had been told in Committee that the term "public safety" was not required because "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" embraced the concept of enhancing public safety. The Government obviously decided that they had been ill-advised in that regard. They also eliminated clause 2(2)(b) altogether. Under the current Bill, the Secretary of State no longer has powers to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply because it is coterminous with an English regional boundary. That does not mean that he could not create such a combined fire authority. He would have to demonstrate merely that it was in the interests of the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the service and in the interests of public safety to do so.
  We have no problem with that. If the optimum structure of fire and rescue services to deliver the best service to the community happens to be coterminous
  436
  with an RDA region—I would be very surprised but if it happens to be thus—so be it. That must be the sole criterion against which these things are measured.
  Since I do not imagine that the Government have abandoned their plan to create regional fire and rescue authorities, should elected regional assemblies be created, regardless of whether they are in the interests of the service in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and regardless of whether they are in the interests of greater public safety, we now need to understand how the Government will create such fire and rescue authorities. The Minister did not utter a word about that, presumably because the power to do so, overriding the criteria in this Bill, will be provided in the, shall we say, elusive draft regional assemblies powers Bill.
  Phil Hope: Patience.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister says, "Patience." I do not know how long Labour Members are expecting to stay here as we approach the summer recess, but I am getting decreasingly optimistic about seeing the draft powers Bill before I jump on my aeroplane to go on my summer holidays. I understand that the other place will consider the orders that we considered this afternoon tomorrow. Presumably, that makes the earliest time that the Government will be prepared to publish the draft Bill Friday—
  Phil Hope: Tomorrow.
  Mr. Hammond: We have an announcement that the draft powers Bill will be published tomorrow. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell the House, because it is clearly germane to understanding these amendments, whether the draft Bill will contain the power that Ministers will, I think, need if they are to go ahead with combined regional fire authorities in any regions that opt, in the referendums in November, to have elected regional assemblies. Then he could explain why it is appropriate to override the test that a Government amendment has now clearly written into this Bill in clause 2 and to provide for delivery of combined fire authorities in regions that do not have to satisfy the tests of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety.
  We had these debates when the Bill was considered in Committee and on Report, and they took place again in the other place. While a casual glance at the revised Bill may suggest that the Government made a major concession, I suspect that we will hear that the powers to which we object to create regional combined authorities without passing the hurdles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety will still exist but in a different form.
  I welcome amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and consequential amendment No. 13. We had debates about the level of consultation that should take place. It is clearly right that the underlying local authorities as well as the relevant fire and rescue authorities should be consulted. Why do we always have to allow the other place to get the credit for introducing eminently sensible small amendments? Why cannot we agree them in Committee in this place, instead of Ministers exercising a

  437
  predictable stubbornness throughout the process, allowing the other place to get the credit for improving our legislation? I await with interest what the Minister has to say to clarify the position regarding amendment No. 1.
  Mr. David Drew: I welcome the additional safeguards, which will at least give us an opportunity to debate the appropriate arrangements for any new body to oversee the fire and rescue services for my area in Gloucestershire, as well as further afield in the south-west. We have rehearsed the implications for Gloucestershire of losing its tri-service control if the fire service control were taken to a different place. As the Minister knows, Gloucestershire has a bid in to be the centre for either part of the region or the whole of region. I suspect it would be the former.
  Lest anyone think that this is an academic debate, while we are debating a change to the place where the fire service is run, there are also debates taking place within the police and the ambulance service about similar reorganisations. I am seeking further assurances from the Government; if these services are subject to any changes, rather than piecemeal debates, we should have an open and transparent debate and look at the strengths and weaknesses of how the services are organised.
  6.45 pm
  Although I am critical of the organisation of counties in some respects, certainly county councils, I see some merit in the emergency services coming together. I am worried that even with the additional safeguards in the Bill, there is a slippery slope down which we are passing. If we lose the fire service from the local area, the police and the ambulance service are bound to follow because of the arguments regarding economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would be far less effective if the three services were not together.
  I ask the Minister to give an assurance that if we look at these matters, we do so with the benefit of full consultation. We ought to listen to the people who run the services as well as those who benefit from them. At the moment, they are not convinced about a sub-regional provision, let alone a regional provision. It is right and proper that people should have their opinions listened to.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman may wish to draw attention to the fact that regardless of whether the Government create combined fire authorities in a region, regionalisation is taking place through the regional management boards and the creation of just nine fire control rooms for the whole of England.
  Mr. Drew: I am well aware of that and it may be that that train is well on its way. I want to ensure that if that train reaches its destination, the rest of the trains do not have to follow. There is a great deal of interest in this matter, more so than the Government think. People want to be consulted. I hope that Ministers give assurances that there will be a proper debate, that people will be listened to and that the case—if there is one—to stay as we are or to do something slightly different can be factored in rather than wiped out.
  Richard Younger-Ross: First, I wish to add my words of sympathy and those of my party to those of the Minister and the Conservative Opposition with regard to the two firemen who lost their lives tragically in Bethnal Green. We all know that firemen put their lives at risk every day. The public tend to hear only about disasters such as Chernobyl and 11 September, but other incidents do occur. Indeed, I found this loss particularly poignant and sad because during the war, my father was a firefighter who covered the Bethnal Green area.
  I largely agree with the point that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made about giving credit where it is due. It is a shame that it was necessary for the Lords to produce an amendment that says almost exactly what we had already said in Committee. The Minister previously said that the inclusion of a reference to public safety was "unnecessary and potentially unhelpful". He has clearly changed his mind, and I am glad to learn that he has listened to the argument that was advanced.
  Of course, amendment No. 1 is not exactly the same as the original amendment. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I pointed out, we are not parliamentary draftsmen; rather, we were simply trying to establish a principle.
  Mr. Hammond: The Government opposed the principle.
  Richard Younger-Ross: They opposed it not just in the detail but substantively.
  In Committee, we sought to create safeguards in respect of the establishment of regional fire authorities, and the amendments before us go some way towards doing that. Even so, certain issues remain outstanding and the Government will be judged by their actions, rather than their words. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will know, people in the south-west fear the prospect of a region stretching from his part of the world all the way down to Penzance. There is real concern in the south-west at the prospect of regional management boards and a single control room for the entire area.
  The Minister still has the opportunity to say that it would make sense to have two regional control rooms in the south-west. That would be a step forward, and it would make more sense than having just one regional control room located in Bristol or Exeter. The hon. Member for Stroud made a very good case for having a tri-service control room, but he knows that he is fighting a hard, if not losing battle in that regard. The people of Cornwall would be extremely upset to discover that their control centre was in Gloucestershire.
  I am not going to rehearse the various debates that we had in Committee. The Minister made it clear then that computers and other new technology will ensure that everything works fine. Since then, I have spoken to various people in the service and they are not convinced; they would like a little more flexibility.
  Legitimate concerns about regionalisation remain. Hard-won concessions on inquiries were secured in Committee, and other more minor concessions have been made. The reputation of this House would be higher if, instead of fighting over adding the odd word or phrase such as "public safety", we took a more

  439
  consensual approach to these matters. Had we done so in Committee, the Bill, instead of being good—substantially, it is good—would have been very good.
  Phil Hope: I thank Members for their contributions. It is slightly odd to be criticised for being a listening Government—a Government who understand the points that are being made, be it on Second Reading, in Committee, on Third Reading, on Report or in the other place. It seems a shame that we could not get some recognition for the fact that we listened to the concerns of Members from all parts of the House.
  I should make it clear that as a result of the amendments, we could have combinations of fire and rescue authorities below, at and above the regional level. That flexibility remains, and the safeguards are in the Bill.
  The draft regional assemblies Bill, which will be published very shortly, will explain how, if there is an elected regional assembly, responsibility for fire and rescue services will be at the regional level. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will have to wait—I hope he does not miss his flight tomorrow—but it will not be for long, and when he has seen the draft Bill we can have the discussions about that.
  We responded to the concerns expressed in Committee, and now we have an alternative approach.
  Mr. Hammond: Without giving away too much about the still under wraps Bill, can the Minister tell us whether it contains any test for the creation of a regional fire and rescue authority similar to the one in this Bill? Is there a requirement that it be demonstrably in the interests of safety or indeed efficiency, economy and effectiveness?
  Phil Hope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to have early sight of certain parts of a Bill yet to be published, but I regret that I cannot satisfy him on this occasion. I am sure that when he sees the Bill tomorrow he will be as pleased as we are about the powers that regional assemblies will have to provide a better focus for the regions of the north.
  I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about regional control centres. The national framework, which he has no doubt seen, clearly states the rationale for introducing a network of regional control rooms, because of the need to support resilience requirements and achieve major efficiencies that consultants have pointed out. I cannot say any more to him about the actual process, as we are right in the middle of it, with bids being received for control centres in various regions and being properly and fully evaluated. The decision on regional control rooms followed wide consultation, and a detailed appraisal is now being made of the bids.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister mentioned the national framework and what it says about regional control rooms. Can he confirm that, following other amendments that the Government tabled in the Lords, it is a draft national framework and it will not have effect until both Houses agree to the order that implements it?
  Phil Hope: The framework currently before us is already in operation, although it is true that we have made a further concession, and I will say more about that when we get to the relevant amendments. An order will need to be made through the negative resolution procedure for the draft national framework in the future. The current framework is being used by fire and rescue authorities as guidance. We are introducing a contract between central Government and fire and rescue authorities, which will have the strength of being approved through negative resolution as part of this legislation.
  Mr. Hammond: I am confused, and I seek the Minister's guidance. Lords amendment No. 5 introduces a provision whereby the framework will
  "have effect only when brought into effect by the Secretary of State by order."
  If—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not get into the next group of amendments. Let us dispose of the first group first.
  Phil Hope: On that point of clarification, to come into effect in law, the national framework will require a statutory instrument, but in effect it is being put into operation now in relationships between Government and fire and rescue authorities. It is working, but it is in draft form and becomes legal when the order is made. I am sorry if I have strayed into other territory, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did not want the hon. Gentleman to be misled.
  7 pm
  On the question raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) we were not opposed to use of the term "public safety" in principle when we were in Committee. Indeed, I have read the Committee Hansard and it was made quite clear in those proceedings that the Government intended to keep clause 2(2)(b) in the interests of public safety. The fact is that we have listened and responded positively and we are now including a reference to public safety, as the hon. Gentleman requested. We could not accept the amendment that he proposed in Committee because it was technically flawed. I do not want to rehearse the arguments about why it was flawed, but that is why we did not accept it.
  With those points of clarification, I urge the House to accept the amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 21

  FIRE AND RESCUE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
  Lords amendment: No. 5.
  Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 9 and No.14.
  Phil Hope: Lords amendment No. 5 acknowledges and addresses the concerns that were raised in the House and in the other place about the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to the national framework—an item that we were discussing just a moment ago. Concerns were raised that Parliament would not get an opportunity to examine the framework before it came into effect. The amendment meets those concerns by requiring the Secretary of State to make an order, subject to negative resolution, to bring the national framework into effect. An order would also have to be made before the Secretary of State can introduce any "significant" changes to the framework. By "significant", we mean that the revision represents a change in policy or a new requirement for fire and rescue authorities. The amendment will provide Parliament with an opportunity for greater scrutiny and I hope that it will reassure those who were concerned that there had been insufficient opportunity to examine the national framework.
  Turning briefly to Lords amendment No. 14, it is straightforwardly consequential on Lords amendment No. 5. It removes clause 60(2), which at present disapplies the reference to "Parliament" in clause 21(6) to the exercise of the Bill's powers by the National Assembly for Wales for the simple reason that it is the UK Parliament, not the Welsh one. Lords amendment No. 14, if agreed to, will mean that clause 21(6) no longer includes such a reference—hence clause 60(2) is unnecessary.
  Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9 commit the Government to reporting to Parliament on the extent to which fire and rescue authorities are acting in accordance with the national framework at least once in every two years. The Bill as originally drafted stated that the Secretary of State would report on the national framework from "time to time", which had been interpreted as a somewhat vague commitment, and while we always intended to make regular reports to Parliament, we believe that the amendments present a clearer timetable for that process.
  Finally, Lords amendment No. 6 builds into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish an intervention protocol under which the powers to intervene in clause 22 would be exercised. We have always said that we are 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. That will give 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 will be 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. I hope that this provision, in addition to our previous amendment to clause 21, which makes the
  442
  national framework subject to parliamentary approval, serves to address the concerns that the Opposition have expressed about the way in which the powers in clause 22 may be used in practice.
  Mr. Hammond: I wish that it had been this easy in Standing Committee. I wish that the Minister had agreed at that time that the Opposition's comments and concerns were justified, and that he had said that he would take them on board immediately and incorporate them in the Bill. We could have saved ourselves a lot of time and trouble.
  Phil Hope: No, we could not.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that we could not have done that, but we will examine that in a moment.
  As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 5 provides for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the national framework. As I shall explain, we think that that is very important. In Committee, we moved similar amendments, although they were less strong than these. Lords amendment No. 91, rejected in Standing Committee, would have required the Houses of Parliament merely to note the national framework.
  We agree that the Government's solution is better, and it is more than I dared to ask for in Committee. It is excellent that the Government now require a statutory instrument to be used in this matter. However, it is a pity that the Government rejected our amendment, which required that Parliament should have to do something positive—that is, take note of the document—before the framework came into effect. At the time, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
  "The process of parliamentary scrutiny has many virtues, but it does not encourage the production of intelligible and easily accessible documents. I counsel the hon. Gentleman"—
  that is, me—
  "against pursuing the amendment, which could seriously undermine the value of the national framework as an accessible document, which people involved and interested in the fire and rescue services can read and understand without referring to a lawyer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 243.]
  Yet that is the same national framework that the Minister is now laying before us with a provision that will render it subject to parliamentary scrutiny by means of a statutory instrument. Apparently, he no longer thinks that it will be impossible for people to understand it without the aid of a lawyer. That is an interesting turn of events.
  David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is too kind to the Minister.
  Mr. Hammond: Perhaps I am too kind, and I am sure that other hon. Members will contribute to the debate in a moment.
  We are delighted that we have got what we wanted—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the framework. Coincidentally, the final draft version of the framework has just been published. I confess that I have not had a chance to read it in minute detail but, as the Ministers will know, this has been a busy week for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be helpful if the

  443
  Minister were to tell the House whether there are any substantive changes from the draft that hon. Members absorbed all those months ago.
  Anyone glancing at the document will see how substantive it is. It is longer than the Bill. The Bill effectively incorporates the framework, by reference, so that the framework is to a large extent the meat in the Bill's sandwich. It deals with vital matters such as targets. The Minister does not like me talking about targets, but they are one reason why we were so concerned to secure proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the national framework.
  Last year, Ministers changed the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home, and for deliberate fires. They extended the deadline for achieving a certain percentage reduction in accidental deaths in the home from 2004 to 2010—a massive relaxation of the target. They also reduced substantially the target for the number of deliberately caused fires, saying that the collapse in the scrap metal market made it difficult to achieve.
  Phil Hope: Correct.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that that is correct, but the changes were sneaked out without fanfare. The fact that they had been made emerged only in debate.
  Quite properly, the targets are at the heart of the framework document. They are the objectives that everything else in that document drives towards. If Ministers want to change such substantive matters of policy, that deserves some scrutiny. Changes should not just be sneaked in. The targets presented in the framework document will, I assume, be capable of being scrutinised when we get the statutory instrument in due course, presumably in the autumn or spill-over sittings.
  When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can tell us something about the situation on targets for a reduction in deliberate fires. Ministers have made great play of the problems in the scrap metal market as a driver of their need to relax those targets, but I read articles in the Sunday newspapers this week telling us that the scrap metal industry would effectively shut down on Monday and no longer accept redundant vehicles for processing. That was because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in implementing EU directives on landfill and the classification of waste as hazardous, had failed to clarify the status of what is known, inelegantly, as shredder residue from the scrapped car processing industry. My immediate thought when I read that article was of the Minister and his problem with the 35,000 redundant vehicles that the scrap processing industry would no longer accept. What is happening, and what will it do to the targets set out in the national framework for a reduction in deliberately set fires? Are we not on the brink of a massive explosion in the number of abandoned vehicles on our streets? Local authorities will have to deal with them, and many will be the subject of arson attacks.
  Integrated risk management programmes and regional management boards are vital components of the Government's programme, as set out in the national framework, but they do not appear in the Bill. The national framework, in many ways, is the substantive document and the Bill is the enabling mechanism.
  444
  Lords amendment No. 6 deals with the intervention protocol. We tabled an amendment and debated the issue in Committee that made the same proposal. The Minister gave us an assurance that the local government intervention code would be used, and I understand that that is still the starting point for Ministers. However, Ministers have recognised that, in the special circumstances of the fire and rescue services, especially a failing fire and rescue service, it might be a good idea to have a consultation with the various stakeholders to see whether any mission-specific provisions need to be included in the intervention code to make it fit for the purpose of dealing with a failing fire and rescue service. That is eminently sensible, but it could have been done in the Commons, saving the Lords a lot of time. In fact, it could have saved the Commons a lot of time arguing over the same issues, in Committee and on Report.
  Similarly, we are delighted that the Government have accepted, in Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, a requirement to report not less than once in every two years to Parliament. Those were almost precisely the words of the amendment we tabled in Committee, which stated,
  "leave out 'from time to time' and insert 'at least once in every two years'".
  The Minister will, no doubt, have a convoluted argument, devised by highly paid civil servants, as to why those words would not do the job as well as Lords amendment No. 9, but we cannot help feeling that it would be nice, once in a while, if such amendments could be accepted in the Commons.
  Perhaps when amending clause 24 the Government should have considered including a provision for a report on their performance against the national framework. There will be reports on the performance of fire and rescue authorities and on the Government's interventions where they fail. I have already mentioned that the Government slacked off in achieving their objectives under the national framework relating to targets on dealing with deliberately set fires and accidental fire deaths in the home, so it would be interesting for an annual report to be made to Parliament, in which the Government carry out a self-assessment on how they are achieving those objectives.
  There are three improvements to the Bill in this group and we welcome them. It is a shame about the way they were made.
  7.15 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: Earlier, the Minister complained that we had not given him credit for the fact that the Government were listening. We are grateful to the Government for listening but, although we support the amendments, we are concerned that the tone of the debate has become slightly Shakespearean. I am referring not to the Minister's oratorical style—or suggesting that he is speaking in rhyme—but to the fact that Shakespeare rewrote a lot of history. I suspect that some of what Ministers are telling us today is a rewriting of what actually happened in Committee.
  Mr. Hammond: While the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Minister lauding this listening Government, did he notice that they seem to be better at

  445
  listening in the House where they do not have a majority than in the one where they normally can command a majority?
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point—that may have something to do with it.
  The Government told us that the amendments could not be tabled earlier due to technicalities and that it was not a matter of principle. However, when we were discussing amendments to clause 22 in Committee, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
  "In our view, the amendments are unnecessary and remove the flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond effectively to a range of circumstances when deciding, for example, on priorities and objectives for the service."
  Later, he said:
  "I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 238–242.]
  I am pleased that the Government have listened and we give them credit for that. Our debate in Committee would have been shorter and more conciliatory if they had listened to us then, but I am pleased that they have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) who tabled the amendments in Committee. I congratulate him on tabling them and the Government on eventually listening.
  Phil Hope: I shall try not to speak in iambic pentameters—[Interruption.] I know about iambic pentameters—I went to a comprehensive school.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) described the amendments as excellent. I am glad that he is so pleased. I want to make it clear that the amendment means that there will be an order by negative resolution to bring the national framework into effect. We are not turning the framework itself into a statutory instrument, but an order will have to be passed by the House.
  Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister explain to those of us who are not well versed in the subtleties of such things the difference between the order being effectively in effect, with everybody having to abide by it, and legally in effect? What would be the situation if the House chose not to approve the order to bring the national framework into effect, when regional centres and control rooms have been reorganised on the back of it?
  Phil Hope: There will be a lot of disappointed people in the fire and rescue services—as my right hon. Friend the Minister has just told me. The debate on targets that the hon. Gentleman would like us to engage in, but on which I shall not be drawn, is one that he may choose to initiate when we debate the order to bring the national framework into effect. It is a matter for him and other hon. Members to take that option if they so wish.
  There are no substantive changes to the original draft. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wants to see the detailed responses to the consultation
  446
  on the original draft, he is more than welcome to look them up on the ODPM website, which is excellent, and I recommend other hon. Members to use it.
  On the local government intervention protocol, it is true that we have taken on board hon. Members' views. The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that we did not accept the amendment that he tabled in Committee. Let us say that we have taken the spirit of the intent of that amendment—flawed though it was—and drafted a better amendment. It is the privilege of Government to be able to do that.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) supports what we are doing, and I am glad that we have achieved consensus across all parties on accepting the amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 33

  PENSIONS ETC.
  Lords amendment: No. 10.
  Phil Hope: I beg to move. That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss Lords amendment Nos. 15 to 17.
  Phil Hope: Lords amendment No. 10 would rectify a possible gap in the powers to establish arrangements for the funding of fire and rescue service pensions. My colleague, Lord Rooker, made it clear when moving the amendment in the other place that the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", committed us to
  "introduce alternative arrangements for local authority funding of service pensions, in consultation with the fire and rescue authorities".
  In 2001, a joint Treasury, Home Office and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions working group reviewed the current finance arrangements for funding police and firefighter pensions and recommended that a new pension account system should be developed. We announced our intent to pursue that option in the 2004–05 fire and rescue national framework, which was published on 16 July.
  The underlying principle of the scheme is that Government would pay current pensions and that employers and employees would make contributions to the Government to meet future pension liabilities. In practical terms, authorities would pay pensions from a separate pension account to which employers and employees both contribute. Normally, a payment would be made by the Government to the fire and rescue authorities to balance the account at the end of the year. Provision for those payments could be made under clause 33(2)(e).
  An authority's pensions account could be in surplus at the end of the year—the contribution that it and its employees made to future liabilities exceeded the authority's existing pensions payments. Therefore, to ensure that the system works fairly and consistently and to protect the national taxpayer and other authorities, we need to ensure that a balancing payment can be made

  447
  to central Government. New clause 33(2)(ea), proposed under Lords amendment No. 10, would permit such payments to be made.
  Lords amendments No. 15 and 16 amend clause 61, so that all the provisions in schedules 1 and 2, which amend or repeal pension legislation, extend to Scotland. Lords amendment No. 17 amends the reference to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, in schedule 1, so that it applies to Scottish fire authorities in the same way as it does to English and Welsh fire and rescue authorities. Pensions are a reserved matter in relation to Scotland.
  Mr. Hammond: I think that the Minister will find that Lord Evans, and not Lord Rooker, moved the relevant amendment in the other place.
  The Minister will forgive me for being slightly suspicious and sceptical of any provision enabling money to be paid to the Secretary of State that is inserted late into arrangements for the operation of a pension fund set up for the benefit of employees. We remember the Chancellor's attempt to get himself paid from pension funds, with his £5 billion annual pension smash-and-grab raid. We want to be sure that this is not another smash-and-grab raid on employees' pensions funds.
  When Lord Evans moved the amendment in the other place, he said:
  "However, it is possible that an authority's pension account will be in surplus at the end of the year—in other words, that the contribution that it and its employees make to future liabilities will exceed its existing pension payments. Therefore, to ensure that the system works in a fair and consistent way, we need to ensure that a balancing payment could be made to central government."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. GC 414.]
  I had always worked on the assumption that if employees and employers over-contributed to future liabilities, the benefit of that over-contribution would accrue to future contributors, who would need to contribute a little less.
  I hope the Minister does not think that I am labouring the point, but this is a fairly unusual provision. It also seems unusual that the Treasury, which presumably has some oversight of the provisions when they are drafted, should have missed a tiny clause providing for payments to be made to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister elaborate on how, when and where it was decided that the provision, which was not included in the original drafting, was necessary? Who spotted the need for it, and in what circumstances do the Government expect that such payments will be made?
  What auditing will there be of the pension arrangements? If payments are to be made out of a pension fund to the Secretary of State from contributions that have been made or partly been made by employers and employees, it will be reassuring to know that proper independent auditing of the pension fund accounts is taking place to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have a slush fund that he could get his hands on. The matter should be dealt with properly at arm's length.
  The Minister said that amendments Nos. 15 and 16 add to schedule 1 new statutes that extend the scope of the provisions to Scotland. However, he did not make
  448
  clear to the House whether the Government determined that the change was required because of the other change that had been made through amendment No. 10 or whether it was simply an omission or error in the original drafting. Were statutes that should have been specified in schedule 1 omitted? If it is the latter, that is again an example of the dangers of rushed legislation. If the additional provisions in schedule 1 arise from the changes made by amendment No. 10, that is a different matter, and I accept that they are consequential on the amendment. Will the Minister clarify that?
  John McDonnell: I am relieved by the Minister's explanation of the provision for making payments to the Secretary of State. For one minute, I thought that we were going to pay the Secretary of State's pension and that this was a new incentive scheme for Ministers on some form of productivity deal.
  May we clarify who will make the decision on the payments and on what criteria, how that decision will be independently assessed and verified and what role the House will play in determining or verifying the payment? Is this a standard clause as used in other public sector pension schemes that have been introduced by legislation in recent years?
  Richard Younger-Ross: The points made by the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were extremely valid. If the fire service and fire officers are to have any faith in their pension schemes, those questions put need to be answered. I shall say no more because the points have been concisely made.
  7.30 pm
  Phil Hope: I understand the concerns that hon. Members have expressed, so I am pleased to say that I can clarify matters and give them the reassurances that they want to hear.
  A pension account is simply an account held specifically for receiving pension contributions and making pension payments. A pension fund—that is what we are not talking about—is something in which pension contributions are invested to pay for future pension liabilities. Let me say a little more about this so that the House can be clear about the matter.
  The firefighters' pension scheme is currently financed in the same way as police pensions—on a pay-as-you-go basis. There are no pension funds. Individual fire and rescue authorities administer the scheme locally, and they meet the cost of pension outgoings, such as pension awards, lump-sum payments and outgoing transfer values, from their revenue accounts.
  There are two main problems with the current arrangements. First, volatility exists because of significant fluctuations in the number of firefighters retiring or transferring out of an authority's employment in any given year. Indeed, many fire and rescue authorities cited one-off pension payments as a major factor behind this year's high increases in council tax precepts. Secondly, there is a problem with transparency. The high proportion of expenditure by fire and rescue authorities on pension payments

  449
  obscures the actual level of available resources for operational work. As pension costs increase over time, the proportion of an authority's expenditure on pension payments will also increase.
  The option of allowing fire and rescue authorities to pay pensions from a separate pension account to which both employers and employees contribute, with a payment from central Government to balance the account at the end of the year, would alleviate those problems. However, it would be possible for an authority to end up with its pension account in surplus at the end of a particular year, so to protect the national taxpayer any such balance should be able to travel in the opposite direction.
  Early indications from the Local Government Association and fire and rescue authorities show that they would welcome changing the financial arrangements. I make it clear that the Secretary of State would recoup only audited surpluses from fire and rescue authorities' pension accounts. That would happen after all pension payments and awards for a year had been made. I hope that my clarification of the technical points satisfies hon. Members.
  Mr. Hammond: I am slightly confused, although perhaps there is just a linguistic problem. The Minister carefully set out the distinction between a pension fund and a pension account and said that payments will be made to the Secretary of State from a pension account. However, Lords amendment No. 10 refers to "a fund". Is he saying that the fund to which the amendment refers is not a fund, but an account?
  Phil Hope: I think that I am. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I asked similar questions during my discussions about the amendments, which is why I am able to give him such reassurances.
  I was asked whether the consequential amendments were tabled due to an error. There was an oversight, so we are dealing with that now. Given my explanations and reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will agree to the amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

Clause 43

  POWERS OF FIRE-FIGHTERS ETC IN AN EMERGENCY ETC
  Lords amendment: No. 11.
  Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 12.
  Phil Hope: Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to clause 43 will extend the powers of a firefighter so that he or she can do anything that he or she reasonably believes to be necessary if he or she believes that a fire is about to break out for the purpose of preventing that fire. The question of whether to extend the powers of
  450
  firefighters in such a way has been discussed in both Houses during the passage of the Bill—I remember our exchanges in Committee well.
  Although in our view the likelihood of such an event occurring remains small, we believe that it would be prudent to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to give firefighters this modest, yet potentially important, extension of powers. I emphasise that the power could be exercised only if firefighters had a reasonable belief that a fire was about to break out, so they would thus have to account for and justify their actions.
  Mr. Hammond: Once again, the amendments are technical and, once again, we asked for them in Committee. They address real issues raised by real firefighters who gave us real examples. I was disappointed to hear the Minister say again that he thought the powers were unlikely to be needed. We recited in Committee examples of firefighters facing the dilemma of seeing a dangerous situation developing that they could easily intervene to prevent, but could not do so legally. The perhaps slightly artificial example is the candle knocked over on the table when the gas jet on the cooker is turned on. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the firefighter would not have the power to break in to prevent that from happening. He would have to stand, looking in through the window, until the explosion occurred, whereupon he would be permitted legally to break into the premises and extinguish the fire, which two minutes earlier he could easily have prevented from happening.
  We thought that that was absurd. The fire commissioner for London also thought that it was absurd. I am glad that the Government have finally decided to agree with us. It is not satisfactory for only a constable to be legally protected when breaking into premises in that situation. A constable may not be to hand. Goodness knows, the way things are going they might become rare commodities indeed.
  Phil Hope: There are a lot more under Labour.
  Mr. Hammond: There may well be, but they are all standing around Westminster and people in Surrey cannot find one when they need one. If the Minister doubts that, I invite him to come and have a look. I am very willing to take him on a tour of Guildford town centre on a Friday evening—[Interruption.] Yep, a night out with Hammond is on offer. He could reciprocate by inviting me to spend a Friday evening in Corby, but we will leave that on ice for the new Session.
  There is no doubt that a firefighter presented with a fire that is about to break out would undoubtedly break in and do what needed to be done, but he would expose himself to a risk in doing so. If people act in good faith while serving the community, it is right that they enjoy the protection of the law. We are pleased that at the last knockings, as it were, of the Bill we have managed to persuade the Government that that should be the case.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The Government should be given slightly more credit. The Minister said in Committee that they were sympathetic to such an amendment. In his summation, he made sympathetic noises on extending the powers, so much so that the

  451
  hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) withdrew his amendment. We can congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on saying that they would listen and then returning to the House with an amendment.
  Phil Hope: It appears we have consensus. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that we were sympathetic to such an amendment. We wanted more evidence and examples. Those were forthcoming and we have the evidence to agree to the amendment.
  I do not get many offers of a good night out in Guildford, but if this amendment has achieved nothing else, it has provided the opportunity not only for that but for the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) to visit Corby, my constituency, which has the Rockingham motor speedway, one of the finest racing tracks in Europe.
  Richard Younger-Ross: If the Minister wants the opportunity of visiting Guildford, he does not have to go to the house of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). My mother lives in Weybridge and we would be quite happy to show him around.
  Phil Hope: I am not going to visit anyone's house.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 17 agreed to.

Schedule 1

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 18.
  Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 19.
  Phil Hope: The amendments amend schedule 1 to make minor consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1985 and the Severn Bridges Act 1992. Unfortunately, the need for these amendments was not picked up at an earlier stage of drafting, so the changes were made during the Bill's consideration in the Lords.
  Mr. Hammond: It is more sloppy drafting due to the pressure of legislation, the artificial curtailment of debate and the improper consideration of Bills.
  There may be those who think that there could be no question to ask on these amendments, but I have one question for the Minister. Lords amendment No. 19 deletes the reference to
  "fire authority under the Fire Services Acts 1947 to 1959"
  and substitutes the term "fire and rescue authority". We understand why: the Bill introduces that term. Why is it not necessary to provide a statutory reference to the term—in other words to a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004—when
  452
  clearly the architecture of the Severn Bridges Act previously required the term "fire authority" to be clarified by the words
  "under the Fire Services Act 1947 to 1959"?
  I know that the Minister will have given consideration to that point and I would be grateful if he could clarify that apparent inconsistency.
  Phil Hope: I was, of course, well aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Unfortunately, I am unable to respond at this precise moment, but I can assure him that the change is of minor consequence. I will write to him and clarify the point that he has raised. [Interruption.] Inspiration has arrived. Lords amendment No. 19 amends section 8 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 so that it refers to fire and rescue authorities under the Bill rather than fire authorities under the 1947 Act. It is consequential to the primary legislation.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

PETITIONS

  The Causeway Campaign
  7.43 pm
  Roger Casale: I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 1,700 of my constituents who are supporters of The Causeway campaign—The Causeway being a road that runs across Wimbledon common.
  The petition
  Declares that the status of The Causeway, SW19, as a free parking area should be safe-guarded and brought within the jurisdiction of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to clarify or otherwise amend the provisions of The Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 such that The Causeway be brought within the jurisdiction of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators and remain a free parking area.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Post Office Closures
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I present a petition on behalf of no fewer than 783 constituents of mine in Romford from the Rush Green and Crowlands areas of the Romford constituency.
  The people of those communities are very concerned that two local post offices could be closed following a review by Post Office Ltd. They are the Rush Green post office and the Crowlands post office. Both post offices look after the western side of my constituency, covering two thirds of the Brooklands ward, close to the border with Dagenham. They serve a diverse community of many elderly people and young families as well. Many local shopkeepers and residents are worried that if both post offices were to shut, that would have a detrimental effect on the local community.

  453
  The Rush Green post office is situated in the Dagenham road and serves both the Dagenham and the Romford constituencies. The petition is supported by members of St. Augustine's church in Rush Green and St. Andrew's and St. Agnes' church in central Romford. It is also supported by the local councillors for the Brooklands ward, Councillor Jean Gower and Councillor Barry Tebbit. The main signatory is Robert Benham, the Brooklands ward co-ordinator.
  The petition reads:
  The Petition of the People of the Rush Green and Crowlands areas of Romford Declares that the Rush Green and Crowlands Post Offices are threatened with closure. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to keep Rush Green and Crowlands Post Offices open.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Department of Trade and Industry (Job Cuts)
  7.45 pm
  John McDonnell: In the interests of productivity I have two petitions to present. The first is on behalf of the staff of the Department of Trade and Industry and states:
  The staff in the Department of Trade and Industry have grave concerns about the recent announcement of job cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry; and express their opposition to any compulsory redundancies within the Department or compulsory relocations.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to further consider the implications of the job cuts and relocations and the effect on the staff in the Department, and further urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his recent announcement of further job cuts and relocations.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Department for Education and Skills (Job Cuts)
  7.46 pm
  John McDonnell: The second petition is on behalf of the staff of the Department for Education and Skills—more than 1,400 petitioners—and declares
  that the petitioners have grave concerns about the recent organisational review within the Department for Education and Skills, especially the proposed job cuts; and express their opposition to any compulsory redundancies, site closures, contracting out or increases in workload.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to further consider the implications of the organisational review and the effect on the staff in the Department, and to amend his decision.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Penistone Recreation Ground
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I present the petition of the Penistone against greenspace encroachment campaign and others. It declares
  that the Petitioners object to Planning Application B/03/2171/PU which allows "Busy Bees" to build on Penistone Recreation Ground. The Petitioners further declare that the loss of the playground and re-positioning of other facilities on the Recreation Ground will be detrimental to the community as well as to the traditional events held there, including Penistone Agricultural Show.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to call in "Busy Bees" Planning Application B/03/2171/PU for his own assessment.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Police Officers (Southend)
  7.48 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a great campaigning local newspaper, the Yellow Advertiser (Southend). The petition has been signed by more than 2,000 local residents in Southend, West, who feel that Southend is in desperate need of extra police officers who are properly trained to patrol the streets of Southend in order to make it a safer place in which to live, work and socialize.
  The petition states:
  The petition of the Yellow Advertiser Newspaper, Southend and others
  Declares that Southend Police Division is in need of 10 extra police officers to patrol the streets.
  The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to pass legislation to provide for the deployment of extra police officers in Southend.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Driving Instructors
  7.49 pm
  David Taylor: I rise to present the petition of the Derby and District Driving Instructors Association, which overlaps my constituency. Approved driving instructors throughout the country are alarmed by the Driving Standards Agency's proposal to introduce multiple-choice questions and hazard perception tests for all currently registered approved driving instructors. They believe that to require an ADI to undertake a hazard perception test is at best ridiculous and at worst insulting, because if instructors were not on top of hazard perception skills, they would not survive the average working day. They say that the DSA has discussed continuous professional development over the past two years, and they believe that that is the preferable way forward rather than the threat to remove them from the register if they fail a computer game. They point out that removal from the register is always possible under the fit and proper clause.

  455
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons, the petition of 60 driving instructors and others in and around North-West Leicestershire declares that we the undersigned formally protest at the decision of the Driving Standards Agency to impose on qualified driving instructors a requirement to pass a further theory exam—including a hazard perception test—and to threaten to remove the livelihoods of those not successful within three attempts. The Petitioners—
  who are led by Pamela A. Davies of 18 Iveagh close, Measham—
  therefore request that the House of Commons do reject the decision aforementioned of the DSA. And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Post Office Closure
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I rise to present a petition bearing the signatures of 3,520 Gloucester residents, compiled by me, the "Gloucester Citizen" newspaper, Councillor Andrew Gravels and a range of community groups.
  The petition declares:
  To the House of Commons, the petition of residents of Gloucester declares that they oppose the plans by Morrisons to close the local post office in Abbeydale and that they are leading a campaign to keep the local post office open. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that supermarkets consult Post Office Ltd., Postwatch, hon. Members and local communities before closing local post offices. And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  ME
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I rise to present the petition of Action for ME on behalf of the 240,000 people in the UK affected by ME.
  The petition
  Declares that the direct cost to the nation of lost revenue, benefits and healthcare spend for the 240,000 people with ME amounts to £3.5 billion per annum. The petitioners further declare that a minimum of 1 per cent. of that cost, being £35 million, is required to begin research into this disabling chronic illness for which there is no cure or effective treatment at present.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to provide for a cross-government response to the wide scale health problem of ME and for the implementation of a fully funded research programme. And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Dr. Raj Mattu
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I begin by thanking Mr. Speaker for granting the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and I appreciate his allowing us once again to debate the matter. The debate is by no means meant to constitute an attack on the staff at Walsgrave hospital, who have done a wonderful job, especially since the change in leadership.
  This debate is probably the fourth on Dr. Mattu's suspension, and it is the third case of an unresolved suspension at Walsgrave hospital. The current cost of those three suspensions amounts to £1.2 million, which could have been used to deliver better NHS services. It is therefore vital that we resolve the matter, especially given the growing economic cost to the public, which has caused much community protest, not to mention the loss of a competent doctor from Walsgrave hospital.
  Dr. Mattu's suspension has lasted for more than two and a half years and, given that the time period for the panel to examine the case will extend to the end of January and possibly February, I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West probably agrees—the doctor should be reinstated without prejudice until the matter is sorted out.
  We now find that the disciplinary panel chosen to deal with the case will not meet until the end of January 2005, a further six months away. Surely such a procedure cannot be deemed adequate. I believe that in such cases it benefits neither the doctor in question nor the hospital for action to be delayed for more than two and a half years—approaching three, in fact. This is having a lasting effect on the doctor and his family, and the cost to the NHS is growing.
  There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that has no time for the resolution of cases such as Dr. Mattu's. What has happened to the implementation of the National Audit Office's report and recommendations? I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West agrees that there should be an independent inquiry into the three cases that have occurred over the past three or four years, to find out exactly how the trust has handled them. There is a big question mark over the way in which it deals with such cases.
  I stress that we are not prejudicing the outcome of the case, and only want to resolve the issue once and for all. We are asking for justice for Dr. Mattu. While we must question the competence and efficiency of a disciplinary process that has continued for perhaps more than three years and has yet to reach a conclusion, we believe that Dr. Mattu was suspended for whistleblowing. If there are other documented reasons—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will probably mention this—the trust should make us aware of them, rather than allowing rumours to fly about all over Coventry. That is in the public interest, and will restore confidence in the competence of the trust's decision making.
  We understand that the cost of Dr. Mattu's case is now probably more than £500,000, although it should be borne in mind that that goes back to about six

  457
  months ago. There should be an independent inquiry into the way in which the case has been handled. It should be dealt with by an independently selected panel to ensure its validity, and to ensure that there is a timely resolution at the least possible cost to the public. As far as we are aware, Dr. Mattu was not suspended for medical reasons.
  I believe that Dr. Mattu's human rights are being denied because of the time that his case has taken, and the inappropriate way in which the trust has been handling matters. The trust should bring to a conclusion any other allegations against Dr. Mattu, and state what they are and the reasons for his suspension. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will agree, the Minister should intervene directly. It is no good passing the matter on to the trust; the Minister has the powers, and should deal with it in a proper manner. He should set up a proper independent inquiry, and reinstate the doctor until such time as the panel does meet and decide whether he is guilty as charged.
  As I am sure the Minister knows, there is public concern in Coventry and rumours—not very pleasant rumours—are flying about. I hope that he will take what I have said on board, and look into the matter. It seems to me that every time a consultant or other doctor is suspended at that hospital, all sorts of stories circulate and we eventually find that there was no basis for them. That is no way in which to conduct the business of a hospital and, in particular, a disciplinary procedure.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: I greatly admire the hard work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on this case. I intervene because, during this lengthy inquiry, Dr. Mattu has become a constituent of mine. When I contacted my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of my constituent, he confirmed that the matter had been unresolved for too long. Does that not add weight to my hon. Friend's point about the need for further ministerial intervention?
  Mr. Cunningham: I endorse that, and I am interested to learn that the Minister has considered the argument that the case has gone on for too long. The question for him now is, what will he do about it? As I have said, many people in Coventry are very concerned. My hon. Friends and I are not taking sides; what concerns us is that justice should be done and the doctor's human rights protected. If this had happened in a factory in Coventry, there would have been a strike because people would not have tolerated it. Why is it taking nearly three years to deal with a disciplinary matter? An industrial relations dispute outside the hospital would have been resolved within a maximum of about three months. It utterly defies belief.
  We want the situation to be resolved as soon as possible. Someone has to cover for the doctor. People tend to forget that. They also tend to forget that, while Dr. Mattu has not been practising his trade, medicine has advanced and there is a danger that we could lose his skills because he has not been allowed to practise and develop his skills using the latest techniques. If he had been a football player and denied the opportunity to ply
  458
  his trade, the European Court of Justice would have intervened—someone would have intervened and said, "Enough is enough."
  I ask the Minister to sort the matter out. Let us get it cleared up once and for all. It is a running sore in Coventry and it must be sorted out.
  8 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) in thanking the Speaker for granting this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing it. May I say how pleased we are to see my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) lending us his support?
  Whatever else is said about this matter, it has gone on far too long and has cost far too much money. The longer it has gone on, the murkier it has got. We put it to the Minister that his intervention is absolutely required. If he cannot go to the extent of reinstatement, there are certain things that he can do. They were alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South when he referred to the rumours that are flying around Coventry.
  The wretched rumours that I heard just yesterday—I am in no way critical of the staff at Walsgrave; to my knowledge, it is the chairman and chief executive who seem to be leading the campaign against Dr. Mattu—were to the effect that Dr. Mattu was involved in a court case, that the charges against him in that case were serious and that therefore the people who support Dr. Mattu had to be careful because there was new information that was damaging to his case, about which they should be aware before continuing that support.
  It is a serious business to have such briefing, which is emanating, as far as we can see, from the top at the trust, brought to our attention by Tory Members and by the chairman of the campaign to reinstate Dr. Mattu. One of our Labour councillors who is closely associated with the case also referred to it in a conversation with me.
  I thought that the best way to get the matter cleared up—it coincides neatly with today's debate, which I only heard about yesterday—was to write to Bryan Stoten, chairman of the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, to ask him whether there was anything in the rumours about new information. I received a remarkable letter straight back, from which it is appropriate to read and to which I specifically draw the Minister's attention: Bryan Stoten says:
  "Thank you for your letter, received this morning.
  It is indeed the case"—
  this is important—
  "that new information has arisen concerning Dr. Mattu."
  The chairman identifies the new information as being as follows:
  "I received a letter, copied to the General Medical Council (GMC), from a member of the public regarding Dr. Mattu. The individual claimed that Dr. Mattu had appeared in court on a serious charge and stated that the case was 'not proven'."
  That is an interesting use of words.
  Mr. Cunningham: Scottish law.
  Mr. Robinson: I think that the chairman must have thought that Dr. Mattu had migrated to the sheriff court in Glasgow or Edinburgh, as if that would wash. What he was really trying to do was much more insidious and I will come to that shortly.
  The chairman goes on to say that the GMC has requested that the trust provide
  "any relevant information which the Trust has in its possession pertaining to these issues, so that these issues can be considered under the GMC's Fitness to Practise procedures."
  He finishes by saying that the trust has sought its own legal opinion and we will be following that.
  I spoke to a solicitor, Mr Paul Dentith, who has agreed that I can name and quote him tonight. I believe that he represented Dr. Mattu in the only court case in which Dr. Mattu was involved; at least it is the only court case I know of in which he was involved. I asked Mr. Dentith what the case was about. He said that the case occurred about seven and a half years ago, so it is pretty new. The result of the court case is in the public domain, so that cannot possibly be new. The outcome of the case was an absolute, unequivocal acquittal of Dr. Mattu, who was also awarded costs, all of which information is in the public domain.
  Why does the chairman of the Walsgrave trust write to me—his letter was not labelled personal, or private and confidential; therefore, it is quite right for me to put it into the public domain via this debate—to say that the outcome of the court case was not proven? First, we all know that, in English law, one is either guilty or not; we do not have the third option that is available in Scottish law. So why put that into the public domain? I can tell the House why; he wants to create doubts about Dr. Mattu's character, which will then influence public opinion and influence us against continuing to support him. I do not think much of that.
  The information has been available since a snippet on the "Today" programme about Dr. Mattu on 29 May. It is now 21 July. Why has not the chairman informed himself so that he does not continue to spread this sort of disinformation to the public?
  Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on pursuing the matter. I came to the last debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. Is he as disappointed as I am at the lack of progress over the last few months and at the attitude of Ministers? Should not they be doing much more to bring the trust to account?
  Mr. Robinson: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. It may be unpleasant for the Minister; I recall that, on the last occasion we debated the issue, he felt that we were being unfair to the trust and were using a position of which they could not avail themselves.
  Keith Vaz: That is why we are here.
  Mr. Robinson: Precisely. If the trust had not put disinformation into the public domain and had put in some real facts about the situation, it would have helped a great deal.
  460
  I fear that the same will happen tonight but, on that occasion, the Minister said that he could not do anything about it and that procedures were procedures. However, some Ministers take a different view about procedures. We will be into the fourth year of this poor doctor's suspension. What in God's name can be right about these procedures—on a simple test case of alleged bullying, which happens every day of the week and has to be sorted out—that prevents a Minister from stepping in?
  Instead, we have a continuing campaign of snide implication, instead of getting to the bottom of the facts and dealing with them. I have written to the chairman, copying to him my words tonight, to the Minister and to the GMC to make sure that the actuality of the court case is brought to everybody's attention. Of course it should not be used at all; Mr. Paul Dentith authorised me to say that any organisation or person who sought to make reference to the case or go behind the decision of the court would be behaving very improperly.
  I hope that the Minister will take that on board, but if we hear the usual thing tonight—that we are being irresponsible, that he is a Minister and that procedures must continue—we can cut the debate short because we know it all before he starts. One thing he could do tonight would be to make it clear that this sort of briefing against Dr. Mattu should not continue. That is the minimum we ask for and I ask him to do that now.
  The answer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South has said in all the debates we have had on the issue, is to have an independent inquiry. That is different from using the existing procedures and processes, but the fact is that the procedures have already been changed. It was the trust that insisted that we should deal with Dr. Mattu under the old procedures, which can last for an eternity. Why do we not use the current ones? That is the minimum that the Minister should do, and he could do it with no loss of face to anyone involved. Why does he not stop people continuing to brief against Dr. Mattu?
  If we had had an independent inquiry all those months ago, when we began this process—indeed, that is three or four Adjournment debates ago—the matter would have been settled by now and there would be no problem. One way or another, a conclusion would have been reached. As we have said all along, it is not for us to prejudge the outcome of whatever inquiry takes place. I am afraid that the inquiry will not finish by next January but will go on at least until March, by which time we will be into the fourth year of Dr. Mattu's suspension. If that is normal procedure, heaven help us when the procedure is abnormal.
  There are two other points to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. [Interruption.] Sadly, having been through this issue with him at least once before, I think that I know what he is going to say. The trust found that it was within its rights to deny three recommendations that were made to the panel by Dr. Sancassia, a most distinguished surgeon at the trust. On what grounds did it do so? That spun things out for another few months; indeed, everything that the trust does seems to point in that direction.
  The Minister will doubtless tell us that we are locked into this process and that we are to have another six or seven months of unjustified suspension. It is no good

  461
  telling us that this is a neutral act, because we all know that it is by no means neutral. One only has to talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about trying to get a chief police officer suspended to see how neutrally that act is regarded; one has to go to a court of law to get a suspension—a neutral act—agreed. If the Minister can do nothing in this regard, will he at least deal with the continual briefing against Dr. Mattu? I can show the Minister the relevant correspondence, so that he can see the way in which matters have been handled. Can he not at least take direct ministerial action to stop the briefing?
  8.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) for his continuing interest in his local national health service, and for his persistence in securing a further Adjournment debate on this issue. I fear that I will be every bit as disappointing as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) expected, and I shall do my best to explain why.
  I am concerned about this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said, I confirmed to him in writing my view, which I have stated publicly, that this matter has gone on too long and at no little cost to the NHS. I have an ongoing interest in it, and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust has kept me informed of progress. However, I should make it clear from the outset that our position has not changed, and nor can it. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West said, the trust's suspension of Dr Mattu is a neutral act. It is not, and should not be regarded as, a disciplinary sanction, and I can assure my hon. Friends that I am not taking sides on this issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West accuses the trust of putting matters into the public domain, but he has just told us that he wrote to the chairman of the trust. Was the chairman not supposed to reply? My hon. Friend has chosen to put this matter on the public record in Parliament—the most public platform of all.
  I am aware that, from Dr Mattu's perspective, the last two years have been anxious and frustrating, as they have been for—
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: No I will not. My hon. Friend has already taken up most of the time and I need to deal with some of the points that were raised.
  I realise that this has been an anxious and frustrating time for Dr. Mattu, but it has also been so for those who made the allegations. As I asked in the previous Adjournment debate on this issue, is somebody going to represent those who made the allegations? I suspect that one of the Members in this House tonight is the MP for those who made the allegations. When is somebody going to stand up for those people? That is why we must consider this a neutral act and make sure that it is properly investigated.
  462
  I want to make it clear that the allegations that were made in February 2002—that is far too long ago—were serious and substantial. They were of a nature whereby Dr. Mattu could not remain on duty while they were investigated. The trust rightly took the view that they should be thoroughly investigated.
  An internal investigation was carried out, led by the trust's joint medical director, and in accordance with its agreed employment procedures. That investigation found that there was a prima facie case to be answered, and under those circumstances, and given the seriousness of the allegations, it was clearly correct for Dr. Mattu to be suspended while a formal investigation was undertaken.
  The trust also decided that the matter was too serious to be dealt with as a personal misconduct case within the trust, so it was obliged to take it to a professional misconduct disciplinary process. The professional disciplinary process is a carefully laid down and legalistic process, and I fear it takes time. It has been agreed nationally between the BMA and the Government, and the process applied locally gives Dr. Mattu a great deal of representation and protection, so my hon. Friends should be confident that his best interests are being served by going down that route.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I do not necessarily disagree that there should be a full investigation. Our problem is about why it has taken nearly three years. That is what bothers us.
  Dr. Ladyman: One of the reasons for that is that it is a legalistic process, and the BMA, in agreeing the process with the Government, built in a series of measures to ensure that people who are complained against have the time and the opportunity to build a defence case.
  It has been suggested, however, that the trust has been delaying the progress of the case, and even that it is in some way hoping that the issue will go away. I believe that such suggestions are disingenuous, and I can assure my hon. Friends that delays in progressing the case cannot be blamed entirely on the trust. For example, I am advised that there have been a number of occasions on which Dr. Mattu, I am sure for quite proper reasons, has cancelled pre-arranged meetings at the last minute, even telephoning the trust on the day of the meeting. I do not want to criticise—and I do not criticise—Dr. Mattu for the time that the case has been unable to make progress because of his unfortunate sickness in 2003, but it is not appropriate to blame the trust for that either.
  In addition, Dr. Mattu and his supporters have kept up a correspondence and media campaign, and it is their right to do so, but in doing so they have tied up resources at the trust that could otherwise have been used to deal more expeditiously with the case. Given all this, and given the fact that the disciplinary process is in any case a thorough and full one in order to protect Dr. Mattu's rights and allow him to build his defence—
  Mr. Richard Bacon: Who wrote this rubbish?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The Minister is responding to the debate.
  Dr. Ladyman: Nobody should be blaming the trust for the slow progress.
  Keith Vaz: I am absolutely astonished at the complacency of the Minister's answer. He is a Minister of the Crown. Members of Parliament representing Coventry and other areas—Dr. Mattu has come to see me at my surgery—have raised these issues with him. What has he done to ensure that our concerns, properly raised in this place—where else would my hon. Friend come to raise them—are dealt with? What has he done since the last time the matter was raised in the House?
  Dr. Ladyman: I have made sure that the case goes through the proper process, which has been agreed with Dr. Mattu and his solicitors. That is the simple fact, even if my hon. Friends choose to ignore it.
  My hon. Friends will also appreciate that the trust is restricted in the response that it has been able to make to allegations and criticisms put in the public domain. My hon. Friends can go much further tonight than I can, or than I would consider wise, but to a great extent we have a situation in which Dr. Mattu and his supporters, and Members of the House, have opportunities to spread around allegations and even attack the credibility and good will of those involved in making the complaints, while the trust and Ministers are unable to put the other side of the case, as we would then be seen to be prejudicing the disciplinary process.
  Since Dr. Mattu was suspended, Ministers have been urged through both correspondence and pressure by the local media to intervene to bring this matter to a close. Frankly, I would be ill advised to intervene in a contractual matter between an employer and an employee, especially as NHS trusts are independent organisations. Ministers are certainly not experts in employment law and I am not party—nor would it be right for me to be so—to the detail of the allegations made against Dr. Mattu. Neither am I party to Dr. Mattu's response to those allegations or the complex legal arguments that are ongoing. This is, therefore, clearly a matter that has to be resolved between Dr. Mattu and the trust.
  Every NHS trust, as an employer, has its own procedures for suspending and disciplining doctors. That is right and proper and protects employees from Whitehall interference. Since 1990, that disciplinary procedure has been a matter for the trust, as an employer. The Department of Health has issued guidance as to what the procedure should include, and has monitored trusts to ensure that it is in place. The trust reviewed its procedures for handling suspensions in the light of that guidance, so we can be confident that its procedures are robust.
  464
  That brings me to the suggestion that Dr. Mattu should be reinstated while the disciplinary process continues. [Interruption.] The trust has been keeping this case under review and is satisfied that grounds remain for keeping the suspension in place. I would again ask my hon. Friends, as I did the last time we had an Adjournment debate, also to think about the rights of other parties involved and their feelings in this matter.
  Ultimately, reinstatement is a matter for the trust to consider in its discussions with Dr. Mattu, but it would not be reasonable of the trust to ignore either the allegations or the rights and feelings of other parties. Nor would it be reasonable for Ministers to put pressure on the trust to do so.
  All of that leads me to conclude that this complex and difficult matter is best dealt with using the formal procedures now agreed and with all sides agreeing that Dr.Mattu's suspension is a neutral position, suggesting neither innocence nor guilt. Indeed, I understand that the trust has now agreed with Dr. Mattu and his solicitors that the case should go through the formal disciplinary hearing, where both sides will air their views in front of an independent panel of three members, chaired by a QC. The agreed procedure allows that both parties should agree on the selection of the chair of the panel and Andrew Stafford, QC, has been agreed by both the trust and Dr. Mattu.
  According to the trust's professional disciplinary procedure, the chair of the trust's senior hospital medical staff committee is then responsible for approving the other two panel members from suggestions made by the General Medical Council's joint consultative committee. One of the panel members, Dr. Robert Bain, an experienced consultant cardiologist based in Grimsby, has been selected. I understand that a name is currently being considered for the third place on the panel. The trust is making final checks that the person recommended does not know Dr. Mattu—either personally or in a professional capacity.
  In my view, that is a sensible way forward as it will allow both parties to present the whole of their case in a fair and even-handed setting. It will also allow a proper review of the credibility of the evidence presented. Of course, it will take time—time for both sides to prepare their arguments and time for the panel to consider them. I repeat that—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[DAME MARION ROE in the Chair]

Political Parties (Funding)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Matthew Taylor: I welcome the opportunity to introduce this subject for debate again. The last time that I raised it here was two and a half years ago, in January 2002. Little has changed in the interim, so I thought that it was time to return to the subject.
There is always a potential self-interest in debates such as this. Those with substantial funding may seek to maintain the status quo, but probably more common is an exchange of criticisms of the parties, as if one party—that of the speaker—is whiter than white and everyone else is tainted in their political fundraising. I assure the Minister at the start that my argument is that we are all tainted by our fundraising system.
Following the European elections, the recent by-elections and the relatively unnoticed but nevertheless significant vote that, for example, the British National party has attracted without significant political donations, I want to pick up on the wider risks to the political system. What might happen if the BNP were to succeed in attracting support from just one of the large number of multi-millionaires in this country, any of whom could choose to donate to such a party?
I will not talk about the questions surrounding Bernie Ecclestone's £1 million donation to the Labour party; the reluctance of Labour in 2001 to disclose the identity of multi-million pound donors such as Christopher Ondaatje and Lord Sainsbury of Turville; the Prime Minister's point-blank refusal to disclose details of meetings with Bernie Ecclestone, Christopher Ondaatje and the Hinduja brothers; the £36,000 donated by Enron, which the Labour party refused to return, even though US politicians donated Enron money to charity; and the circumstances surrounding the Government's decision to award a £32 million smallpox vaccine contract in April 2002 to PowderJect, whose owner, Paul Drayson, had donated £50,000 to Labour the previous summer.
Those matters have been well reported and endlessly debated. The truth is that, whatever their legitimacy or otherwise, they have led to a tainted view of donations that affects all political parties. Indeed, the criticisms that have rightly or wrongly been made of donors have led other donors to reconsider whether they want to make political donations.
I read that political parties that have received major donations in the past—the Labour party and the Conservative party—are struggling. Certainly the Labour party is struggling with the trade unions. The GMB may withhold £744,000 and fund only those Labour MPs whom it believes support its views. That is a rather questionable practice in terms of parliamentary
66WH
privilege, let alone anything else. The Transport and General Workers Union will decide this September whether to withhold a similar sum from Labour's general election campaign on the same basis. Derek Simpson, the leader of Amicus, which has made donations, has said:
"If Tony Blair's not for turning, then we'll have to turn him out."
The clear implication is that the money comes with political strings attached.
Neither will I dwell on the fact that four out of five of the new Conservative peers are major donors to the Conservative party; the declaration last year by Stuart Wheeler, who gave £5 million to the previous Conservative general election campaign, that he would not make further donations to the party until it chose a new leader; and the fact that, within a month of the party choosing a new leader, a cheque for more than £500,000 from Mr. Wheeler duly arrived at Tory central office.
Some hon. Members may elaborate on those matters, but I shall focus instead on two issues that are important to the House and that I hope might cut through the party political warfare and generate wider agreement. The first, as I have mentioned, is the potential danger that the current system will allow extreme parties to receive multi-million pound donations without anybody being able to do anything about it. One multi-millionaire could make the BNP the best-funded political party in the UK at the next general election.
Secondly, we could ban such large-scale individual donations—we could do so across the board, rather than by singling out a particular political party due to its views, because that would clearly be anti-democratic—and tie political parties back to their grass-roots memberships and to the donations that they can get from members and supporters. To allow political parties to function, such an approach would imply a level of match funding by the state tied to those individual donations, but it would also reinvigorate party politics, political activity, democracy and turnout.
It is not uncommon for electors to be reluctant to vote for politicians. Indeed, the political parties were created as mass organisations on the back of the extension of the franchise precisely to do the on-the-ground campaigning to turn people out to vote. As the membership of the political parties has declined, and due to reduced resources, they have concentrated only on seats where they think they can make a difference. Many people in what are considered safe political seats receive little or no communication during a general election campaign from the political parties other than the paid-for free post delivery. Their door is extremely unlikely to be knocked, and it is in those areas that few people turn out. If we can create a system that encourages political parties to concentrate again on ordinary members and on building participation because they need to do so for funding as well as for political success, we will start to address some of the issues of political participation.
Let me first concentrate on the issue of the crazy millionaire, if I may put it like that. I will not label this particular multi-millionaire as crazy, but it is a fact that Paul Sykes has promised to commit his fortune, worth some £500 million, to the UK Independence party. The

67WH
party's leader has boasted in the press that it will be able to spend £13 for every £1 spent on campaigning by all the other political parties put together. Whether that will come through I do not know, but it is clear that Stuart Wheeler is in the position to deliver such levels of funding if he chose to do so, and I suspect that the biggest impact would be felt by the Conservative party. As it has traditionally been the greatest beneficiary of individual donations and the greatest defender of that practice, that scenario may make it pause to reconsider whether it is in its long-term interests to maintain such a position.
I do not want to dwell on UKIP. Much as I disagree with the party, I do not regard it in the same light as the BNP. Imagine if another multi-millionaire took the same view tomorrow of the BNP—a crazy multi-millionaire who believed that race and not Europe was the issue of the day, who wanted to change political policy and who could see that none of the mainstream political parties was prepared to accept his views. Is that impossible? Not at all. One crazy millionaire is all it would take for the BNP to become the best-funded political party in Britain. Provided that that person was prepared to stand up and say, "Yes, I am a BNP supporter", there would be nothing under the existing rules to prevent it.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: On the basis that the BNP secured the best part of 1 million votes in recent elections, how much money does the hon. Gentleman think the taxpayer should give to it?
Matthew Taylor: I shall come on to my proposal, but the short answer is that I would far rather that the only money that the party received was £10 or £20 from each of its handful of members, which would imply tiny amounts of funding. The truth is that the BNP cannot generate large numbers of members giving large numbers of donations; it cannot do so on anything like the scale of the mainstream political parties.
One multi-millionaire, however, could put the BNP in the position that we saw not long ago when UKIP exploded on to the political scene with a £2 million campaign war chest for the European elections, some celebrity endorsements and some media spin and hype, largely around the notion that it could be successful. Imagine the BNP in the same circumstances. It would be all over every newspaper. The attack would be made, but that party would get publicity for what would be an equally simple and straightforward, if horrible, political message.
What if similar millions were at the BNP's disposal? We might say that it would not command great political support. However, the potential impact would not simply be on votes at the ballot box. I doubt whether BNP Members of Parliament would be elected on the basis of a well-funded campaign; I hope not, but there could be no guarantee. However, the party would be in a position to put millions of videos through letterboxes, set up giant poster hoardings and mount aggressive— and I mean aggressive—phone and direct mail campaigns.
We know that that is possible and that it can come from nowhere. The Conservative party should be only too aware of that, because it happened with the
68WH
Referendum party. Sir James Goldsmith put £20 million from his own pocket into what was perhaps a vanity campaign, which gave his party huge advertising hoardings, slick party political broadcasts, millions of free promotional videos in every home and swarms of paid-for activists. That had a major impact on public consciousness. Arguably, it significantly affected the general election result, turning a Conservative defeat into a rout. With such a well-funded campaign, the BNP might well be able to take sufficient votes to affect significantly a tightly fought general election outcome.
The Referendum party campaign highlighted and deepened the schism over Europe. No one should have the power to shape political debate in that way—via the wallet. Even in the US, the rules are more stringent, although they are certainly inadequate. John Kerry, who is married to a billionaire heiress, had to mortgage his own home to fund his primary campaign.
Mr. Djanogly: If the BNP got up to 20 per cent. of the vote in a northern inner-city area, which is not unfeasible considering what it has been doing recently, would the hon. Gentleman think that it should get 20 per cent. of the public funding that went to that area?
Matthew Taylor: No, I have argued exactly the opposite. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening. I have argued that funding should be tied to the ability to recruit ordinary members and supporters, who would donate on a small scale. I shall come on to the detail of that approach. Of course, if the BNP were able to motivate an army of activists and supporters and generate political support in that way, it would command the same support on the democratic principle, and we would fight it democratically. His problem is that he prefers a system that would tie funding not to 20 per cent., 10 per cent., 1 per cent. or 0.5 per cent. support, but, in a country of some 60 million people, to the support of one person who happened to have a large cheque book.
We cannot underestimate the BNP. Were it not for UKIP, the success of the BNP in recent elections would be a serious subject for debate. More than 800,000 people voted for the BNP in the recent European elections, despite UKIP's success in taking what may arguably be some of the same ground. One of UKIP's party political broadcasts featured immigration as a keynote theme, but the BNP was nevertheless able to take almost 5 per cent. of the vote. That party clearly retains the ability to attract some support, despite the fact that politicians of all mainstream parties condemn it. However, I do not so much fear the BNP's political vote; I do not think that it will ever command a huge political vote in this country, and I have great faith in the British electorate in that respect.
A well-funded BNP campaign could influence public policy and public attitudes on the ground. The party might not buy electoral success, but it could buy electoral impact. Just imagine how it would stir up racial conflict in our local communities. How many racist videos delivered door to door in Oldham or Burnley would it take to generate another race riot?
What is the alternative? I touched on it a couple of times in my responses to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). Incidentally, in the last

69WH
couple of years, his political party has gained more than half its funding from the state—although I do not know the latest figures—so let us have no hypocritical condemnation of state funding from the Conservative party. More than £5 million a year, paid en bloc to central office, goes direct from the taxpayer to fund its political activities.
The Government are making favourable noises about change to the system. The Electoral Commission is due to report in September, which is one reason why I thought it opportune to hold this debate now. The PM is believed to be in favour of increased subsidies, but not complete state funding. I believe that there should be a cap on individual donations for all the reasons that I have outlined, but I am not in favour of a system that simply rewards the status quo. The creeping introduction of increased state funding that rewards those who are already here in response to their level of support in the House is not a democratic way of dealing with the issue. Such an approach entrenches the advantages of those who have already been elected and prevents others from entering the political framework
For example, the political research fund, which is meant to help political parties with the development of policy for general, European and local elections, is not paid to any political parties that are not represented in the House, so the Green party gets not a cent, even though the fund is meant to help with research on and development of European and UK policy, and despite the fact that that party is successful and commands a substantive vote in elections. The fund is a Westminster club payout, and that cannot be right in terms of defending democracy. The fund is useful only in defending the status quo. That is why I believe that we need to tie back political parties to their individual members. I have consistently argued that that should happen, and the time is right for doing it.
The £10 and £20 donation, the jumble sale and the raffle ticket should be the drivers of political funding, but the membership of political parties is now down to relatively tiny numbers, not least because parties have concentrated on the multi-millionaires, rather than on other individuals. That is reflected in the fact that the Conservative party has shifted its paid staff from the regions to central office; there has been a huge shift in the 10 years from 1991 to 2001. By the end of that period, practically all staff were concentrated in central office. We all know about the trend, because all the political parties represented in this Chamber do the same. We have units of people dedicated to finding the person who will give a cheque for £10,000, £50,000, £100,000 or, quite frequently in the case of the Labour and Conservative parties, £1 million, £2 million or even £5 million. Because of that trend, the use and value of the small donation has dried up.
The Conservative party ran a £20 million campaign in 1997, only £1.4 million of which was raised through small individual member donations. That is not healthy, not only because of the risks and the tainting of the political process that I talked about, but because it has festered and fostered the decline of individual membership and concentration on it. Why should the Prime Minister worry about the ordinary Labour party member and the decline in membership when Lord Levy is, by all accounts, building him a £20 million war chest,
70WH
contributed not by individual members of the Labour party in general, but by a handful of very wealthy party members? It is clear what the driver is.
If we said instead that no political party may raise funds except in small amounts, we would start to see a shift back to the political parties doing what they were originally launched to do, and building up the grassroots membership, activity and support that allows them to function. However, there is an issue. It costs serious money to run a political party. A manifesto cannot appear from nowhere. Policy advice is needed, as are research and support. Above all, in a democracy, a campaign is necessary. There is no use in having the most glossy and best-written political manifesto in the country if individuals do not hear what it has to say.
The best way to provide information is for each political party competitively to deliver its points door to door, argue its case and put it against those of the other parties. By taking such action, each party would create a vibrant local democracy. People knocking at our doors and offering us a lift to the voting station would help to increase turnout, as would worried candidates saying that they will not win if we do not vote for them.
It is no coincidence that the seats that are most closely fought have the highest turnouts. The seats that are written off as safe for one party or another have the lowest turnouts, because of a lack of activity on the ground. Year by year, a lack of activity dries up membership further and local fundraising becomes less important. However, the present process has gone so far that, to put it bluntly, local parties would not be able to survive on the basis of individual donations, and that gives rise to the issue of state match funding. Some £10 million of taxpayers' money is already spent on political party support through the state. That money is tied not to local activity or membership, but to small donations to the political party of £10, £15, £20 or £25. The situation would be helped by increasing the incentive to campaign locally while ensuring that political parties, provided that they can recruit activists and supporters, can fight the scale of campaign that that level of activity and support in the country would merit.
I do not believe that the BNP could raise more than tiny sums. In fact, we know that it cannot do so. We know its fundraising record, because it now has to publish it. We accept that fundraising advantages the biggest parties, but only because they are the main parties and can recruit and retain large numbers of activists. A new political party or a party such as the Green party that can motivate and recruit could enter the political process on an equal footing if it could bring in the same support as the biggest parties and command the same number of activists.
In such circumstances, finance would no longer be dependent on the whim of one, two or three multi-millionaires; it would be dependent instead on the ability of the political parties to motivate and command individual support, with no individual having the clout to command party policy, to make leaders jump or even to get rid of a Conservative party leader. Through their contributions, individuals should be able to make a difference to the effectiveness of their party.
I say to those who oppose state funding that it is already in place, but it is not operated democratically or in a way that encourages the activity to which I have

71WH
referred. Above all, the taxpayer does not receive in return for that state funding the biggest single thing that they would want—an end to the sleaziness of the multi-millionaire being able to donate and thereby command the attention of the political parties. Evidence shows that the public do not like the process of state funding, but want parties to fund themselves. However, they do not support the idea of multi-millionaires making donations. They want parties to go down the traditional route of using local activists, and we must be realistic about how that can be achieved.
The cross-party acceptance of policy development funds suggests that political parties are not as adverse to such an approach as they make out, especially the Conservative party. However, that seems to be a notably self-interested development that is not tied to genuine democracy. It is certainly unfair to political parties that are not represented here, but which campaign legitimately and have support outside this place.
I suspect that there is a mixture of views in the Chamber about the success of UKIP, but I doubt whether that is so when it comes to that party's claim that it can outspend us £13 to £1. If that is true, it cannot be right than one individual can make such a difference. Tomorrow, it could be the BNP, the Greens or even the Liberal Democrats that get that big donation. It may be the Conservative party or, as it has been recently, the Labour party. Whoever it is, it is not right for anybody to donate on that scale and to be able to influence the political outcome by a single cheque. Every day, that situation threatens us with the crisis of the BNP commanding the kind of money that each of our political parties would wish for and stirring up division in our communities, even if it does not win our support. That is its objective, and under the present political system, there is nothing whatever that we could do to stop it.
Dame Marion Roe (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that I am hoping to start the winding-up speeches at 10.30.
9.55 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: It will not surprise hon. Members that what I have to say will in many ways echo what the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) said. This is an important issue that does not receive much airing; we somehow assume that if political parties carry on with business as usual, everything will be all right. The hon. Gentleman set out several important reasons why things will not be all right. I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate. I only wish that rather more of our mutual colleagues were here, because this issue affects them to a substantial degree.
This Government have placed on to the statute book unprecedented legislation to make transparent who gets what money from whom. That change in the way in which we register who gives money to political parties should not go unnoticed or unrecorded. It is a substantial change for the better, but it does not in itself change the nature of how political parties receive their
72WH
money, although it has been argued recently that the publication of who gives money to political parties has meant that people are less likely to give money to them in the first place.
The net effect might be the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman suggests: political parties might simply wither and die because no one will give them money. However, the opposite may be the case in the short term. As he mentioned, some well-off people could give large sums of money to political parties that no one in this Chamber considers should be represented here. One could reflect that, to date, people with large sums of money have, by and large, spent their vanity millions on buying footballers rather than on funding political parties. The large amounts that have so far been donated to political parties are dwarfed by such funding activities. We see in the newspaper this morning that one particular footballer is being purchased at four times the cost of total political donations to political parties in the past few years. Perhaps we should reflect on what might happen if certain people suddenly shifted their allegiances from Chelsea, Tottenham, Blackburn or wherever to funding political parties instead.
The figures detailing how political parties raise their money are sobering. In 2002, only 15 per cent. of the Labour party's funding came from raising money from its own members. That was a stunningly successful performance compared with that of the Conservative party, which received only 7 per cent. of its money by the same route. As the hon. Gentleman said, because of the way in which the system now operates, political parties increasingly have to rely on fundraising departments and sometimes on large donations to make an expensive business fundable.
As far as the Labour party is concerned, money from the trade unions is negotiated in a different way from donations by private individuals to the Conservative party. Recent episodes have shown that trade unions can, by balloting their members, turn on or off the money that comes to the Labour party. The same is not quite true of the Conservative party, where individuals simply write cheques out; I am not saying that the Labour party has not received money by the same route, but we need to distinguish slightly between those funding sources.
Nevertheless, the membership figures are stark. The Conservatives' 2001 election campaign was, effectively, funded by two individuals—J.P. Getty and Stuart Wheeler. The majority of that campaign was funded by two individuals, but conversely, there has been what the hon. Gentleman calls the creeping rise of public funding. This is perhaps the most curious phenomenon in the entire debate, inasmuch as there is not a great deal of complaint nationally about free election post, free hire of halls, free security at party conferences and free party political broadcasts, which together benefit political parties by some £80 million a year, about Short money, which enables the Conservative Opposition party to get about £3 million a year from public funds, or about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 policy development fund money of £2 million a year, which is split between all the parties and is for political research.

73WH
It is interesting that between elections—I distinguish between money between elections and money for elections—the Conservative party, up to 2003, received a majority of its funding from the taxpayer. The amount was £4 million in that year, which compares with £3.5 million from private donations.
What might one do about that state of affairs? State funding looms ever larger on the horizon. In a moment, I want to think about what the future alternatives will be for political parties if we do not give that option serious consideration. A number of proposals have been floated. If political party funding comes out of the closet and is up front, recorded and clear, and if it is not provided in the rather back door way in which it is, to some extent, currently provided, a clear explanation of what that money does and where it comes from must be also up front in any discussion. There could be a system of matched money for fundraising at an individual level. It has been suggested that people might be able to specify in their tax returns that some of their tax money should go to a political party of their choice. Again, the principle that the political party has to persuade people to support it in order to receive the money rather than simply receive a lump sum seems important.
We have introduced a curriculum agenda of civic education in schools. I imagine that all colleagues in this Chamber have at some stage during the past year been invited into local schools to discuss that agenda. That curriculum is beginning to be assisted by a number of political parties—not overtly, but in a way that does not admit the existence of politics. Perhaps there could be funding for civic activities and activities that increase public awareness of the political process, but not for overt campaigning at elections. Foundations might be developed to build that sort of civic awareness and political activity, which is partisan to political parties but not in the front line of campaigning, as in Germany. All those are possible ways forward for state funding. Such a system would not simply be about a large sum of money being plonked on the table with no accountability. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is what happens now, in effect, both to large-scale donations from individuals and to state funding.
This matter is important now because there has been a precipitate decline in party membership over the past few years. If party members were hedge sparrows, we would have a major inquiry into why they had disappeared, a large amount of concern would be expressed about the imminent extinction of the species and measures would be put in place to reverse it. However, the reality of party membership in our polity is a decline of some 80 or 90 per cent. over the past two decades. In the 1950s, the combined membership of all political parties stood at some 4 million; by 1964 it was 3.3 million; and it is now 0.7 million and dropping. Far more people join single issue groups, however, and on the subject of hedge sparrows, membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is greater than that of all political parties put together.
It is not that people are not interested in issues or in joining groups, but that membership of a political party has increasingly been cut out of our polity. We have all been complicit in that to some extent. If a person's CV shows any hint that they are, were or are likely to be a member of a political party, they are in effect excluded from appointment to a variety of Government or local
74WH
bodies. CVs are scrutinised carefully to ensure that people are "non-political", as if such a thing existed in practice.
Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I should like him to develop. If people are heading more towards single interest groups, would he suggest that caps on donations be applied to those groups, or are we heading down the American route, where people divert their funds away from political parties and put them into related single interest groups?
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the Americanisation of politics, which I want to address shortly.
The rise of money going to single issue groups, coupled with the steep decline of party membership and support for political parties, means that politics is increasingly carried out through single issue groups, influencing an ever-decreasing pool of party members trying to make changes to the political process; it is as if party members came from Mars and the single issue pressure groups lived on earth. In future, political parties could be seen as shells to capture when an election is due or when electoral nominations are required for public or council bodies.
A few years ago, in a number of council areas, every party had a panel. People got on to a panel, fought a not very winnable council seat and then fought their way through a nomination for a winnable council seat and got on to the council. There were perhaps 60 or 70 people on the panel, with 20 seats. Frankly, the experience of every political party— if anyone stands up in this Chamber to say that this is not the case, I shall suggest that they are misleading hon. Members—is that anybody who turns up and is reasonably okay as far as that party is concerned will get a nomination for a council seat.
The system whereby the polity is supplied with competing choices for elections is beginning to break down. I would not want us to end up in the situation that we see in America, where parties have no existence between elections and are captured by money at elections. The nominations flow from the capturing of that money at an election period, regardless of the continuing life of the party.
Historically, the Labour party was formed as the Labour Representation Committee to secure representation for working people in Parliament, and the Conservative and Unionist Association was formed as a supporters group for people who were already in Parliament. In a sense, the two things eventually coincided, because, for a while in the 20th century, both political parties—this was also the case for the Liberals at various stages—had a substantial community presence. They became real actors in the community, organising such things as Conservative and constitutional clubs, Clarion cycling clubs and Labour clubs.
I suggest that it would be good for the health of our polity if that sense of parties being part of the community rather than separate from it were restored. I do not see why there could not be Conservative lunch clubs for older people, Labour mothers and toddlers

75WH
groups or Liberal Democrat playgroups. I am not intending to show any political bias in suggesting those various activities. The main reason why such activities would not be possible at present is the combination of the precipitate decline of party membership and the marginalisation or almost ghettoisation of the political process in the democratic life of the UK.
If we go down the route of believing that there are people who know what is good for us, but are non-political, and if those of us who are political simply stand on the sidelines and look on, we will have reached the foothills of the beginning of totalitarianism. The whole point about politics is that it is a clash of ideas and different ways of doing things, and the great and the good have an idea of how to do things just as much as any political party. The idea of state funding that breathes life back into the real political process and sends political parties back into a life in the community could be an important way forward, and we should give it weighty consideration.
10.13 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I support much of what the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) said, except perhaps what he said in the first five minutes of his speech, when he told us what he was not going to speak about, but gave us some clues along the way.
Money in politics is not a new factor; it has probably always been there. My knowledge of Roman history is not as great as it might be, but I believe that, in certain stages of the republic, money was involved in seeking high positions. In our own history, from the 18th century onwards, money was also a factor in such matters; the rotten borough was proof of that. One of the reasons why those elected from counties were thought to be slightly purer was that counties were more expensive to corrupt, because they were larger. One might also give the example of the sale of kisses by the Duchess of Westminster on behalf of Charles James Fox. The whole atmosphere was one of money, privilege and access to power.
The Liberal party has not been entirely immune. It would be trite for me to mention Lloyd George and the sale of peerages, because he did not establish that process; he merely put it on a businesslike basis. The source of funds for political parties before Labour's time came from particular groups: the brewers would always support the Conservative party and other groups would always support the Liberal party.
The factor that changed everything was not so much the organisation of the vote, but the need to register it, which created the political organisations. That made politics something that was not the plaything of the wealthy or the powerful, but involved ordinary people in the process. That was the most important stage, and it is only about 130 years away from where we are today.
We speak glowingly of vast party membership after the second world war, and up to a point that is right, but in the Labour party in the 1960s, it took me a while to realise that my divisional party was paying on the basis of 1,000 members, although we knew jolly well that we
76WH
had only 150. The reason was that it could not affiliate with fewer than 1,000 members. The Labour party figures for that period bore no relationship to the actual position, and the same may even be so now.
In the past two or three years, if the Conservative party enrols the husband, it automatically enrols the wife. Indeed, I know of a wife who is an active campaigner for the Labour party, notwithstanding that she is, on the face of it, a member of the Conservative party, because of the connection with her husband. There is always a certain artificiality in the numbers of people involved.
I was impressed to read in a biography of Enoch Powell that when he became the prospective Conservative candidate in Wolverhampton, South-West, the local party had about 6,000 members, which was more than 10 per cent. of the electorate of that area. An old minute book of one of the branches in my parliamentary division—a relatively small village—had 150 members in 1958, which was a quarter of the electorate. However, even allowing for exaggeration— the word was not "spin" in those days—in the number of members, a lot of people were involved, and they had to be involved so that we could take part in elections.
In some ways, the activist has been made superfluous. The first step in that process was putting the party name on the ballot paper. I am not against that—it is a perfectly sensible thing to do—but when the party name did not feature on the ballot paper, one had to ensure that people knew who the Labour, Liberal or Conservative candidate was, and the only way of doing so was to put out information, talk to people and put the party's position across. The moment that the ballot paper included the party name, a lot of parties would put up a candidate, but that was the limit of what they did, because people would be able to vote Conservative, Labour or Liberal as the party name would appear. That took away some activism.
When I came into politics, parties did not contest every seat in local elections; they contested only those in which they thought they had some sort of chance. When the party name was included on the ballot paper, however, most seats were contested most of the time by the main parties. Polling cards were issued only in general elections; in local elections, parties issued their own polling card to electors—another task that involved a lot of people, who had to deliver them. I do not suggest that we should return to making life difficult for the electors, but those are some of the reasons why parties do not need so many active people on the ground. When there are fewer active people on the ground, it becomes more difficult to raise money.
As both previous speakers have said, much of the emphasis in the past was on constituencies, whereas now it is London-centred, so money is being drawn into London rather than raised in the constituencies. In my early days in politics, most Labour and all Conservative parties in East Anglia had full-time agents, and the Liberal party had the ambition to have full-time agents. My constituency party has had a full-time agent since 1923, but it may be the only one in the county of Essex that has, and there may be only three or four throughout East Anglia. I do not know the Conservative party's position, but it has nothing like as many agents as it once had. Again, the focus is moving to the centre all the time.

77WH
How can we return to a situation in which the activist, the ordinary participant, is the purveyor of money, rather than big corporations, rich individuals or others? I think that we have probably come to the point at which there needs to be a linkage between local donations and state assistance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, state assistance has been creeping in, so that the state is now probably the largest donor to all political parties. Whether that money is wisely spent, I do not know.
The other question that we should ask ourselves is: do parties need to spend as much money as they do on the political process? I am sure that we have all been embarrassed by the stuff that comes down from our head offices. At a recent election, we were supplied with large cut-out cardboard feet that were placed at the entrance to our committee rooms. Quite what the purpose was, I have no idea. The traditional colours of my party in our area are red and yellow, but on one occasion, central office suddenly started operating in royal purple. My agent had a certain destination for that material. It was put at the back of the committee room to be taken away on Thursdays.
Again, money is being spent on a scale that makes one wonder whether it is spent to any purpose. In the last election, the Conservative party had what some might consider extremely effective advertising on hoardings, although it did not do very well in the election. We had the most appalling advertising. My constituency office received a huge poster that appeared to be advertising a film at the Odeon in Colchester. It turned out to be about our party's merits and benefits. Unless one was an expert on the political process, one had no idea what it was about. Lots of money is being spent on things that are, frankly, an absolute waste of time. If we concentrated on the things that are more important— the policies and their conveyance to the people in the electoral process through hundreds of thousands of people who are engaged in it—the health of our democracy would greatly improve.
One way forward must be to limit the amount that one individual or group can donate to a political party within a certain period. That would clearly reduce the amount of money coming into the system. Careful thought also needs to be given to linking the amount of money raised by constituency parties with matching funds from the state. That is the other way forward. We need to be aware not only that we are making politics and public debates so trite with much of the advertising that is put out, but of the fear raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, that those who are wealthy or both wealthy and vain can intervene in politics on a scale that can distort the process for a short time at least. History teaches us that, in the end, the rich and the vain do not normally survive for long periods, but they can upset the process and put people off being involved in the whole electoral scheme.
Overridingly, we need to raise the reputation of public affairs. As has been pointed out, it seems that involvement in public affairs is sometimes held to carry some sort of stain. For example, members of health authorities and possibly magistrates might be regarded cagily; there is a whole range of such activities, even though one should naturally be proud of having carried them out. Whatever honours system we have, the
78WH
greatest disadvantage is that people spend a long period of their lives serving the public on elected bodies for no financial reward. That is wrong. My party has perhaps been rather sillier than the Conservatives were about that issue. Those who have spent a long time serving their communities in local affairs should be rewarded and honoured in the same way as others, and they should not have to be nominated for an award for some other activity that they did as well.
We need to restore the repute of what we do. I am sure that other hon. Members find that, when we bring people to this House, they are invariably impressed by what happens here. It is what they read about and see on television that gives them a different point of view. We need controls on the payment to political parties, and we need schemes to encourage and reinvigorate activism in constituencies.
10.24 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) has just said that I hope he will forgive me if I cavil with one of his comments. He said that he thought that activists might become superfluous. Those of us who tramped the great cities of Birmingham and Leicester in recent weeks would argue that activists are still very important to our political process.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor). This is a timely debate. It has also been extremely thoughtful—I hope that it will continue to be so—and there has been a very considerable degree of consensus. What we lack in the quantity of contributions, I hope that we will make up for in quality.
One of the reasons why the debate is timely is the forthcoming Electoral Commission recommendations, which I am given to understand we can expect in September. They will be timely for reasons that I shall address. I hope that all parties will take this issue seriously at their party conferences. We cannot wait until after the next general election to address it. I also hope that the Government will speedily respond to the commission's September recommendations.
Comment has been made about the degree of public support that there is for a measure of state funding of the democratic process. I hope that everybody has now read about the state of British democracy as it has been set out in the state of the nation poll commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. It is one of the most comprehensive assessments of what the public think, and it has the great advantage of not having been mediated through the media. It comes to us direct; it is not given the headline treatment of the The Daily Telegraph or the Evening Standard. It states:
"Three quarters (73 per cent.) find the current system for funding political parties 'unfair' because of the risk that wealthy individuals, businesses and trade unions 'can buy influence' over the parties with their donations. As Table 3 shows, a majority would be in favour of public support for the parties through state funding to reduce their dependence on large donations. Three quarters (74 per cent.) believe there should be limits on how much people can donate to political parties. This is consistent with the high levels of public concern about sleaze under both Conservative and Labour governments found in earlier State of the Nation polls."
I hope that the Government have taken note of that.

79WH
In introducing this important debate, my hon. Friend might have implied that there was not great enthusiasm for what he was saying. That is not true; there is huge public enthusiasm for the sort of constraints that all Members who have spoken feel are now necessary. One of the principal reasons for that is the argument that the hon. Members for Braintree and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) eloquently advocated. We must reverse the trend of centralisation in British politics. I have some figures—they are slightly out of date—for the extent to which the Conservative party has had to centralise its staffing resources. In 1997, it employed 59 regional staff and 147 central staff; by 2002, there had been a drop to 18 regional staff, while the number of central staff had increased to 172. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) may be able to tell us whether that trend has continued. I am not, saying that it has happened only in the Conservative party; there has been a trend towards centralisation in all parties, because of the way in which the funding has come to the centre, notably from millionaires.
I echo the commitment that previous speakers have given to the concept of trying to match funding at local level. If our parties simply become huge machines dominated in London by those who are able to pay for such machines there, we will be in great difficulty and our whole body politic will suffer. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has offered suggestions, and reference has been made to the concept of a concession on income tax. That might now be more equally spread between the parties than it might have been in previous years. Some form of match funding seems essential.
I do not think that any Member believes that they have got the answer. I am confident that the Electoral Commission will address this issue. I do not think that it will just take a prescriptive view about controlling large-scale funding of the political parties. I think that it will be interested in trying to reverse the trend away from local membership and local activists. When it looks into this matter, I hope that we will all be prepared to listen to its expertise, which comes from outside the partisan political parties, as it has considerable and increasing experience about the way in which our political system works.
I want to emphasise the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. There is a very urgent question that we have to look at. We have to address the urgent question of the dominance of the maverick, manipulative millionaires. It is a question not just for the next general election. For example, at least one of the millionaires, Mr. Paul Sykes, apparently thinks that the referendums on regional assemblies this autumn—that is when we expect them—are some dreadful Brussels plot. It appears that he is intending to invest large sums in the campaigns.
Whatever side one takes on the issue, one must agree that the problem is urgent. I am afraid that I must report to the House that the Electoral Commission restrictions on large donations do not apply as effectively to referendum campaigns as to general elections. If Mr. Paul Sykes, for example, chooses to spend a few million pounds on those referendums as a run-up to the general
80WH
election, and even more so as a dress rehearsal for the referendum on the European constitution, he could buy their results. The problem is extremely urgent.
We must also consider the general election. If legislation is required, it will be important that it is put through the House as soon as possible after the Queen's Speech so that we can ensure that the general election is fought on a fair, open and transparent basis. My hon. Friend has already referred to that problem. It also appears from the Electoral Commission's current rules that it would be possible for a millionaire to escape the restrictions on donations by spending his money through several front organisations. That would be easy. Such organisations could appear to be single issue organisations, but they could in effect be campaigning for one, two or three political parties, although it is most likely that they would plump for one party. That is a real danger; our democracy could be undermined. Those front organisations could disappear after polling day, and it would be difficult to account for the money that they had spent.
Mr. Djanogly: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is blowing a hole in his own argument. Mr. Sykes does not have to give his money to a political party or to a pressure group. He could set up his own pressure group or organisation if, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell suggested, he wants devote his significant fortune to doing so. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that individuals should be prevented from spending money on what they want? That is what his argument is heading towards.
Mr. Tyler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has had the benefit of the conversation with the Electoral Commission that I have had. The commission was set up by Parliament precisely to consider the issues, and I can assure him that he should have that conversation, because there are real problems and loopholes, in relation not just to the referendums this autumn or the anticipated referendum next year on the European constitution, but to the general election itself. It is currently perfectly possible to circumnavigate the rules on individual donations. A millionaire could buy the outcome of a referendum and possibly make a major difference, in the way that my hon. Friend described, to the pattern and outcome of a general election.
I want to refer to the unfortunate hypocrisy surrounding the debate on state funding. As has already been mentioned, the principal beneficiary of the taxpayers' contribution to the political process is the Conservative party. It has received just short of £30 million since it lost power in 1997—a considerable sum. Reference was made earlier to the annual figures, and I have them from the Library. In the current year, general Short money is £3,017,307, travel expenses are £86,130, the leader of the Opposition's office costs £563,449, Cranborne money in the Lords is £413,131 and there was a policy development grant of £439,005. That makes a grand total of £4,519,022. On top of that, uniquely—this does not apply to any of the other parties in this House—several Conservative office holders have additional salaries over and above their salaries from the Commons. The same applies in the House of Lords, with a total of £282,682. That makes a total of just short of £5 million—it is £4.8-odd million.

81WH
I am sure that the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who is certainly honourable, will acknowledge that it would be hypocritical in those circumstances to have any principled objections, given that his party is the main beneficiary of state funding, unless the money is sent back, of course. The principal issue is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. If we can reverse the process of centralisation, which was so effectively described by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Braintree, we can do something really valuable for the British parliamentary democratic system. If we do nothing, the dangers to which my hon. Friend refers are considerable indeed.
Time is short. The process has already gone a long way in the American direction, which I regret. Even in the referendums, or referenda, as I prefer to call them, this autumn, we may start to see an ugly twist in this tale. I hope that we will not, and that the Government are prepared to take speedy action when they get the Electoral Commission report in September.
10.37 am
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) has secured this debate, which, as he said, is in anticipation of the Electoral Commission presenting its conclusions to the Government on the funding of political parties later this year.
Various hon. Members referred to the wealth of the individual calling the shots, weighing in and dictating how policy in this country works, but those references are, from my perspective, a red herring and, as others have said, transient issues at best. I gave my reasons for that view in my interventions. On the issue of wealthy individuals leading to the centralisation of politics, I see no correlation between the two. Most wealthy individuals would not have much of an idea of what an agent was—at the centre or locally—or about the mechanics of political parties. If anything, recent press reports have shown that certain individuals who wanted to give money to the Conservative party insisted that their money went to the regions rather than the centre.
Of course, the public need confidence in the way in which political parties are funded. Most importantly, there should be no question of corruption. Nevertheless, we do not accept that the Government can justify spending even more public money on politicians, when political parties already receive significant public money, as hon. Members have made clear. The Electoral Commission's estimate is that in a general election year, the figure can come to £100 million, which is on top of the wide variety of direct and indirect public support already given to political parties, such as free mail shots, free use of civic premises, free broadcasts during elections and financial support for Opposition and Front-Bench services in the form of Short and Cranborne moneys. I suggest that increasing the dependence and reliance of political parties on the state could further distance politicians from the electorate because of the ending of the need to contact people to seek non-state funding.
There is no great public demand for an increase in state funding for political parties or for restricting the amount of private donations. In fact, the opposite is
82WH
true. I am confident that the taxpayer's view is that public money would be put to better use by investing it in our public services rather than our politicians. The Conservative party stands by the stance that we took in our 1998 submission to the Neill committee, in which we asserted that
"state funding would undermine the voluntary activity of political parties … we believe there is a difference in principle between providing assistance to opposition parties to help them with their Parliamentary duties and providing taxpayer support for the day-to-day campaigning activities of political parties".
The crux of the matter is that the Government should not restrict what political parties can and cannot do, rather than addressing their own lack of ethics with regard to political donations. Membership of the Labour party is collapsing. The base of new Labour entrepreneurs who funded it is vanishing, and it is increasingly becoming almost entirely dependent on trade union funding. I would find it distasteful if the Government wanted to use the Electoral Commission as cover for providing political parties with millions more pounds of state funding in a bid to dilute the power of the trade unions over their own party.
Mr. Tyler: I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's train of thought. Is he saying that he wants to return the large sum of taxpayers' money that has been allocated to the Conservative party—for its policy development fund, for example—which has nothing to do with what happens in this building?
Mr. Djanogly: I specifically said that I do not think that the state should give any more than it already does. Furthermore, what the state gives should be for parliamentary duties, rather than day-to-day campaigning.
Mr. Tyler: I was involved in negotiations with representatives of the hon. Gentleman's party. He should recognise that the policy development fund has nothing to do with parliamentary activity; it is designed to help the parties develop their policy outwith this place. His argument therefore collapses.
Mr. Djanogly: I shall come on to the fund later. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in that regard—I give him that—but we need to address other issues relating to the fund.
Only a few weeks ago, I opposed a proposed change in the law governing trade unions and political funding. In brief, my position was that as companies are now required annually to have member approval for political donations, why should not unions also have to receive such annual consent from their members? We are firmly of the opinion that people in a democracy should be generally free to donate their money as they see fit. There are many checks and balances on political donations in this country, including controls on campaign expenditure, prohibition of foreign donations and transparency of donors. With such transparency, the electorate can make up their own minds whether to vote for a particular party.
We stand by the proposals in the paper entitled "An end to Cronyism: Conservative charter for civil service impartiality", which was published on 4 March 2002. The proposals include, first, a statutory prohibition on

83WH
abuse of power by political appointees. That problem was evidenced by the Mittal controversy and Jonathan Powell's dual role of being the Prime Minister's chief of staff and being involved in Labour fundraising.
Secondly, we proposed statutory provision for the ministerial code and its enforcement. That would mean that the code was given statutory force and monitored by a body separate from the Government. The need for that was evidenced by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' donation in kind of a flat to the Deputy Prime Minister while he was serving as the Secretary of State responsible for transport.
Thirdly, a proper paper trail should be kept. If all official meetings and conversations between Ministers and senior civil servants were recorded, we would know the full truth behind scandals such as those involving Formula 1 and the Hinduja brothers.
Matthew Taylor: Let me be absolutely clear. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if, this autumn, the Electoral Commission recommends funding to help campaigning in the country, the Conservative party will refuse it and return it to the state health service or state education? He seems to believe that his party would be entirely wrong to accept any such money.
Mr. Djanogly: No, I said that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made an interesting point; I did not say that I necessarily agreed with it. We will consider the issue when the commission makes its findings available.
Fourthly, there should be checks on party and Government papers. If there were a body or commissioner that could check such papers and independently assess whether political donations had influenced Whitehall policy decisions, there would be far more public confidence in the legitimacy and independence of policy decisions.
The Liberal Democrats want to cap the amount that is privately donated to political parties and would rather spend £20 million of taxpayers' money, not on improving public services, but on funding politicians. The Liberal Democrats' policy for the state funding of political parties, which would apparently include the funding of political parties' campaigning activities, is to give every political party with more than 5 per cent. of the vote £2 million a year, and to allocate an additional £10 million a year between the parties in proportion to their share of the vote.
Under that system, the 2001 general election would have resulted in a yearly allocation of £6 million to Labour, £5 million to the Conservatives and £4 million to the Liberal Democrats. Essentially, the Liberal Democrats plan to fiddle state funding to get a substantial amount of money that is totally disproportionate to their number of MPs.
I turn to the policy development grant. We strongly believe that the Electoral Commission's allocation of funds is wrong. We do not understand why the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties receive the same amounts. It is questionable that the party in power should receive such funding, as it already has a variety of policy support units—not least the whole civil
84WH
service—at its disposal. We are also strongly of the opinion that a minority party should not receive the same funding as the official Opposition.
We oppose the proposals, being considered by the European Commission, to introduce state funding of European political parties. We believe that in a democracy funding should not be withheld from countries that are not deemed pan-European enough or that refuse to adhere to a given manifesto. That should be up to the electorate, as they decide whom and what they support.
We also feel strongly about the anomaly in the law that means that political parties from Northern Ireland do not have to register the source of their donations. Such parties can receive donations from anywhere in the world, as long as they do not receive funds from a specified list of donors set out in the relevant Act. That is wrong.
However, I agree with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell on one point: his desire to see more small donations. How do we get more people involved in giving money to political parties? The Inheritance Tax Act 1984 provides that donations to political parties are exempt from inheritance tax. We strongly advocate that that should be extended to include an income tax exemption. That would encourage members of the public to get involved in party politics, while increasing funding and the membership base for parties. Ultimately, if more people give to political parties, more people will feel that they are engaging in the political process. That, not increasing state funding, should be the aim.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) concluded on a note that I would like to investigate on another occasion.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing the debate. The issue of party political funding can lead to the bandying around of insults between parties. Far be it from me to say that I am not capable or willing to engage in such banter; I could talk for hours about my views of the funding of the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), I will not mention Lloyd George; that would not take us far.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the work of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which recently published a report on the state of British democracy and attitudes to political parties, which gives us a flavour of public opinion on some of the issues. Unfortunately, public awareness of party political funding issues tends to fall into the usual tramlines of cash for questions, sleaze-ridden donations and allegations. We could get into a discussion about those, but that would not be helpful.
My personal view is that that is largely inaccurate and unfair with regard to political parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made the point that political parties are not, by and large, evil or nasty institutions—far from it. They tend to be pretty essential components of a healthy

85WH
democracy. If we are to have a successfully functioning democracy, we need political parties to be strong and to operate. They are of great importance, and it follows that how parties are funded is also of great importance not only to those who are elected, but to the public at large. That is why it is useful to have this debate.
The fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—now known as the Neill committee—entitled "The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom", was published in 1998. That was the last large consideration of public policy on the subject. The terms of reference that the Prime Minister gave the committee were deliberately broad, so it looked into all aspects of party funding. It was a well-researched report, taking evidence from all around the world. There were 400 written submissions. It raised ethical questions about the standards of conduct in public life and also addressed specific public policy matters, including questions about the undue influence of political parties by large donors and, perhaps as importantly, public perceptions of undue influence.
The preface to the report stated that
"ignorance about the sources of funding has created suspicion".
To allay that suspicion, the committee recommended a series of measures underpinned by the seven principles of public life set out in its first report. The three most relevant were declared by the committee to be integrity, accountability and openness. I believe that Britain has a system that follows those principles very well.
The Government responded to that report with a White Paper, published in 1999, which was followed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, known catchily as PPERA, which was extensively considered in both Houses. In line with the Neill committee's recommendations, the Act translated those principles of transparency and openness into practice.
Sir George Young: The Minister said that the 2000 Act was in line with the committee's recommendations. He will recall that there was one recommendation that the Government did not accept—tax relief up to a certain limit on donations to political parties. If the Electoral Commission comes up with a similar recommendation, will the Government consider it with an open mind?
Mr. Leslie: Obviously, the Government always have an open mind on Electoral Commission recommendations, as the right hon. Gentleman should know. I will come to that point later, but it is important to recap the changes we have made in recent years, which I think have contributed to a healthier state of affairs for all parties.
The new regulatory system tightly defines those eligible to give donations to political parties, and it excludes, for example, donations from abroad. All donations of more than £200 have to be from permissible donors. Donations of more than £5,000 to parties or organisations and of more than £1,000 to branches of parties and individuals have to be declared and publicly recorded. It is a matter of record that the Labour party has, since 1995, published in its annual report to the national executive committee the identity of donors who have given more than £5,000. That may seem a basic step, but it actually represents a radical change in recent years in how parties operate.
86WH
PPERA also established the Electoral Commission with much fanfare. It was given, among other responsibilities, the duty of maintaining the register of donations and ensuring compliance with the system. The outcome of the introduction of that system has been a much longed-for openness and transparency.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall and others mentioned the existence of a certain degree of state funding through the funds created by PPERA, including the policy development grant, which was recommended by the Neill committee. There are also start-up grants to enable parties to adjust to the regulatory system introduced. It is also worth mentioning the Short and Cranborne moneys that are available to Opposition parties in the Commons and the Lords respectively, as has already been put on record. That money has introduced a realistic support for those parties, given the tasks that they have to undertake in Parliament and in developing policy.
It is important to recap some of the arguments that have been aired in this useful debate. No doubt, the Electoral Commission will be listening to it, as it is due to compile a report. It is possible to argue with great strength and conviction in favour of state funding. For example, it is argued that state funding could have a purifying effect because larger donations would no longer be necessary. State funding on a substantial scale could mean that parties were no longer reliant on large donations, which could remove any allegations of improper conduct. Another argument is that state funding could allow parties to perform their essential tasks more effectively, because they could focus on the key issues rather than spend their time chasing money or looking for funding.
There is also the argument raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and mentioned in an intervention by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the fact that, in some countries, there is a match funding arrangement under which donations from individuals are match funded either through tax relief or something similar. Paradoxically, the tax relief system encourages private individuals to donate small sums. The official Opposition referred to that matter, although I am not clear about their policy on it.
There are also significant arguments against state funding, which should not be dismissed lightly. For example, there is the argument that taxpayers should not be compelled to support parties with whose policies they may strongly disagree. We must address whether it is wrong in principle to compel taxpayers to donate to objectionable parties. Similarly, there is the argument voiced by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell that public funds are needed for higher expenditure priorities elsewhere. There is also the point that any public funding system will simply ossify existing party arrangements, favour the establishment and be biased against new entrants to the political realm.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about capping donations, and there is the question of whether an individual's freedom to donate should be constrained in that way, as well as that of how to balance the freedom to contribute with fairness between the political parties. I believe that the vast majority of donors to

87WH
political parties are not giving money in exchange for something, but giving resources for the good of their party without any expectation of personal gain.
Most importantly, the issue that we must consider, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for Southampton, Test, is the risk that reliance on state funding may remove an incentive for a party to cultivate its grass roots membership in order to raise money. We must be careful about adopting policies that could weaken local activism and participation. Any system that is developed should encourage local activism and grass roots involvement in parties. I would be reluctant to see a system that would make political parties lazy, London or Westminster-centric and not forced by regulations to reach out to the wider country.
There is a huge range of views on this matter. We know that the Electoral Commission is doing its work and we expect its report later this year. I am looking forward to seeing that report. It is going to review previous reports, consider systems in other countries and look at the case for public funding. We need to wait and see what the commission's views are. This is clearly an important issue, which we must continue to debate in—I hope—a calm and rational atmosphere, as we have today. I commend the hon. Gentleman for finding the time and opportunity for us to debate the matter today.

Further Education
11 am
Mr. Steve Webb: This is probably the first time in recent years that I have raised further education. FE is sometimes thought of as the Cinderella of the education sector, and it is important that that should not be so, as the Minister will agree.
My attention was drawn to the issue by an event earlier this month that affects people in my own and neighbouring constituencies: the decision by Filton college to close, or substantially reduce, an IT outreach course run at four centres in the Bristol area, one of which is at Bradley Stoke, the nearest centre to my constituency. I have informed the Minister's office that I wish to raise the issue.
It is to be expected that cutting an IT course will prompt a large number of e-mails. The course has clearly been well taught: I had many e-mails on the subject within moments of the staff being told about the changes. There is some confusion about exactly what is planned—about whether the course is being cut and about whether that would happen the next day, and there are more extreme versions of what would happen. It is not quite as dramatic as some believed, but the staff were told that within a couple of months, new entrants to the IT outreach course would cease, and existing students would have some continuing service until Christmas, but that was the extent of what was planned for the courses.
I want to allow the students on the course to speak to the House and to get the Minister's response. I shall quote several of those who contacted me to express the different facets of the problem. A student wrote:
"I am extremely dismayed that this valuable commitment to lifelong learning with regard to IT is going to be withdrawn".
I should explain that although numbers are lower this year than last, nearly 1,000 students attend the course at Bradley Stoke and more than a quarter are pensioners or people with disabilities, while many others are older people—not necessarily pensioners but more mature students. I shall return later to the matter of lifelong learning, which means not focusing just on teenagers.
To give hon. Members an idea of the age range of the students, I quote another student, who said:
"I am fast approaching the age of 76 and I find the courses stimulating and apart from that it is an opportunity to meet like-minded people. The environment is good and the tutors excellent … …I am putting to use the lessons I learned".
There is a breadth of age ranges on the courses, going up to the 70s and beyond.
I want to discuss the priority or otherwise given to older students, including pensioners. Older students get a lot out of the courses. I was contacted by someone who runs IT courses for pensioners through the college. She said that they say that the courses keep their brains alert and keep them up to date. There is evidence from the Alzheimer's Society that learning activities help to delay the onset of the disease, and that older adults' memories and decision making improved when they thought the tasks they were doing were relevant or when they were

89WH
held accountable for their performance. The lady who runs the courses found that to be the case with her students. She said:
"When they first joined they had difficulties sometimes in remembering, but they have considerably improved. This leads me to believe that additional funding for this age group would probably save the Health Service a great deal of money by not needing to care for so many elderly persons with Alzheimers Disease."
Part of the message from the college is, "We can't do everything. We've got to cut back on something, and that is what we are going to cut back on." But investment in that age group, and helping older people and pensioners to learn could have beneficial spin-offs in other areas and be a sound investment.
Paragraph 4.48 of the Government's Skills Strategy White Paper on the subject of provision for pensioners, states:
"We want to safeguard a wide range of learning opportunities for pensioners … we expect pensioners to benefit substantially from the arrangements for safeguarding funding for leisure learning, and that in all areas learning for pensioners would be one of the priorities to be pursued through the new planning and funding agreements."
That is significant, as the college's argument for cutting back on the course is that the group involved is not a priority group. But the Skills Strategy White Paper states that pensioners should be a priority. I appreciate that not everybody can be a priority, but the Government say that pensioners should be a priority group, and the experience of pensioners on the course in my constituency is that they have not been treated as such.
That affects not just pensioners but disabled students. One young woman with cerebral palsy is very upset about the course ending and has featured in a number of our local newspapers. She writes:
"The Flexible IT is a great environment because it is designed to be taken at the student's own pace. It helps to build my confidence."
The fact that people with cerebral palsy are actively involved in the course is obviously positive, and I am sure that the Government would be in favour of it. This is the sort of course where students who may need extra support can find it. The course is flexible, and the students can come when they need to—the staff have the time that they need. Such courses will never be profitable or carried out by a profit-making organisation, but they are still important.
A further concern was expressed about the short notice given for closure of the course—that is more about how the college handled the problem than about wider Government policy. One student said:
"Two weeks' notice is unreasonable especially for the hardworking tutors".
The college told me that it found out what it was getting from the Learning and Skills Council well into the financial year. It therefore had only a short period in which to tell staff, as it is obliged to do. The staff told the students, then the students came to me. It all seems to have happened at short notice. I do not know whether anything can be done to ensure that colleges know much earlier in the year where they stand financially, but in this case the college found out about its financial position very late.
90WH
As I have said, existing students can continue until December, but that is of limited consolation. One said:
"I can't believe that the doors will be shut in December. Now that I'm going to finish this course I would like to start another one, but I can't think about it now".
Merely to say that the course is running until December is of limited consolation to those who were getting into IT and wanting to do longer courses.
A similar point was made by another constituent:
"I have just enrolled on a course … to further my computer skills, and have now been told that the centre is closing within the next few months and I will no longer be able to complete the course".
A lot of students take a long time and do not do things neatly to schedule. That is the point of the course, so stopping on a fixed date will be a problem for them.
So far, I have stressed the social value of the course—the benefits to older people and to people with disabilities—but the course is also relevant to jobs and employment. One constituent who contacted me said:
"This centre provides excellent facilities enabling people who are not computer literate to become so. Those who have computer skills have the opportunity to enhance those skills greatly. These are skills greatly in demand".
Importantly, she continues:
"I myself am a teaching assistant within a local primary school and have found that computer competence is becoming more and more essential."
This is not just about retired folk having something to do in their spare time; it is about vital skills that benefit our children and the economy.
On the issue of relevance to the job market, another constituent said:
"The centre staff are wonderful",
and I want to put on the record the students' appreciation of the centre staff. She continued:
"The venue is accessible to people who would never enter a typical college"—
as it is an outreach provision; it is not on the college campus but at a community centre. She went on, saying that
"being able to attend has enabled me to return to the workplace with new qualifications at the age of 53. I am not alone."
Again, the importance of the course is not just for social or leisure reasons; it is relevant to the jobs market, and people who might otherwise be on the scrap heap are acquiring relevant skills.
I want to try to convey to the Minister the strength of feeling of the students. One wrote:
"I urge you to use your influence to prevent the act of educational vandalism. In this modern age it is essential that as many people as possible are given the opportunity to learn this important skill."
Feeling is very strong: the impact of the suddenness of the decision and how much people value the course is clear from that strength of feeling. The staff are

91WH
enormously valued and do a tremendous job. Some will be able to find jobs elsewhere in the college, but some may face redundancy. One student said:
"Kelly and the entire team at Bradley Stoke show professionalism, commitment, dedication to quality, helpfulness and patience"—
patience is a key word: a lot of the students need someone who will be that bit more patient. It may be expensive, but it is necessary—
"in helping everyone to attain their goal and achieve a qualification which will benefit them".
Again, this is a flexible course to which people can come when it is convenient for them. Every single quote I have read out has been from a different person who has contacted me, including this one:
"The IT centre is well appointed and offers a convenient and flexible way to study and its closure should be considered at the highest levels before a firm decision is taken".
That is part of the reason for bringing it to the Minister's attention today. I appreciate that colleges have to make their own decisions, but I am asking the Minister to take a personal interest in this case.
I could read out quotations all day, but I will not. However, I have a final one from a student in my constituency on the difference that the course makes to individuals. The person started in February 2003 and, interestingly, was told by the college that its aim was to have all pensioners able to use a computer. The person finished the course, took exams and wanted to continue. My constituent has written:
"It has opened up a new life to me, and others in our Group, and must not be allowed to close. I understand from Newspaper articles the college is focused on 16–18 year olds in line with Government priorities."
There is a sense among people on the course that somehow they do not matter. Despite the fact that the skills White Paper says that pensioners are a priority, these people feel that they are not.
The college's press statement about the decision to close the course to new entrants, headed "IT outreach provision", said:
"The Senior Management Team and the Corporation have given due consideration to the financial position of IT Outreach".
It says that the numbers are down, although there are still nearly 1,000 people at the Bradley Stoke site alone, and that the college is not covering its costs. I accept that—the money that it receives does not cover the cost of putting the course on. Critically, however, the statement says that the management team has considered the financial position
"in conjunction with its strategic importance."
What that says is that the college has other priorities and that the course is not important enough to continue. People feel offended by that.
I looked at the college website to see what its priorities and values are. It says:
"One thing's for certain—whatever you want to achieve in life, Filton College will set you off on the right road! Another important feature … is the fact that we're a community college."
92WH
The website also says:
"We get out into local cities, towns and areas to run courses … hold demonstrations and events and introduce people of all ages to the concept of lifelong learning."
So, the college website says that it goes out and does things for people of all ages, and it is true that the IT outreach course is not the only thing that it does, but the website also says:
"The College embraces diversity in all its aspects, and aims to employ a workforce and to attract a student body, which reflects, at every level, the community it serves."
The community that it serves includes many older and disabled people, but where is the provision for them? A further quotation from the website is:
"The College aims to ensure that all actual or potential … students are treated equally, regardless of age or disability".
That is not true. The students are being treated unequally because of their age. If they were 17, they would be fine, but because they are older, they are not.
I wrote to the college principal, who kindly replied. He said that the college has three priorities, which come from the Learning and Skills Council and, in turn, from the Department for Education and Skills. According to the principal, the "key priority areas" are 16 to 19-year-olds, basic skills for adults and work-based learning. The course in question does not fit into those. The principal then said:
"In light of finite budgets and infinite demands"—
which we understand—
"it is necessary to reposition our business to reflect the role being asked of us."
I do not think that the college is a business; I think it is a public service. I understand that it has to consider costs and be efficient, but the principal thinks that he runs a business. I do not, and I am worried that courses that are not profitable are being dropped because the business-minded approach says that as certain people are not a Government or college priority, they are therefore not economic. That is the wrong approach to education, and I hope and believe that the Minister agrees.
We have talked about the priorities coming from Government through the Learning and Skills Council. I have mentioned already what the skills White Paper says about pensioners, but the foreword signed by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and three other Cabinet Ministers says:
"Our ambition is to ensure that … individuals have the skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled."
So the Government's agenda is not just about jobs, jobs, jobs; personal fulfilment is important. The Prime Minister continues:
"We must motivate and support many more learners to reengage in learning."
That is what the IT outreach course does. He goes on:
"For too many people, learning is something that stops when they leave school. Learning new skills, at work and for pleasure, must become a rewarding part of everyday life."
One final quotation from the Prime Minister is:
"Creating a truly demand-led approach means reforming qualifications, reforming the way we fund colleges, and reforming the way we deliver training."

93WH
There is plenty of demand. There may be other sources of workplace-based training, but colleges are often the only place where courses such as the IT outreach course can be done. Where can someone who needs the extra time find such a course? I do not know.
I have a specific question for the Minister on funding. I understand that although FE colleges have been given the funding that they requested, they have been asked to do 3 per cent. more for it. Previously, if they delivered 97 per cent. of their target, they got the funding that they needed, but now they receive that funding only if, for that same money, they deliver 100 per cent. The colleges thought that they had been given long-term funding stability, but then discovered that they had to squeeze out a further 3 per cent. That is part of the reason why colleges such as Filton are considering the future of courses of that sort.
I hope that I have given a flavour of how important the course is to my constituents. They think that they should be as much of a priority as teenagers or folk who need basic skills. They think that that course is important, and I agree.
Although I am unhappy with the idea of colleges as businesses, I am not critical of the college itself. I pay tribute to the staff, who have done a tremendous job.
My constituents want to know what the Minister can do to help them. I know that if I were in the Minister's position I would respond to this debate and then go on to do something else, and might even forget about the issue. However, I urge him not to forget about the people who have contacted me. I ask him to intervene personally to try to ensure that courses of that sort, which are valued so much by my constituents, will continue to be available to them and to others like them in the future.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate. The issue is important; it concerns people, and most politicians are in this business because they care about making a difference for the people that they represent and for society in general.
The hon. Gentleman powerfully articulated the concerns of his constituents, and the impact and benefits that many of them felt that they had gained from participating in such courses. I agree that there must always be a place in our lifelong learning system for learning for leisure, pleasure or self-development, which is distinct from learning for employability and for direct tangible economic ends.
Over the past three years, since I have held the brief for education, I have spent a lot of time meeting adults for whom learning has not been part of their lives for many years, but who have gone back into learning later in life. I have seen how that can transform people's self-confidence and how people can experience what I describe as the dignity of self-improvement, which many of them have not had the opportunity to experience in an educational context.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is also true that for older people, this is as much a health policy as an education policy. It can make older people feel that they
94WH
have something positive to offer their communities, and that they can continue to develop into their 80s and 90s and beyond. There is strong evidence that that supports their physical and mental health.
People with disabilities should also be given the opportunity to fulfil their potential in the same way as everyone else, although that cannot always be achieved through conventional or mainstream means. There must be particular provision to enable people with disabilities to do so.
We accept the importance of that kind of learning in the context of lifelong learning. It might be worth reflecting on what has happened to the adult and community learning part of the lifelong learning budget. We have agreed a national budget with the Learning and Skills Council for 2004–05 of £207.4 million, which has increased from £206 million in the previous year. I believe that that demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding opportunities for lifelong learning that does not lead to qualifications.
We do not apologise for saying that the Government have to make tough choices about priorities on the adult skills agenda—we were supported on that issue by the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is the Government's responsibility to make those choices, and I shall explain some of the priorities in a moment. However, in that context, there must be a ring-fenced, protected place for adult and community learning—for learning for leisure that does not have a direct, tangible economic gain.
In the context of the courses in which the hon. Gentleman's constituents participated, he rightly says that people are very emotional about using a facility that they have got used to using, that they feel comfortable with, and where they feel that the staff are focused on their needs—positive and complimentary things are said about the staff. I totally relate to and understand that on a personal level, but I also accept that the college has a finite budget and that it has to make difficult decisions.
The college's argument with regard to the outreach programmes at Bristol Rovers and Bradley Stoke is that demand has fallen significantly in recent years and the courses have been running well below capacity. It has been willing to subsidise them for a couple of years, but, having reviewed matters, it feels that that is not the best use of its resources, because those resources are finite.
Liberal Democrat spokespeople and I do not differ on the human importance of lifelong learning and its centrality to the future of the country. Often, our only difference on these issues is about the pretence that the state never has to prioritise and make tough decisions and that there are never finite resources. To pretend to constituents that any country or college can be run in that way is to deny reality. That is my only real criticism of the presentation of today's argument.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asks what will happen to the learners involved. Fundamentally, that is the most important thing. Are we telling them that, as a consequence of these changes, there will be no access to IT learning in the vicinity of where they live or within a reasonable distance? That is not the case. The college assures me that learners will be able to complete their courses at the main college and then enrol on other IT courses. The college is also working with the local

95WH
learning and skills council to provide a mobile digibus service that will take IT training opportunities directly to the community.
If we look at ICT provision available in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, we find that there are other colleges. There are 15 learn direct centres and 18 UK online centres, all of which are a consequence of the investment that this Government have put into further education and lifelong learning, and specifically into ICT.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to take a personal interest. The personal interest I will take is that if that information proves inaccurate and if alternatives are not available to the individuals concerned, I will want to know about it. I cannot guarantee that every individual will be fixed up with a bespoke, on-your-doorstep service, but I am anxious that as many of them as possible continue to have the opportunity to access ICT courses within a reasonable distance of where they live.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister for that offer. He says that it is all very well for Liberal Democrats to say that everything is a priority, but I was quoting the Government's priority. They said that pensioners should be a priority, so why are they not ensuring that their own priorities are seen through?
Mr. Lewis: That is the disingenuous and inconsistent bit of the argument. Saying that the Government will protect adult and community learning as part of the skills strategy, which I have demonstrated that we have done this year, and saying that we regard pensioners as an absolutely top priority in terms of the adult and community budget, which is part of the overall lifelong learning budget, does not mean that every single existing course and centre will be kept open ad infinitum. That is the inconsistency and dishonesty I referred to. In every area, college principals have to make decisions.
I accept that colleges are public services, but like every other public service they have to be run in a business-like way. I hope that the Liberal Democrats who run local authorities expect the officers who run the departments to do so in a business-like way. I am sure that they expect that, because in the end we have to represent the interests of the taxpayers and to ensure that public money is spent appropriately. Everyone who runs institutions of any kind—not just governmental ones—have to make choices about priorities. My contention is that all the individuals affected are entitled to be emotional and upset, and to feel bad about the decision that has been made. It is his duty to advocate their interests. However, it is not right to go on to say that this demonstrates a lack of Government commitment to lifelong learning and to adult and community learning, or to ensuring that, as part of our commitment to that learning, the provision available to older people is central. The Government have ensured that nearly 1 million learners access ICT through learn direct, and a very high proportion of them are pensioners. We know that many pensioners are enrolled on college courses of one kind or another; sometimes they are doing quite basic ICT skills and sometimes more advanced courses.
My only difference with the hon. Gentleman is about the pretence that one or two centres closing is a demonstration of the situation on the ground not
96WH
matching what we say about national policy. That is a very deliberate Liberal Democrat strategy. If one examines the range of alternative provision available, one finds that there are still plenty of ways that pensioners can access such provision. No Government can say that everything is a priority of national policy.
I want to put this matter in a wider context. We have said that, in terms of skills and post-16 education, our priorities on where the state should put the bulk of its resources are straightforward: the education of 16 to 19year-olds, and of those adults who do not have basic skills or do not have up to the full level 2 qualification. There is massive consensus that that is an appropriate way for the state to prioritise its resources in the context of skills leading to economic objectives. There is also a ring-fenced pot of money specifically for lifelong learning, for leisure learning, and for quality-of-life learning.
That does not mean that the only people who matter are 16 to 19-year olds or those who do not have the equivalent of level 2 qualifications. It means that we will have to get additional income from employers, and from individuals in some cases, for other areas of educational and training provision. We are being clear about where the Government intend to put the bulk of their resources.
As for the skills strategy, we have also been clear for the first time that if we are to deliver, whether on the skills agenda or on the lifelong learning one, there must be a partnership of contributions from the state, employers and individuals. As we become clearer about priorities, that has implications. Even given that clarity of purpose and that focus in terms of the respective responsibilities of the social and economic partners on the skills agenda, adult and community learning still has a special and distinct place. The commitment to protect it is not just a national one.
We have said that we expect every local learning and skills council to secure reasonable delivery of adult and community learning provision in their local communities and, as part of that, to recognise that learning makes a much broader contribution for older people than merely a narrow educational one. As I have said, it is about contributing to people's mental and physical well-being and to their sense of being part of the community and of being active citizens. It also boosts intergenerational relationships. In lifelong learning settings, people of all generations come together and learn together. In a society where there is unfortunately a lot of mistrust and suspicion between the generations, that is important.
I understand the passion and concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I will, of course, take an interest in ensuring that, wherever possible, alternative provision is made available to them. However, he should not be disingenuous and pretend that any Government can prioritise everything or that if one centre closes in one constituency, that represents a dilution of this Government's commitment to adult and community learning or to the place that learning rightly plays in older people's lives.
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

Sudan (Peace Agreement)
2 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate. We have had a number of debates on Sudan in recent weeks, and the issue has been regularly raised with the Prime Minister, including this morning. I hope that this will be a well-informed debate because, by my reckoning, at least five hon. Members present have visited Sudan in recent weeks. Three weeks ago, the all-party group on Sudan travelled to Khartoum, to the Nuba mountains and to Rumbek in the south. On the Thursday and Friday, we went to west and south Darfur.
We witnessed a catastrophe in Darfur, which has got worse since the rainy season set in. We saw thousands of people who had been driven from their homes and were living in makeshift, inadequate shelters. They complained of hunger, and they lacked clean water, latrines and access to basic health care. Some of the people we saw may since have died, but everyone in the camp faces the prospect of death through water-borne disease over the next few months. Aid agencies were working heroically with limited resources and personnel, but in Darfur we saw thousands of people who need our help now.
In Kalma camp, I spent time playing with a ragged, rapidly expanding group of children who followed us everywhere shouting, "Okay". We shook hands and played some silly clapping and shouting games. They showed us a mobile phone, a radio and a camera fashioned out of clay. I have been in these situations a few times, and one feels that there is hope when children can still play. It is raining now in Kalma camp, and I desperately hope that those children are still all right. They should be—after all, they are the future of Sudan. Despite all the terrible things that we saw and heard, I believe that Sudan has a future.
I want to do something unusual and praise the Government of Sudan for some important things that they have done. They have joined the rest of the world in opposing terrorism. They and the Sudan People's Liberation Army have shown statesmanship, courage and leadership in bringing their country to the brink of a comprehensive peace agreement which, in the words of the Machakos protocol, aims
"to replace war not just with peace but also with social, political and economic justice which respects the fundamental human and political rights of all the Sudanese people."
Overcoming understandable feelings of pride, as well as suspicion of the international community, they have made a huge commitment to a political settlement in Darfur. They have accepted responsibility for ensuring the security of the people of the region and have acknowledged the desperate need for humanitarian relief.
It is often said that the Government of Sudan react to international pressure. I am sure that is true, but it is even truer that they react to international partnership, as demonstrated by the success of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development at Machakos and Naivasha under the wise chairmanship of Kenyan General Sumbeiywo. The careful diplomacy of the troika—the USA, Norway and, to the
98WH
Government's great credit, the United Kingdom—has also borne fruit. On our visit to the Nuba mountains, we saw the positive engagement of Sudanese armed forces and the SPLA with the excellent work of the joint monitoring commission. A growing relationship has developed out of the armed struggle that has cost two million lives over the past 21 years, enabling both sides to commit themselves to elections three years after a comprehensive peace agreement and, after six years, a referendum on whether there should be one Sudan or two.
Let us offer praise where it is due, encouragement where it is needed and criticism where it is justified. The criticisms voiced by the people of Sudan are justified, and let us pay them the respect of listening to what they have to say. Everyone on the visit was sceptical about the commission of inquiry on Darfur that was set up by the Government of Sudan. Many people in the UK would be sceptical if an inquiry set up by our Government reported first, and perhaps only, to the Prime Minister. However, the Sudanese Government inquiry reported only to the President. The chairman of the inquiry, the distinguished legal expert, Dafalla Al-Haj Yousif, said that
"perhaps Sudanese people should be allowed to show what they can do."
The Government of Sudan have an opportunity to show what they can do to relieve the suffering of Darfur. They have issued a joint communiqué with the United Nations; they have the support of countries such as the United Kingdom that have given £62.5 million for humanitarian assistance; and they have made commitments that they must fulfil. They have committed themselves to a ceasefire, to political talks—regrettably, they have stalled since 15 July—and to a comprehensive plan to enforce law and order and to protect their citizens. They are committed to provide 50 per cent. of humanitarian assistance from their own resources and to facilitate the delivery of relief and assistance. They have also agreed to accept human rights monitors, the recommendations of the commission of inquiry and the deployment of the African Union ceasefire monitoring mission.
The eyes of the world are on the Government of Sudan, but the people who can best judge how well they work with the international community to meet their commitments to their own people are the people of Sudan, who will pass judgment when they vote in three years' time. The Sudanese Government have a huge task in Darfur, but they must do much more. They, the SPLA and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement still have a comprehensive peace agreement to conclude. Discussions about security are taking place in Naivasha, after which final negotiations will be required on how the various elements of democracy will work. It is obviously important that matters are dealt with thoroughly and concluded properly. For some time now, our group and others have been aware of the frustrations of many parties and regional groups about what they consider to be the exclusion of many Sudanese people from the process. Earlier today, members of the all-party group met a representative of the SLA, the main rebel group in Darfur. I was horrified by his depiction of the Machakos and Naivasha protocols as agreements that related only to north and south disputes rather than to the whole of Sudan. I was

99WH
similarly horrified by his argument that the SPLA had shown that the only way in which to achieve progress is through armed struggle, designed to bring the Sudanese Government to the conference table and focus the world's attention on the gross underdevelopment of Darfur.
As we speak, there is conflict and massive displacement of civilians in western upper Nile. On our visit, we met representatives of the Beja people from the east of the country, who expressed indignation about their exclusion from the talks. It is a tragic and appalling irony that the Darfur conflict and crisis has arisen at a time when the whole of Sudan should be looking forward to a peaceful future. It is imperative that work gets under way to engage political parties, tribes, regional groups and the whole of civil society so that they can commit themselves to the development of peace, human rights, economic and social justice and democracy for the whole country.
We have been reassured many times that a comprehensive peace agreement will be signed, but it is vital that that happens soon. It is essential that groups throughout that vast country, which is the size of western Europe, learn of their Government's commitment to upholding the rights and aspirations of all their people so that none of them needs wage war again. The last thing that anyone needs in a country that has been at war for 38 of the past 49 years is more war. We should call on the SLA and the Government of Sudan to observe the ceasefire and to get round the conference table to hammer out a peace agreement in keeping with the Machakos and Naivasha protocols. They will need the assistance of the African Union to do so, but no one will benefit from the interference of other nations that wish to pursue their own interests. If Sudan is to make the transition from war to peace, it will need all the assistance that it can muster around the world.
During our visit, we travelled south to Rumbek, where the Sudan People's Liberation Movement is working to transform itself from an army into a democratic arm of local government. Nothing exemplifies the profound need for development more than Rumbek, as we discovered in a visit of only a few hours. A huge number of young people need education, the dirt roads are full of holes and the hospital—the only one for hundreds of miles—is massively under-resourced. The prison does not have effective walls, so people are held in chains, and there is no police force in an area where thousands of people have AK47s. In addition, the women's legal service urgently needs support so that it can represent women with very young children, who face imprisonment for adultery. The problems will doubtless increase in the short term as displaced people and refugees return to their homes from other areas in Sudan and from neighbouring countries across the border.
I commend the Government on their commitment to provide £150 million in development assistance in the next three years. One way of boosting the capacity of Sudanese public services in the short term is to encourage people who came to this country in the Sudanese diaspora but who now want to return to do so, even for short periods, so that they can pass on their skills and assist with the development of vital services.
100WH
Development and immigration services could combine to promote innovative schemes. Sudan has oil and other natural resources, and can export food if its people are given the chance to grow it. The Naivasha protocols on wealth sharing will ensure that some people who have never had anything will have something in future, but it is essential that that money is used well, not least so that Sudan can demonstrate that the debt relief that it undoubtedly needs will be used to meet millennium development goals and will not be dissipated. I hope, however, that there will be no question of debt relief until Sudan improves its human rights record.
In the capital of Khartoum the benefits of public and private investment are visible in tall buildings and the major roads that are under construction. We visited the city and saw an urban redevelopment scheme at the Wadi el Bashir camp for internally displaced persons, where there was a disgraceful abuse of human rights. The mud-brick homes of people who had fled from conflict up to 20 years ago and who lived on the margins of the city with day-labouring jobs had been demolished, the inhabitants reduced to living in shacks on top of the rubble. Latrines had been demolished in a hot country at the start of the rainy season, thus inviting a cholera epidemic. There was no discussion or consultation; there was only an armed guard on a bulldozer to enforce compliance. Democracy cannot come too soon to Khartoum.
I have been speaking for a fair amount of time, but I want to return to Darfur, where I hope the children are still able to play. I shall represent some more voices of the people who may still be there. One old man wept by his home of grass and twigs that was about the size of a coffee table. A woman was trying to live under a thorny bush. Another woman who had given birth two days previously was sick, as was her child, and they were trying to live under a piece of plastic sheeting stretched over some grass and twigs. One woman's baby had been injured as she fled through the trees from a helicopter gunship. A man showed me where the Janjaweed had shot him. Some Arabs told me how the Sudan Liberation Army had driven them from their homes. Some people told me that they are all Muslim, but that their tribes include Arabs, Africans and people who are somewhere in between. A village leader told me that they all wanted to go home, but could not do so until it was secure, and that they would not be pushed to return until they were convinced that it was safe. Some people told me that they would never return to their villages, because if they did so they would never feel safe again.
One man acknowledged that the heart of the problem is the age-old dispute between pastoralists and nomads to which there must be a negotiated solution. Another man said that it is a complex situation. One woman simply said to the international community, "Please help." The situation is extremely complicated, but we must help. The Government, Members of Parliament and, indeed, our constituents can all do so. Yesterday, the Disasters Emergency Committee' rightly launched an appeal for Sudan. I profoundly hope that the entire population of the United Kingdom will respond to that appeal and provide resources and money so that people on the ground can ensure that services are delivered to some of the most needy people in the world.
The all-party group believes that parliamentarians can play a part. We all have constituents who contact us about international development issues, and their

101WH
interest is most welcome. There is huge interest in international development and the problem of world poverty. We all have databases and lists of people whom we can contact. The all-party group will write to other MPs tomorrow to ask them to urge people in their constituencies to contribute to the DEC appeal. Such a transaction is, by its very nature, private, but we hope that MPs will have an idea of how much their constituents will contribute to the DEC appeal and that they will tell the all-party group. We could then say to the Government, "You are doing a great deal and have done a tremendous job of diplomacy. You are investing a great deal in development. Indeed, you are making the largest cash investment of any country in the world. You certainly outflank the other countries of the European Union, which need to do a great deal more. However, we want you to do more." We would appeal to the Government to make a contribution double the amount that MPs predict their constituents would contribute to the DEC appeal.
We can all do more to help the people of Sudan, and we must do more in the long term to assist the country's development . There is hope, and this is a crucial time for us to be involved in a positive and constructive way.
Dame Marion Roe (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches are due to start at 3 o'clock. Several hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. If speeches are kept reasonably short, everyone who wants to participate in the debate can do so.
2.20 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Dame Marion. I congratulate you on becoming a dame. I also congratulate the chairman of the all-party group on Sudan, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), on securing the debate so soon after our return from the country. I thank him, too, for being a brilliant chairman and for giving a speech that left little to be said, although I am sure that we will all say a lot.
My immediate reaction to the situation in Darfur is anger. I have said it before and I will say it again: since I was elected in 1997, this is the second time that there has been a major humanitarian crisis in Sudan and that makes me very angry. There are so many similarities between what is happening now and the situation in Bar al Gazal in 1997, which I witnessed. Even the Sudan Liberation Army appears to have connections, however tenuous, with members of the Sudan People's Liberation Army—it is certainly talking to them—who operated in southern Sudan and were among the combatants in the civil war there over so many decades.
There is a relentless flow of arms into African countries, especially Sudan. Wherever one goes, one sees little children in possession of arms whether or not they are child soldiers; arms are in all the villages. There are similarities between the Murahaleen in southern Sudan, who are definitely supported, aided and abetted by the Government of Sudan, and the Janjaweed in Darfur. They are nomadic, Arab tribes, who are armed and supported by the Government of Sudan. That might be denied, but it is reasonable to assume that what happened in southern Sudan is also happening in Darfur.
102WH
The Secretary of State is not present and nobody appears to have read the International Development Committee's very good report and investigation into the factors leading to crisis in southern Sudan in Bar al Gazal in 1997, yet similar things are happening in Darfur. Members of the all-party group find it strange that no one seemed to bother about what was developing in Darfur; all the signs were there but no one took any notice. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is fighting in Malakal in the upper Nile region. Could the same situation develop in upper Nile, as we are trying to deal with the problem in Darfur?
I am intensely angry that no development aid is going into Sudan, which is the size of Europe. It is as if we said that because there is civil war in Italy, for example, we must not give aid to the UK. That is the scale of things. For there to have been no development assistance or projects in those parts of Sudan that are not at war, is a very great error by the international community.
I am angry, too, because when we were in Sudan no one seemed to claim responsibility. The non-governmental organisations said, "Oh well, we knew but no one was listening", and the peace-process negotiators said, "We were concentrating on the peace process and we didn't know that things would be that serious in Darfur." The United Nations set-up that the group visited in Sudan denied all responsibility for or knowledge of what was going on. That was very depressing indeed for members of the all-party group; someone, somewhere could have alerted the United States and the UK negotiators even if the Government of Sudan had not been alerted or did not know what was happening. The situation has been going on for years. Why were they not alerted, and why did they not know?
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, the peace process is excellent; we are so thrilled with it. The agreement is for all the people of Sudan. It promises elections in three years and that all regions will be involved. It will affect all the people of Sudan; it will help the people of Darfur and of upper Nile. Why was it not sold to all the people while this process was going on? As the hon. Gentleman said, the exclusion of people in other parts of Sudan from the peace process while negotiations were going on was a great mistake.
The crisis in Darfur is portrayed as genocide, ethnic cleansing and as Arabs versus Africans. People rightly remember Rwanda, and want something to be done about the situation. People like simple solutions and soundbite descriptions, but everyone who has been to Sudan knows that the situation is hugely complicated. No matter how complicated it is, the fact remains that tens of thousands of people have died already, hundreds of thousands will die if the aid does not get through to them, and a million or more are displaced. Living conditions are appalling, as the hon. Gentleman said.
The Sudan Liberation Army, which was formed only in 2003—it is less than two years old—claims that it had to take up arms against the Janjaweed because the traditional attacks by the nomadic Arab tribes against the pastoral Africans were getting worse, and it alleged that that was being supported by the Government of Sudan. That has gone on for decades. When I visited the displaced people's camp in Khartoum, I saw people from Darfur who had been there for nearly 20 years. Everyone must have been aware of what was going on and of the fact that it was escalating. The SLA claims

103WH
that the Janjaweed are armed and encouraged by the Government of Sudan. As I said earlier, it is difficult not to believe that, because the Murahaleen in southern Sudan were certainly armed and encouraged by the Government.
When a SLA-led rebellion occurred, the Government of Sudan tried to put it down in a heavy-handed way. My reading of events is that the reaction was too heavy-handed, the Janjaweed were left to let rip, and the Government lost control of the situation and desperately needed help from the international community to deal with the crisis.
What must be done? There is no question but that aid must be provided to save lives. We must make the Government of Sudan stick to their commitments. Their written commitments, which are three pages long, are excellent, and contain all the things that need to be done. Some 50 per cent. of the aid needed will he contributed by the Government of Sudan, the transport of aid will be facilitated, the militia will be disarmed, and villages will be policed so that people can return to them. Please God let that happen, and let us help the Government of Sudan to make it happen.
The international community should also make its contribution, not just in aid but with more monitors and peacekeepers. We saw an excellent and impressive example of peacekeeping conducted in the Nuba mountains under a Norwegian general, General Wilhelmsen, who should be congratulated on the operation that he is undertaking there.
Can the African Union do the same thing? We are worried that the African Union peace monitors might not be strong enough or experienced enough. Is the international community prepared to strengthen the monitoring process in Darfur, once there is a proper ceasefire as opposed to a verbal one?
We must also sell the peace process to the rest of the Sudanese. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, we saw little pockets of wonderful things. We visited a clinic run by Médecins sans Frontières in a village in the Nuba mountains. It was brilliant and well run, and I would have been happy to work or be a patient there. Likewise, there has been a huge improvement in Rumbek since we were there two years ago. Things are beginning to happen. Admittedly, it appeared that the work was being done by non-governmental organisations, and it needs to be rolled out throughout Sudan. Another example was an excellent school in Rumbek run by UNICEF, so there are signs of development.
What we need is a Sudanese Marshall plan agreed by the United Nations, international donors and the Government of Sudan, because we must help. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned the diaspora, and I have to plug my charity, Afrimed, which was founded by Zeinab Badawi. It is working on that issue, trying to get people from the diaspora to go to Sudan to give help for a few weeks or months.
I make a plea to the Minister to consider the needs of the Arab nomadic tribes in Sudan. It is all very well to dismiss them as monstrous, raiding and killing Janjaweed or Murahaleen, but they are not doing it just for fun. Global warming, which is our responsibility, is
104WH
causing the desert to spread south in Africa, and people are running out of land on which to live and pasture their animals. It is difficult for them, and times are getting worse and worse. If we do not address their problem, there will be more strife and struggle as tribes from north Africa move further south, trying to get better conditions for their families and animals. We all know that a lack of development and diminishing land causes more war, that wars lead to more poverty, and that poverty leads to more war. The situation gets worse and worse.
Unless we address the issues, throwing aid at humanitarian disasters will be pointless. I know that that sounds cruel, but without long-term plans to help, our crisis appeals and humanitarian aid will mean only that people die more slowly. We must follow aid with proper development. Failing to act on the wider issues would mean that we could be as guilty of the charge of genocide as anyone. We must act.
2.33 pm
Mr. David Drew: Thank you, Dame Marion. I will take careful note of your strictures on time.
I am delighted to follow the chairman of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and the vice-chairman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). I cannot follow their passion, as I shall be talking about the security situation, but I sign up completely to the emotional way they put their case, the accuracy of which I know to be only too apparent, having visited Darfur in particular and Sudan in general.
I have two quick appeals to make to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and then I will comment more generally on security. One point comes directly from the meeting this morning with the representative of the SLA, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned. That representative made it clear that the talks with the Sudan Government could not take place in Addis Ababa because the SLA representatives had not been able to get their passports properly verified. Could that be sorted out quickly? The fact that they had Eritrean passports probably did not help, but they need to get to Addis Ababa very quickly. Without those talks, there will be no opportunity for a ceasefire or any way of bringing meaningful peace to Darfur.
We should also ask the SLA to make it clear on the ground that it is opening up the land that it appears to control to humanitarian aid. The worrying thing we learned from the NGOs was that they knew very little about the land under SLA control. We should also make it clear to the Government of Sudan that we believe, having visited the camps—I visited Kass, which is between el-Geneina and Nyala—that any attempt to move the internally displaced persons, for whatever reason, without their full consent would be totally reprehensible. From what we saw in Khartoum, I would say that the Government do not have a good reputation. People are scared to death, and the last thing they want to be told is that they must move, even if it is for their own security. They do not believe it, and I think they have every reason not to.

105WH
I shall quickly mention the wider security situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, we saw some very good things. The situation in the Nuba mountains showed that ceasefire monitoring could be effective. There is quite a complicated arrangement there between the three organisations: the verification monitoring team, the civilian protection monitoring team and the joint military commission. I shall not go through what each of them does, but within reason they pull together and seem to be an effective force on the ground. They are not great in number. The JMC, the organisation with which we spent the most time, numbers tens, not hundreds, of people, but because it can call on airborne movement it can get to places quickly, and it can work with other bodies, such as the CPMT, to examine outrages. All the evidence that both sides presented to us suggested that there had not been any serious outrages.
If the arrangement can work in Nuba, it can work elsewhere. The problem that I foresee, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park—who is my hon. Friend in this respect—is the difficulty of transferring what works in Nuba to the north-south dialogue and to Darfur. I have not yet written my report, so my colleagues cannot disagree with me on that, but I hope they will see where I am coming from. I am worried because we are moving from a scheme that seems to work to a situation in which the UN is being asked to take over in the Nuba mountains at the same time as it takes over the north-south monitoring of the ceasefire.
We need the arrangements in place sooner rather than later. A worrying thing, which we have seen in Rumbek, is that there have been outbreaks of fighting among people who had previously been on the same side, just because there is no effective policing and there is not as yet any form of monitoring of who has weapons, what they are doing with them and whether they can be persuaded to hand them in. We need such arrangements in place sooner rather than later, and that is as true in Darfur where we urgently need the ceasefire to take effect. We are all led to believe that there is a ceasefire, but it did not seem that way when we were there because the Government were still on the ground with their helicopter gunships, and it seemed that bombing was still continuing, even if to a lesser extent. The SLA is still there and has not given up its land.
We need monitoring troops on the ground, and we need not just military personnel, but civilians—a mixture of the two. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development returned from his visit to Khartoum, he understandably made great play of the fact that we would be paying for those monitors. It would be good to know what progress is being made on that. The sad thing that emerged from our trip a fortnight ago was that there seemed to be little evidence of real people coming in and little evidence that the expertise available from the Nuba mountains was being drawn on, other than with regard to what was happening as a by-product of the complications that we witnessed. We need the expertise in the Nuba mountains to be brought in, and we need real people, although not in huge numbers, who know what they are doing. That is the pressure on the African Union.
106WH
We already have a different process in the Nuba mountains from that in the north-south dialogue, and a third group—the AU—is being asked to undertake the monitoring in Darfur. The possibility for confusion and, dare I say it, disagreement over who pays, who does what and who makes sure that it is done properly is obvious for all to see.
It is on that point that I make my plea to my hon. Friend the Minister. We need to get the security situation sorted out sooner rather than later. Yes, we saw starving people and people who will die from disease, but the overwhelming cry from the people in the camps was, "We want security. We will not go back until we know that our land is safe." We saw the burned-out villages, so we can understand that.
We have to secure those people where they are at the moment, and give notice of the fact that we will make sure that the countryside is returned to peace. We must ensure that that carries on in the longer term. That is an enormous effort, and we are doing that not just in Darfur, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre says: we also have to consider the Shilluk Kingdom and the Red sea area, where tensions, and the Balkanisation of the country, are sadly all too evident. At the same time, as my hon. Friend rightly says, we have to pump in humanitarian aid, not just as a Government but as individuals.
2.41 pm
Ms Sally Keeble: I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for the way in which he secured the debate and has led the all-party group on Sudan. As he rightly says, the pictures that have horrified the entire world in recent weeks have been of a humanitarian disaster, but underlying and causing that is an acute political problem. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Africa is responding to this debate, because I think that he can give some assurances on the political points. They are the ones on which we will need progress if there is to be a long-standing solution to the problems in Sudan.
Quite often, we can remedy the immediate humanitarian disasters, and the country will stagger on, although the real problems that underlie what has happened have not been resolved. We have to make absolutely sure that our sympathy for, and response to, the plight of the victims of the crisis in western Darfur does not detract from a determined search for a political settlement.
Everyone present here and at previous debates on the subject is clear that the particular problem underlying what has happened in western Darfur is the attitude and activities of the Sudanese Government. There is also the difficulty of the long-running civil war in Sudan, which is the longest running in the world. If we think about it, the current generation in Sudan is probably the last that can remember a time when the country was at peace. If it does not seize the opportunity to restore some kind of peace, there will be a generation that has never known a country with any stability.
I went to Sudan shortly before the all-party group visited, and had quite a different experience—although we probably came to similar conclusions—because I came from the south after travelling around some other

107WH
east African countries. I spent a lot of time with people from the SPLM, and saw and heard about a lot of problems similar in type to those in Darfur, although they were on a much smaller scale. I also saw the continuing humanitarian problems in the south, which are getting worse because of the lack of peace, stability and a political process that will enable reconstruction and development.
Our country had a historical role in Sudan, and we therefore bear a heavy burden of responsibility for support in the current troubles. I pay tribute to the Government for being at the forefront, both in providing humanitarian aid and in their political involvement in the peace process. I want to make a couple of suggestions on what my hon. Friend the Minister could do to take that forward.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend and the Government will continue to provide a high level of support to Sudan to make sure that the peace holds. That refers partly to the provision of aid. It is not just humanitarian aid; it is transitional aid to support the peace process. I saw a country that had gone backwards and that was in a state of complete devastation; I do not think that I saw a single stone-built house during the whole time that I was there. I also did not see a single drop of tarmac. People were ploughing the fields with little hand hoes. I bought one in a market and brought it back. The agricultural revolution has been the introduction of a few ox ploughs.
In the middle of all that, some very able people, including some very able women, were preparing plans for what will happen once peace is established. They desperately need training, support and capacity building now, so that as the peace process proceeds they can start to put things in place. Although I understand that there are issues to do with providing development aid when there is conflict, the time has now come to move on from that. I ask the Minister to consider providing transitional aid and—perhaps more importantly— political support in order to regain the momentum in the peace process, and to ensure that that turns into proper peace programmes, so that the country can find a way out of what seems to be an increasingly fractured situation.
Colleagues have asked the Minister to ensure that there is proper monitoring of the peace. I also ask him to do that; it would be helpful if he set out how that would be done. Whoever provides that, it must be effective and properly resourced. I heard good reports from the south about the high regard in which the monitoring in the Nuba mountains was held. The monitoring needs to be not just north-south but east-west, in places such as the Shilluk kingdom and other areas where there have been profound difficulties. People need to feel a sense of security if they are to return home and do simple things such as planting crops. They must feel some confidence that they will be there to harvest and store their crops.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tightly hold the Sudanese Government to the agreements that they have made about the way that they will behave in western Darfur. When I raised issues about western Darfur in southern Sudan, people said, "Well, that is the way that the Government behave." There was a
108WH
profound sense of mistrust and insecurity. It has taken quite some time for the Sudanese Government to acknowledge their role in what has happened, and it is important that they are not allowed off the hook as the weeks pass. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some assurances about that.
I saw horrifying things when I was in Sudan, although I did not see quite the scale of things that colleagues saw in western Darfur. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre gave eloquent voice to some of the hardships that people have suffered. As we are politicians, we understand the relationship between politics and humanitarian difficulties, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give assurances about securing a peace process that is political and that delivers real and lasting peace to people in Sudan so that they can rebuild their lives and their country.
2.49 pm
Tom Brake: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). She made a measured contribution. I congratulate the chairman of the all-party group on Sudan, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), on keeping the focus on this issue both inside and outside this Chamber, and on piling the pressure on us as individuals about what we can do and on our Government and the international community. We need to keep the focus on Sudan and Darfur as the humanitarian crisis worsens.
Other Members also made valuable contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) raised the issue of climate change and desertification, which others have not mentioned. She highlighted the fact that even if the conflict were not taking place, we would have to tackle that substantial issue, for which we bear a degree of responsibility because of the pollution that we are creating.
It was appropriate that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) should have reminded us of the SLA's responsibility for ensuring that access is provided to the areas that it controls; parties other than the Sudanese and the Janjaweed are involved as well. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for making the additional funding available for Sudan—that is welcome, timely and appropriate. Members were right to draw attention to the launch of the appeal, which is now under way.
Certain people have characterised the Government's policy on Sudan as one of quiet diplomacy. Does the Minister think that a fair description? Perhaps the quiet diplomacy has been for public consumption, but I hope that behind the scenes there has been some loud and not so tactful diplomacy with the Sudanese Government. Regrettably, whether there has been quiet diplomacy or something much more vocal, the humanitarian crisis seems to be worsening and deepening in Darfur. Many leading commentators are now referring to genocide, although that may be a simplistic way of encapsulating the situation. I understand that the US Congress may be debating this matter at this very moment. It will come to some conclusions, during the next few hours or days, on whether genocide is taking place.
Many parties, including the Liberal Democrats, have called for a tough Security Council resolution that would include sanctions in Sudan if there were no

109WH
immediate improvement in the situation. I stress that the improvement should be immediate, because if ethnic cleansing is going on—and the satellite photographs suggest that it is—leaving it for a few more days is hardly an option: the ethnic cleansing might then be complete and the Sudanese Government or the Janjaweed might get their way. If the Government are not willing to go public on supporting a much tougher resolution, what further measures are they considering? The Secretary of State for International Development said on 14 July that
"we shall have to return to the Security Council to take further measures"—[Official Report, 14 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1394.]
When he sums up, will the Minister set out precisely what further measures the Government have in mind if there is no immediate progress?
It is regrettable that Darfur has not been included in the peace process. When we debated this issue on 9 June, the Minister stated that the Government's position was
"to ensure that the catastrophe in Darfur does not destabilise all the good work that has been done in the past couple of years to achieve a settlement between the north and the south."—[Official Report. Westminster Hall, 9 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 88WH.]
Nobody would want to jeopardise the peace process between the north and the south. However, separating the two—allowing the peace process to progress but the ethnic cleansing to proceed in Darfur—has perhaps been a mistake.
I want to ask the Minister a specific question. Given that the situation in Darfur is worsening and that there is growing evidence of the Sudan Government's involvement in supporting the Janjaweed and in carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing, does he believe that any peace can be achieved in Sudan if all areas of conflict are not included in the negotiations? Has the Minister had time to look at the Human Rights Watch report that came out yesterday? It says that it has in its possession official Sudanese Government and local government documents, dating principally from February and March, that clearly set out the Sudanese Government's policy, or at least the measures that the Sudanese Government intend to be taken on the ground. They relate to including the Janjaweed in some of the security committees and facilitating the return of some displaced persons to their original homeland and blocking the return of others. A strong body of evidence suggests that we cannot take at face value anything that the Sudanese Government say about their intentions, because back in February and March their intentions in relation to the activities of the Janjaweed were made clear in those documents. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Other Members have commented on the level of monitoring and the number of staff on the ground. There are something like 60 UN monitors and 300 peacekeepers from the African Union. Does the Minister consider that to be sufficient? Does he think that there is a case for a much larger presence and for human rights monitors to be dispatched to the region? If he does not think that that action should be taken immediately—in the next 24 hours or the next seven days—is anything being done to set things in motion should that become a necessity in the next few days or weeks?
110WH
The Government have made the welcome announcement of additional aid to the region. Although it is not part of the Minister's brief, I hope he will be able to say what safeguards are in place to ensure that that aid arrives in the right place and is not diverted. Perhaps there should be some conditionality between delivering the aid and delivering on the peace agreement.
Does the Minister think that there is a role for the UK in preparing a contingent of peacekeepers and monitors to be deployed if it is decided that genocide is taking place? It would not necessarily be for immediate deployment, but the planning involved in such measures takes weeks, months or possibly longer. What efforts are being made now? Is dialogue taking place with other European Union or NATO countries, or in any other forum, on that option?
The final issue that I would like to raise is oil. Looking at diagrams of the concessions in the Darfur area, it appears that there is significant potential for oil production. For instance, the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation has a substantial concession in southern Darfur. To what extent does the Minister believe that oil revenue considerations are playing a part in what is happening in Darfur?
The progress that has been made so far on the peace process is welcome. Its applicability so far to the Darfur region, however, is in doubt. I urge the Minister to continue to exert any pressure that he can from our Government in any international forums to make the Sudanese Government, and the other offending parties in this crisis, aware that the international community will not stand by and watch what is happening without taking appropriate action, which could involve military action if there is no resolution.
2.49 pm
Mr. John Bercow: Thank you, Dame Marion, and congratulations on your recent and deserved recognition. I join other colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing this debate, on presenting his and, to an extent, our findings with such eloquence, and on leading our delegation to Sudan with skill, charm and unfailing good humour. He will accept that he was assisted enormously by one person who has not been mentioned, but should be, and that is the co-ordinator of the all-party group on Sudan, Sultana Begum. She did a magnificent job; there was a thoroughly convivial spirit for virtually all the visit and it was an extremely worthwhile exercise.
Briefly, I would like to say something about the north-south accord and its prospects, and then focus my remarks on Darfur before hearing the Minister. The north-south accord is of course vital. Of course we attach importance to it and of course we are investing an element of hope in it because we know that without that process, disaster for the whole of Sudan is the alternative. That said, and an investment of hope though we have placed in it, there are real concerns about the fragility of the process.
I would like to ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the threat all the way along the line to the implementation of the north-south peace process as a consequence of those elements in Khartoum which are frankly opposed to the peace deal altogether; and what

111WH
assessment he has made of the additional factor of policy incoherence and a lack of capacity on the part of the SPLM/SPLA. Does he share the concern that militias will continue from time to time to be used by elements of the ruling party to undermine cohesion in southern Sudan, especially around the oilfields? If he does share that concern, will he provide some idea of how the Government intend to address the issue?
I would like to focus on the situation in Darfur, where several colleagues spent two days. The plight of people existing—I will not say "living"—in IDP camps in Darfur was probably more harrowing a sight than any I have witnessed in my adult life. There are 1 million people so displaced, but when one sees the people concerned one realises that they are existing in pathetic little shacks held together variously by pieces of stick, string or feeble plastic. As I think the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, those tents or shacks are commonly the size, in terms of length and breadth, of only a modest coffee table, and they are not very high either. It was common for us to see eight people in a paltry shack, of whom five or six would be children.
In the course of the visit, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) regularly drew our attention to the fact that there was a proliferation of families headed by females. There would be no male in the family, as he had been killed, was engaged in conflict or was elsewhere displaced, and one saw women in the most desperate circumstances seeking to keep body and soul together.
In essence, there are two major features of the process, insofar as public policy is concerned: the humanitarian response of civilised and concerned Governments, and the foreign policy response. On the subject of humanitarian responsibility and commitment, I will continue the non-partisan approach that I have adopted hitherto and say that the Government's humanitarian record is very good. I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on that today as I have done on previous occasions.
The British Government can hold their head high and be proud of the fact that they are the largest cash contributor in humanitarian terms and, after the United States, the second largest overall contributor. Good work is being done and, according to eyewitness accounts, humanitarian aid was starting to get through to the people who needed it. Food and some modicum of primary health care were being provided, and enormous credit is due to the NGOs for facilitating that effort.
On the humanitarian front, the problems are as follows: first, other Governments are ready and willing to explain at length why they are not doing more than they are doing—by implication, pointing to areas of the world where they are doing more than we are doing. I find that explanation, given by many EU ambassadors, singularly unpersuasive. In particular, the otherwise engaging and eloquent French ambassador was especially irritating on that front, talking about countries to which the French are contributing.
My response to that is that I am not interested. The crisis in Sudan is there, the challenge is now, the scale is enormous and the contribution that we can make as an international community by providing the aid in a spot
112WH
that probably exceeds anywhere else in the world in the scale and immediacy of its need is so great that talking about other places is not good enough.
Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Sudan, uniquely, aid is extremely expensive? Food that costs $200 a tonne to buy costs $1,000 a tonne by the time it is transported because the logistics of providing aid in Sudan are so complex, so there is a real need for volumes of aid and money.
Mr. Bercow: Certainly, volumes of aid and volumes of money are of the essence. That is part of the first aspect of the humanitarian deficit to which I alluded a moment ago. I said that there were two categories of problem. The first category is inadequacy of resource. The second is a logistical obstacle to the delivery of the aid. We continually hear reports—since I returned from Sudan I have seen others on UN and other websites—of local authorities that continue to demand travel permits despite the international commitment that the Government of Sudan have made to facilitate NGO access and delivery of humanitarian aid.
In addition, there is a genuine anxiety about Khartoum's 90-day registration plan, which makes many NGOs reluctant to increase the size of their asset bases in Darfur for the simple and understandable reason that they have no idea whether those permits will be renewed in due course. If anybody thinks that the humanitarian crisis will be significantly alleviated, let alone resolved, within 90 days, then they are, frankly, in need of medical attention. There is not the slightest prospect of that happening. That is why I am so concerned.
Let us talk about the foreign policy side of the equation. We are blessed—I say that sincerely—by the presence of a Foreign Office Minister. I understand exactly where the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is coming from on the subject. I think that because we are both humanitarians, we would both be inclined, when push comes to shove, to continue with humanitarian aid—even while recognising the downside of simply propping up a regime or slowing the process of death—because the alternative is even worse.
I understand why the hon. Lady has regularly made the point that aid is nothing like enough, and that it is self-delusory to suppose that it is anything like enough simply to chuck aid at a situation that is exacerbated and compounded not by natural disaster but by man-made design. That is what has happened in Darfur, in particular, and across Sudan.
In essence, one must decide whether one believes that quiet diplomacy—I pick up on what was said by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—or remorseless pressure is the best means by which to achieve progress in Sudan and, in particular, in Darfur. Of course that simplifies the argument, but the fact that there is complexity in Sudan, including in Darfur—the fact that it is not a straightforward Arab versus black African conflict—does not in any way absolve us of responsibility from trying to reach an overall judgment about the approach that is likely to be most productive.

113WH
I put it to the Minister that—I say this on the strength of my visit—pressure, pressure and more pressure on the Government of Sudan seems to be of the essence, both if we are to get commitments from the Government to behave themselves and if those commitments are to be monitored and fulfilled.
I remember meeting Minister Ismail, the Foreign Minister, who is generally regarded as something of a dove in that regime. As is often the case with Foreign Ministers, he is charged with the responsibility of making the Government's case in the international media. Of course, he was engaging and articulate and had responses to our inquiries—he would be an extraordinarily ineffectual Minister otherwise. That said, I found his arguments unpersuasive. He spent several minutes complaining to us about the BBC's representation of his Government's policy. His comments were thoroughly uninteresting, unpersuasive and typical of a Government on the run, making a patchy attempt to defend a not very good record.
The Sudanese Foreign Minister also spent a considerable amount of time telling us that his Government would simply walk away if the pressure became too great. In case that argument is still prominent in the counsels of the Foreign Office, I want to make the argument to the contrary. If the Government of Sudan were to be dissuaded from pursuing the north-south peace agreement simply because they were subjected to heavy pressure over Darfur, they cannot have much of a commitment to the peace process.
The international community cannot allow itself to be bullied into not taking a robust approach to the Government of Sudan on the grounds that, if we do, the modicum of progress that has been made will somehow be discontinued or suspended. We must be prepared to look the Sudanese Government in the eye and say that there is a carrot for their country—the provision of decent development assistance over a period to foster the peace process and to reconstruct the country—but that the international community is entitled to insist on vastly better behaviour.
We need a much more robust United Nations Security Council resolution. As the Minister knows, that is what the United States Administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others favour. The resolution must unequivocally condemn the Government of Sudan for the horrific human rights violations that have taken place in Darfur. It must insist that those human rights violations be independently, publicly and internationally investigated, that a guarantee be given—there was grave doubt in my mind about this when we visited Darfur—that people in the IDP camps will not be obliged to go home until the region is secure and it is safe for them to do so, and that the Government of Sudan will do all that they reasonably can to disarm the Janjaweed and other militias that are killing, threatening, raping and otherwise abusing the human rights of the civilian population.
We have a choice: do we take an approach of quiet but weary resignation or one of up-front and dynamic representation of what we believe to be right? I am an admirer of a humanitarian and activist foreign policy. We are debating Sudan and Darfur, and I will not in any way be deflected from that subject. I know that I will get into trouble with you, Dame Marion, if I do. Suffice it to
114WH
say that I am one of those who greatly admires the Prime Minister's stance on Iraq. I wish to take this opportunity to say that the Government must be prepared to do all that they can, within the United Nations, to intensify pressure for change. If that means indicating that, without change, a robust sanctions policy that does not operate to the detriment of the population but is deliberately and calculatedly targeted at those who are preventing progress will be applied to the Government of Sudan, so be it. If that means considering deployment of a UN protection force as a last resort, so be it. If that means contemplating a much more forceful approach than has been deployed so far, so be it. We cannot allow a situation in which, over a period of months, hundreds of thousands of people die who would not die if there were a definite peace, an adequacy of human rights monitors, a proper supply of ceasefire monitors and a disarming of the militias.
Mr. Dawson: I admire the hon. Gentleman's passion and commitment. Is he concerned that in advocating that stance he may play into the hands of groups such as the SLA, which would like to escalate the situation further?
Mr. Bercow: I have no desire to do that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am not saying that we are at the point at which military action should be taken, because there are problems with that, but it should not be ruled out.
I conclude by urging the Minister to press the Government of Sudan on one specific indicator of good faith: the inquiry into the commission of human rights abuses by Government bombing on the one hand and collaboration with Janjaweed militia on the other. If we do not press for a clear commitment of independent scrutiny on that front, we cannot hope for the wider progress that we need to see and that the people of Darfur deserve.
3.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had a constructive and useful debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue and for the measured tones in which he introduced the debate. I thought that the debate was all the better informed for the fact that about four or five hon. Members present have first-hand experience. I shall deal briefly with some of the points raised—I was asked a large number of questions, not all of which I shall have time to respond to—and then set out what I want to put on the record.
Several hon. Members asked about African Union peace monitors and the example of the Nuba mountains was mentioned. The British monitor, Mr. Rob Symonds, who is now with the AU in Darfur, helped to set up the joint monitoring commission in the Nuba mountains, so he has a lot of experience and will be able to bring some of it to bear in Darfur.
I was asked by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) whether the Government's policy was one of quiet diplomacy. It is not. No casual observer of our

115WH
pronouncements and activities over the past six months could think that our policy is confined to quiet diplomacy. We have made representations in public and private to all the parties at all levels of the Sudanese Government. I shall take the opportunity to say something about that again in a minute.
One or two hon. Members touched on the role of the Sudan Liberation Army, and they were right to draw attention to that, because it is sometimes overlooked. The SLA is a major player and has been attacking food convoys, taking hostages and stealing vehicles, even as the humanitarian operation has got under way. Its role should not be overlooked, although inevitably we have to focus on the role of the Government of Sudan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that in the end there must be a political solution and that it is not just a humanitarian issue. I entirely subscribe to that. We shall certainly do all that we can to bring the parties to the conference table. Talking of that, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that the SLA was complaining that it had had difficulty getting the Eritrean passports of its members acknowledged. That is the first that we have heard of that issue. We have been doing all that we can to encourage the SLA to make its demands at the conference table rather than as a precondition to going to the conference table. It has raised a number of points with us but not that one, and I note it with interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and others have been gracious in mentioning the role of the UK. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham for saying that we can hold our heads up high. None of us wants to be complacent; we all know that nobody has done enough or was on the scene early enough, but we have done more than most. We can, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the global scheme of things, hold our heads up high.
We have played a leading part in trying to resolve the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited Sudan, including Darfur, in June; the Foreign Secretary has had conversations with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the most recent of which was on 12 July; our ambassador in Khartoum, Mr. William Patey, has for a long time been making daily representations to the Sudanese Government at all levels on all the issues that we would wish him to raise—both political and humanitarian; the UK special representative, Alan Goulty, who has just returned from the region, had a meeting with President Bashir very recently; and I have had two long conversations with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, most recently at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa the week before last.
The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, both visited Sudan at the end of June, and during those visits the Sudanese Government made a number of commitments to improve the security situation and humanitarian access. They agreed to deploy more police to Darfur, to disarm the Janjaweed, to resume political talks, and to remove all obstacles on visas for NGOs. There are signs that they are—albeit belatedly—taking steps to honour those commitments. We have been pleased to see improvements in humanitarian access and the fast-
116WH
tracking of visa applications for NGOs. Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has instructed its embassies to facilitate visas for NGO staff for Darfur within 48 hours of application and to exempt them from all fees, and foreign aid workers in Darfur are now exempted from restrictions on movements of foreigners.
On the security situation, the Sudanese Government have announced the deployment of an additional 6,000 police from outside Darfur, and claim to have arrested 40 or so Janjaweed and begun the disarmament process. The UN has reported that some police have started to arrive in Nyala, el-Fashir and el-Geneina, and that there has been some limited removal of militias from areas around IDP camps in el-Fashir.
Together with the US and our EU partners, we have made it very clear that UN Security Council action will be needed if the Government of Sudan do not honour the commitments that they have given—so the international community will continue to monitor the situation closely in the coming days. Meanwhile, discussion of the US draft Security Council resolution and of the possibility of targeted sanctions continues. Given the urgency of the crisis—
Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have been asked to deal with a lot of points, and I think that other hon. Members would like me to put on record the Government's position.
Given the urgency of the crisis, it will, of course, be crucial to ensure that any Security Council action has a quick and positive impact on the ground. It is also important to ensure a balanced approach to the problem, as violations of the ceasefire continue on all sides. There are some signs that Janjaweed activity may be decreasing, but it is too soon to conclude that that is a genuine trend. In any case, rebel activity continues.
We consider the full deployment of the AU-led ceasefire commission to be key to improving the security situation. The deployment of ceasefire monitors in the Nuba mountains has, as hon. Members have observed, had a positive effect on the situation there, and we hope that the deployment of the AU monitors in Darfur will have a similar effect. As hon. Members may know, we have contributed £2 million to the initial setting-up costs of the AU monitors and the EU is making available €12 million.
It is early days, but more than 60 monitors and staff are in place in Darfur, and others are based in Chad and Khartoum; the UK monitor, Mr. Rob Symonds, arrived in el-Fashir last weekend. The AU plans to expand its presence next to el-Geneina and Kebkabiya. It has two helicopters in Darfur, and a third is on its way. Forty-nine vehicles are being fitted out in Khartoum before being flown to Darfur. Further aircraft are expected shortly. Access to fuel is problematic in such a remote area, and that is being addressed. The AU is also working on force protection arrangements and plans to deploy between 200 and 300 men for that purpose. The AU is already operational. Several investigations have taken place and we will take a close interest in the results of those.
Given our concerns about civilian protection and the human rights situation, we are also in close contact with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human

117WH
Rights. As hon. Members have said, there have been massive human rights violations by the Sudanese Government and the Janjaweed militia, which may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity. The report speaks of forced displacement, the arbitrary killing of civilians and rape. It is deeply disturbing, as is the recent report from Amnesty International. We and our EU partners have made it clear that reported attacks against civilians should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. We are also supporting the deployment of UN human rights monitors.
On the humanitarian situation, there has been significant progress on access and Sudanese Government procedures, although some constraints remain. The UN is now accessing some SLA areas for the first time. In all areas, small pockets of internally displaced people have been found. Disease is a growing concern throughout the region; as the rains have started, there is much to do and very little time.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced on 13 July that DFID was setting aside a further £28 million for the remainder of this financial year. That brings the total UK humanitarian assistance for Darfur to £62.5 million, which, as hon. Members have said, makes the UK the second largest bilateral donor—after the US—and the largest cash donor to the crisis. The size of that response highlights the UK's commitment to Darfur and to Sudan as a whole. However, the UN is still reporting a funding gap of $140 million. We continue to press other donor Governments, including our EU partners, to increase their contributions.
We are in close contact with the UN as well as NGOs on the ground. The focus must now be on building capacity. The UN is almost halfway through its 90-day action plan and it is continuing to scale up its operations. As my hon. Friend the Member for
118WH
Northampton, North said, only by addressing the underlying causes of the conflict will a sustainable solution be found. The political talks that got under way in Addis on 15 July concluded two days later having made little progress. The rebels set a number of preconditions before they would enter into a substantive dialogue and we are encouraging them to make their demands at the negotiating table and not outside it.
The peace agreement that emerges from Naivasha offers the best hope for the whole country. By offering the prospect of a truly decentralised federal system, it should help to address some of the root causes of the conflict in Darfur and elsewhere. Clearly, there can be no comprehensive peace in Sudan without a resolution to the crisis in Darfur, but with the peace talks at Naivasha at a critical stage, the international community must continue to push hard for progress on both issues in parallel—in particular on implementation, which someone asked me about a moment ago. We assess that there is the political will on both sides—north and south—to make the agreement work, but we recognise that it will require very detailed international pressure.
In the brief time available, I have tried to put on record what the Government are trying to do to deal with what we all acknowledge to be one of the worst humanitarian crises of recent times.
Mr. Dawson: I want to stress the importance of engaging other groups and organisations and civil society in that peace process. At meetings in London and certainly in Sudan, the fear that groups are becoming more and more alienated has come over loudly and clearly. We certainly do not want more groups to take up the armed conflict route that the SLA has followed.
Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.

Mr. Jim Hemingway
3.30 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this Adjournment debate on the case of a whistleblower, which I have found very disturbing and with which I have been dealing for almost four years. It might help the understanding of the case if I give some background information.
When Jim Hemingway first came to my advice surgery in autumn 2000 I had little idea that a case that seemed relatively straightforward would result in the bullying and victimisation of an employee of Leeds Metropolitan university simply because he chose to be public-spirited and to save the taxpayer a vast amount of money that would otherwise have been spent on items for which it was never intended.
Mr. Hemingway is an associate lecturer and unit manager of the film and moving image part of Leeds Metropolitan university—formerly the northern film school—which is one of the two great universities in Leeds. He worked there for almost 15 years, but in autumn 2000, he became concerned that European social fund moneys paid to the northern film school were not being used as they should have been. He was especially concerned that a firm of consultants had claimed 10 per cent. of the moneys for which it had successfully applied as its consultancy fee, something that was expressly excluded under the terms of the application.
On 29 August 2000, the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber wrote to Leeds Metropolitan university, after it had received a letter from Jim Hemingway, saying that it had been brought to its attention that the consultants' costs may have been claimed as part of the ESF applications and that the consultants were not eligible to do so. It asked the university to clarify the position. The consultancy referred to, based in Warwick, was called J & AB Associates, and on 28 April 1998 it invoiced northern film school for £16,152.96, which was 10 per cent. of the ESF moneys successfully claimed during that budgetary year.
In his memorandum of 21 March 1997, the then head of the film school said:
"We need to remind ourselves that we cannot claim consultants' fees from ESF, so in any spreadsheet it would need to be seen as a contribution towards production costs",
not as a consultancy fee. I stress that Jim Hemingway was not at the NFS in 1997. In subsequent meetings at the northern film school in Jim Hemingway's presence, topics such as how to hide the consultancy fees were discussed. That first alerted him and provoked his action to expose the mis-spending. In early autumn, Leeds Metropolitan university replied to the Government office that invalid consultancy costs had not been claimed from the European social fund money.
On 16 February 2001, I met the regional director of the Government office in Leeds to discuss Jim Hemingway's concerns that he was not satisfied with the accuracy of LMU's response to the question of consultancy. Three months later, the response was found to be incorrect. The regional director sent auditors into the northern film school after an initial
120WH
meeting with Jim Hemingway to discuss his concerns. The auditors found that the funding for the whole of two northern film school projects should be repaid—a total of £162,419—and that decision was accepted by Leeds metropolitan university.
In August 2001, Government office officials met officials from the Department for Work and Pensions's European social fund division and the special investigations unit to discuss possible further action to take against Leeds Metropolitan university. On 5 September, the Government Office wrote to Leeds Metropolitan university saying that it would need to look at other ESF-funded projects at northern film school. The reply, dated 24 September, said that LMU would, of course, co-operate with any further investigation and on 30 November officials from the Department for Work and Pensions ESFD and the Government office met the vice-chancellor and deputy vice-chancellor of LMU to discuss the measures required to restore Government office confidence in its audit and control procedures for ESF-funded projects. The aim was to ensure that the problems found in three ongoing and one completed northern film school projects were not replicated in other LMU ESF-funded projects and that LMU's internal audit procedures, which had clearly not picked up those problems, could be checked by the Government office to ensure that they were adequate. I should add that Leeds Metropolitan university has other ESF-funded projected totalling some £7 million per annum.
By the end of April 2002, it was clear that the amount that needed to be repaid as a result of Government office scrutiny, totalled £389,706 and that Government office officials were working closely with Leeds Metropolitan university's internal audit to achieve the aim of restoring confidence in the monitoring procedures. In early July that year, the Government office told LMU that the way in which it calculated overheads for ESF claims was unacceptable and that those costs would have to be recalculated. That resulted in a further repayment of £129,398. Leeds Metropolitan university had to repay more than half a million pounds—£519,104 to be precise.
So the public have good reason to thank Jim Hemingway, a man who risked his job to blow the whistle on practices at the northern film school that had implications for the whole of Leeds Metropolitan university and to stop the improper claiming of taxpayers' money and the reclaiming by the Government office of that money. Jim was, therefore, concerned when he started being victimised at work by line managers and other senior staff at the northern film school. On 24 July 2002, he contacted the Government office to say that, despite his name not being leaked to LMU, somebody at the northern film school had clearly found out, or guessed from the Government office line of approach, that it was he who had informed the Government office of concerns over ESF funding at NFS. Jim asked the Government office to help him by contacting the then vice-chancellor to request him to stop the victimisation. I agreed that a meeting should be held on 13 November 2002, initially between the vice-chancellor, myself and a Government office official, followed by a meeting with Jim Hemingway and a third employee of the university, should the vice-chancellor agree to that extra meeting. The aim was to try to

121WH
persuade the vice-chancellor to resolve the problems now facing Jim Hemingway as a result of his brave judgment to go outside the university to raise his justified concerns over ESF funding.
Why, then, did Jim Hemingway not use internal procedures at LMU to raise his concerns before contacting me as his MP? The answer is simple. Jim wanted to raise the issues that concerned him through LMU and never had any real wish to bring the matter outside the university. However, when he searched the LMU website before approaching me, he could find no mention of any policy about whistleblowers or public interest disclosures within the university.
Shortly after the meeting in November, Jim told the human resources employee relations manager of LMU that he could not find any internal policy on whistleblowing and asked whether such a policy existed. The employee relations manager told Jim that there was no such policy, but that he had raised Jim's particular case with the assistant dean for policy and resources at the faculty of health and the environment. A few days later, it transpired that such a policy did exist. Part of that policy explicitly precluded others from being informed of the name of the potential whistleblower. Yet, the employee relations manager had already told the assistant dean about Jim Hemingway, although he later denied ever having done so.
The prospect of the employee relations manager being made responsible for the conduct of the grievance procedure that Jim had instigated after being victimised and bullied by senior staff made it clear to him that he would not receive what he felt would be an honest hearing. Those involved in the bullying and victimisation were to be the very people involved in stages one and two of the grievance procedure. He had little confidence, therefore, that it would fair and equitable.
Since 2002, Jim Hemingway has consistently been bullied and victimised by members of staff, usually those in managerial positions above him, so that his working life has been made intolerable. That is why he wanted to tell the then vice-chancellor of the university exactly what was going on, and how his course leader and the assistant dean of the faculty had treated him after somehow finding out that he had been the whistleblower. The vice-chancellor's advice to Jim at the 2002 November meeting, at which I was present, was to continue with his grievance against his course leader despite Jim's intention to withdraw it.
Already concerned that he would not receive a fair hearing, Jim was alarmed to discover that the assistant dean did not even make notes of the preliminary stage of the grievance with the course leader, especially since the course leader totally contradicted herself in her written statement. The assistant dean allegedly forgot what had been said, although Jim's notes of that meeting, which were put immediately on file at his trade union, Unison, could easily have reminded him.
The main source of Jim's complaint about the procedure was that the assistant dean also forgot to tell the course leader not to speak about the grievance to other members of staff who were witnesses in the case, which she proceeded to do; that happened, despite its being one of Mr. Hemingway's main requests to the assistant dean before he would proceed. Jim and his
122WH
witnesses felt intimidated, especially when the course leader asked people to change their statements. In spite of the fact that Jim's trade union, Unison, was involved during the grievance, the result of the flawed grievance procedure was that the case against the course leader was unproven.
I have good reason to believe that the course leader used her position to manipulate staff and students for her own political ends and at the expense of the courses that she was meant to manage. I have many examples of statements, as well as e-mails and memorandums, from students and staff who supported Jim's case. The Minister may have that file after this debate.
The story of Jim Hemingway's whistleblowing is not uncommon. There is the celebrated case of Paul Van Buitenen, who is now a Dutch MEP. He worked for the audit department of the European Commission and exposed corrupt practices that brought down the Commission EUROSTAT in 2001. That famous case had a much higher profile and involved a great deal more money, but the principle remains the same. If someone employed by a large organisation risks their career to expose the misuse of funds and is then penalised for doing so, that cannot be just or right.
Jim Hemingway's case revealed not only the weaknesses of the internal auditing system at Leeds Metropolitan university, but the lack of any coherent and consistent policy within LMU to protect people like Jim. I call on the Minister to instigate, in response to my debate, a nationally approved policy for all higher education institutions in England, which deals with public interest disclosures or whistleblowing, so that in future people like Jim can be assured that they can report genuine abuses without risking vilification and bullying—and, in some cases, the loss of their jobs and careers. Public bodies should be pleased that people like Jim exist—people who, out of a sense of public duty, report their concerns irrespective of the cost to themselves. I hope that the Minister will assure me today that he will investigate the possibility of developing such a policy, which will be standardised throughout the country's universities.
I also want an assurance that the Minister will request that Leeds Metropolitan university rewrites its grievance procedure to ensure genuine impartiality. That could mean outside arbitration being used in the resolution of disputes between employees. That arbitration could be in the form of an individual from another university or from a faculty in the same university who was completely unrelated to the faculty subject to complaint. What is important is that such a grievance procedure is seen to be fair, just and equitable by all sides in any dispute. That was plainly not the case with Jim Hemingway.
I have been careful this afternoon not to mention the names of individuals involved in this case apart from the person central to it, Jim Hemingway. There is, however, one individual who deserves to be mentioned by name. Dave Wright was the Government office official who carried out the audit so carefully, found the moneys that had to be repaid and ensured that all parties were kept informed at all times. He should be commended for his excellent work in following up Jim's concerns and in helping the university to ensure that such a problem can never happen again.

123WH
Why do I need to raise this case again after two years, when the whole ESF question has been dealt with and the moneys improperly claimed have been repaid? I need to do so because my constituent has continued to pay the price for his honesty by continuing to be the victim of bullying by his superiors. The university denies that Jim Hemingway has been victimised, but the evidence contradicts that. Will the Minister read the file that I intend to give him after the debate? Will he or his officials be prepared to meet Jim Hemingway?
My aim today has not been to vilify or castigate one of Leeds's great universities. All eight Leeds MPs are proud of Leeds Metropolitan university and its older sister the university of Leeds. We wish them continued success. I pay tribute to LMU's previous vice-chancellor, Leslie Wagner, and to the university's new vice-chancellor, Simon Lee, who I know will proudly carry the university forward.
The film school now has new management. I hope that there is still a place in the school for people of integrity, like Jim Hemingway. I hope that, having improved their internal audit procedures so that the ESF issue can never arise again, the vice-chancellor and the whole university will improve their internal grievance procedures along the lines that I propose. I hope that the Government will look at a common system for dealing with whistleblowers in English higher education institutions. Only in that way can we ensure that our great universities, so important to the future of this nation, go from strength to strength.
3.47 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on securing this debate and on drawing my attention to this case. It typifies the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents. His personal involvement is a great credit to him.
I emphasise that I have not been involved in the details of the case. I became aware of it only in the context of this debate. My officials have since talked to Leeds Metropolitan university and to the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber to find out more information for the purposes of the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I am unable to respond about some of the specific details that he raised.
It is worth putting this case in context. Staff complaints in the post-1992 university sector, which includes LMU, are dealt with through the universities' own procedures. The Government have no role to play in this area, as we have no involvement in appointing staff in higher education or agreeing their conditions of service. Responsibility for ensuring that concerns are addressed directly and with appropriate discretion rests solely with the institution concerned. Universities are, of course, subject to employment legislation in relation to their employees. As employers they are also subject to the requirements of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was implemented to protect whistleblowers, such as Jim Hemingway, whom my hon. Friend rightly commends for his actions.
The Government are not involved in the internal employment issues of autonomous independent universities such as LMU. I am, however, able to make
124WH
some comments on this case on the basis of information that I have received. First, LMU has a policy that reflects the provision of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It put that in place in 2000 and revised it subsequently. I am told that it is available on the university's website. I heard what my hon. Friend said about the problems that Jim Hemingway had in finding that information. I understand from the university that Mr. Hemingway did not submit his complaint to the officer designated to deal with public interest disclosures. My hon. Friend explained why that was the case, but the result is that his case has not been dealt with through the university's usual procedures or in line with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was introduced to protect individuals like Mr. Hemingway. My hon. Friend said that that was because Mr. Hemingway was not aware of the policy when he made his complaint. I accept that point, and concede that that is a cause for concern that we need to address.
From the information that I have received, I understand that the concerns raised by Mr. Hemingway have been taken very seriously. Both the relevant Government office and my hon. Friend commended Dave Wright for his work, and the university has thoroughly investigated Mr. Hemingway's initial concerns about the inappropriate use of European social funds. The issue is relevant, and it was entirely proper for it to be raised. What happened was wrong. The problem has been resolved, as my hon. Friend said, to the satisfaction of the Government office and the university.
Mr. Hemingway's concerns were validated as a consequence of the investigation, which led to a significant recovery of public funds. That is a positive result. I understand that the investigation also led to another positive outcome, in that it prompted the university to revise its funding procedures to bring them into line with the policies and criteria required. I also understand that since Mr. Hemingway's meetings with the vice-chancellor of LMU and the dean of Mr. Hemingway's faculty, the university investigated Mr. Hemingway's other concern that he was being victimised at work because of his actions.
I have been informed that the university has taken remedial action in the past two weeks to assist Mr. Hemingway. I cannot go into further details about the specific nature of that action because it involves another individual who also has rights and is employed by the university, but I believe that my hon. Friend has already been informed about that development. I hope that the university's actions will enable Mr. Hemingway to pursue his chosen career with confidence and that they will lead to a satisfactory outcome of this difficult case.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that people who declare any malpractice at work are protected from persecution. That was the whole point of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. I was Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions when we introduced that Act, which sent a clear signal to all that the Government were taking the issue seriously. We continue to take it seriously. The Act promotes the public interest by protecting whistleblowers from dismissal and victimisation in specific circumstances.

125WH
The Act owes a great deal to the charity Public Concern at Work and its tireless advocacy of the whistleblower's cause. I am aware that the higher education sector is committed to ensuring that staff feel able to raise matters that could be of public concern. Universities, like other public bodies, have a duty under the Act to conduct their affairs responsibly and transparently and to take into account the requirements of their different funding bodies. They also have a responsibility to take account of the Nolan Committee's recommendations on standards in public life.
As the Nolan Committee showed, there is a clear link between whistleblowing and accountability—an issue that many organisations understand. Staff are often aware of things being wrong where they work, and we must enable people to speak out about misconduct in organisations without their being punished. There can be no accountability in the workplace if staff remain silent through fear of repercussions, and enabling staff to speak out within their own organisations is a benefit to those organisations. The Committee of University Chairmen has taken on board the Nolan Committee's recommendation, and has produced a guide for members of governing bodies on establishing whistleblowing procedures in higher education institutions. Unions also have a critical role to play by supporting and advising their members.
It is clear from my hon. Friend's remarks that he believes that the higher education sector is not doing enough in this area. Indeed, his first of five points to me was that we should have a nationally agreed policy. I have already said what the Government's role is in relation to staffing issues in higher education. On the specific requests to instigate a national policy on public disclosure for higher education institutions and to ask Leeds Metropolitan university to revise its policy, I have no remit. On grievance procedures, on which I took legislation through in a previous life, my hon. Friend knows that from October every workplace in the country will be entitled to have a grievance procedure, including a three or four-step procedure. That is as far as the Government can go to ensure that such issues, which are proper to internal discussion, fall into line with accepted practice.
I have no remit to fulfil those requests; they are not matters for the Government. As I have said, it is inappropriate for me to dictate to universities the detailed matters of their internal employment relations policies and practices, provided that they are in line with employment law. However, I can commit to contacting the relevant representative higher education bodies about the wider issue that my hon. Friend has raised. Universities UK and the Association of University Teachers are examining staff complaints in higher education in order to develop new internal machinery to deal with complaints from staff that are currently not covered, or that are inadequately covered, by
126WH
employment law, courts or tribunals. Although that might not cover whistleblowing cases, it should address wider staff complaints. I will bring this matter to the attention of those bodies, although I cannot prejudge the outcome of the process, as it will be subject to discussion between the two bodies in the sector, the employer and the unions. However, those developments will have an impact on universities' existing policies.
I am confident, from my hon. Friend's account, that the university is fully aware of the issues raised by this case. Like other higher education institutions, it will have to take account of future developments in the way it handles staff complaints. If staff cannot find reference to the internal procedure on, for example, public disclosure, it is in the university's interests to rectify that. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend pay tribute to the two splendid universities in Leeds, and I am sure that they will take full notice of the issues that arise from the case.
My hon. Friend asked me to commend Dave Wright, which I have done in passing, but am happy to do again. He is a splendid official and has performed particularly well in this case. My hon. Friend asked me to take the file and read it, which I will. He asked if I would meet Jim Hemingway. I would be happy for my officials to meet him, if that is what my hon. Friend wants, but it would be wrong for me as a Minister to become involved. I must emphasise that that meeting could not lead to any direct intervention in the case by the Government or my Department.
I shall reiterate the main features of the case that my hon. Friend mentioned. Jim Hemingway is still in employment and has not been dismissed. There is a difference between the university and the employee about whether he has been victimised. I hope that the actions during the past two weeks of the new vice-chancellor—although there is no criticism of the splendid Leslie Wagner, the previous vice-chancellor—have addressed some of the concerns. The crucial point about individuals such as Jim Hemingway, who did the right thing from a sense of public spiritedness, who was absolutely correct and who as a result saved the taxpayer large dollops of cash that were being misdirected, is that they should be applauded at every stage. We are determined to ensure that legislation is there to protect people in his position.
Leeds Metropolitan university is a good university that is concerned about its employment relations record. Everything that I have seen since becoming involved has suggested that it is determined to learn any lessons that it can from the case. There may be some disagreement, but Leeds Metropolitan university wants good employment relations in the same way as my hon. Friend and I want them.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the debate, and I hope that I have reassured him on some of those points.

Death Penalty Cases (British Citizens)
4 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Thank you, Dame Marion. You have a distinguished career as a Select Committee Chairman, but I have not before had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship in Westminster Hall.
I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), is in his place. He has a distinguished past as a campaigner on several causes: my researchers unearthed an early-day motion from 1988 in support of Kenny Richey—I shall refer to his case later—on which the Minister's was the first name to appear. The Minister is now above such things as early-day motions, but it is reassuring to those of us who have not yet ascended to such dizzy heights, and may never do so, that someone of the hon. Gentleman's convictions has managed to get where he is.
The debate should be an opportunity to discuss in broad and general terms the Government's policy and practice in relation to representations made to foreign Governments on behalf of United Kingdom citizens facing the death penalty abroad. My interest in the subject was initially engaged as a result of my involvement in the campaign to save Kenny Richey, a fellow Scot, who is currently on death row in Ohio. In February, courtesy of Amnesty International—the appropriate entries have been made in the Register of Members' Interests—I visited Mr. Richey and met representatives of the consular office in Chicago, who were helpful and supportive. I place on record my gratitude, and that of Amnesty International's representatives, for the assistance that the consular office gave, at the time and subsequently, to Mr. Richey.
Before I went to Ohio, I was instinctively opposed to the death penalty, as many who would call themselves liberals—with a small "1"—are, but without getting too excited about it. I came away feeling very differently: if I am an anti-death penalty zealot now, it is as a result of what I saw and experienced in Ohio, and I make no apology for that. Capital punishment is inhumane and dehumanising for all concerned with it. Even if we in this country tolerate it in other countries, it diminishes us all.
I give credit where it is due and acknowledge that the Government have made significant progress in relation to death penalty cases involving British citizens. It is proper that we should contrast it with the record of their predecessor. In 1995, the then Prime Minister, John Major, flatly rejected appeals to intervene in the case of Nicholas Ingram, who was sentenced to death in Georgia. Clive Stafford-Smith, a lawyer who has substantial involvement in death penalty cases, said subsequently that he believed that had the British Government intervened in that case, Nicholas Ingram would still be alive. That illustrates graphically how important it is for the Government to get the policy right. "Life and death" is a term that is bandied around pretty glibly in this place, but this is one of the few issues we have to deal with whose outcome genuinely is a matter of life and death.
I welcome the fact that in relation to the two British nationals currently on death row in the United States, Government representatives have been increasingly
128WH
proactive in the past six months. Kenny Richey and Linda Carty have had visits from consular representatives, which contrasts most favourably with the consular support that was made available in the cases of Jackie Elliott and Tracy Housel. I hope that the increased level of consular activity is indicative of a more proactive Government policy. It is as appropriate as it is welcome. The Government have a policy of opposition to the death penalty. We do not extradite people to countries where they might suffer. The level of consular support is entirely appropriate and is a much more practical and direct demonstration of the Government's wider policy.
The Government have intervened to improve the medical treatment that Kenny Richey has received and I hope that consular pressure will be maintained to ensure that promised improvements are delivered. A system that keeps inmates locked in their cells for 23 hours out of every 24 will never be healthy. After 17 years on death row, Kenny Richey's health is suffering. He suffers from diabetes and sleep apnoea. When I visited him, he was using a home-made false tooth that he had fashioned from a plastic teaspoon. The health care offered by the Ohio state authorities to Kenny Richey is an affront to humanity. We would not be slow to object if it were a practice in a developing country and we should not be slow to object to it being practised by our friends in the United States.
While I acknowledge that great strides have been made in the Government's approach, some significant improvements could still be made. That was brought home to me during my discussions with organisations such as Reprieve and Amnesty International about the Kenny Richey case. In the course of my involvement with the Kenny Richey campaign, I have noticed that certain Foreign Office phrases tend to be repeated fairly frequently. It is often stated that the United Kingdom is against the death penalty
"in all circumstances and will make representations on behalf of British nationals facing the death penalty at whatever stage and level is considered appropriate."
The words "considered appropriate" are perhaps the key to unlocking any differences that we may have.
I hope that the Government will consider in more detail what they believe to be the appropriate stage and level at which to become involved in death penalty cases. Obviously, each case stands on its own facts and circumstances and each case is different, but I hope that the Government will take an overarching approach. They have a policy on clemency and involvement in clemency pleas. I am not sure whether that is a matter of record but, if not, I should be interested to know whether the Minister will undertake to publish it.
The people with whom I deal who have been involved in death row cases are consistent about the Government's involvement in one respect. The earlier the British Government's intervention, the better and more effective it will be. The general thrust of what we have heard from the Government in the past is that they are reluctant to become involved in an evidentiary legal process of another country. In the first instance, we can understand that that is a perfectly legitimate worry, but when we are dealing with subsequent and appellate stages the validity of that objection somewhat diminishes. There is a different case to be made for

129WH
involvement at the later and appellate stages as opposed to when a court is hearing evidence in the first instance when matters of reliability and credibility are at stake.
Human rights campaigners mainly accept that the Government are right not to become involved in the early stages. However, other avenues are open, and one that I have recently been involved with is the submission of amicus curiae briefs. They enable the Government to make it clear to the court that we are opposed to the use of the death penalty. The views of the United Kingdom Government are listened to and respected abroad. We could and should do more to take full advantage of that, and I hope that the Minister will explain the reticence that is sometimes apparent when an opportunity presents itself to register our opposition to and concerns about the death penalty in this way with different courts. I am aware that the Government filed an amicus brief in the case of Krishna Maharaj, but why is that the only case in respect of which they have done so? What criteria do the Government apply when deciding whether to file an amicus brief? Why do the Government never comment on the disquiet they—or, indeed, members of the British public—have about particular judgments? Reiterating our opposition to the death penalty in the abstract is one thing, but the Government have an obligation to draw attention to an unsafe conviction where that is suspected.
As well as getting involved at an early stage, it is vital that the Government's consular representatives act in the most effective way. There is a need to build relations with the correct people as soon as possible; that will depend on who in the state can grant clemency—the governor or the board of pardons and paroles, for example.
I turn briefly to people who hold dual nationality. Tracy Housel and Jackie Elliott were both dual nationals. Kenny Richey is a dual British-American national. There is some concern that the Government are more restrained in cases involving dual nationals. In February, the Prime Minister wrote to me in relation to Kenny Richey that
"under international law we have no right to demand consular access to dual nationals in the country of their other nationality".
That is undoubtedly the case, but can the Minister confirm that dual British nationals will receive the same assistance from our Government as anybody else who has British nationality, and will he accept that a dual British national is as British as anyone else, and as such deserves the same representation?
Capital cases are notoriously protracted. Kenny Richey has been on death row for 17 years. Not only can they be long drawn-out processes; they are also incredibly unpredictable. Decisions can be made in just a few days, or they can take a year. Therefore, can the Minister guarantee that the Foreign Office is always vigilant so that it can act quickly when decisions are made? What monitoring processes are in place? I was pleased to see in a letter from Baroness Symons dated 21 June 2004 that the Foreign Office has drawn up a
"comprehensive lobbying strategy, taking into account the possible outcomes of Mr Richey's appeal".
130WH
Will that now be common practice, and does that strategy include the direct intervention of the Prime Minister, should it be necessary? It will surprise no one that I have reservations about the judgment and character of the Prime Minister. However, the fact remains that in the United States in particular he is held in very high regard, and I have no doubt that he would be listened to if he were to make it his practice to lift the phone to speak to a state governor, or whoever else is appropriate, in order to ask for clemency, or to draw attention to any doubts about the safety of a conviction or to make any other representation. I have no doubt that that would be a telling intervention, far beyond anything that the Minister or I would ever be able to achieve.
As cases involving British citizens reach the end of their legal channels and clemency becomes the only possibility, the Government should be prepared to become vocal and visible in defence of British citizens. It is important that consular representatives be present at court hearings and that they are known to be present. The United States authorities, in particular, should be aware that our Government are monitoring cases extremely closely and have an interest in their outcome.
I shall consider briefly the way in which the Foreign Office works with those representing British people on death row. Clearly, the Government's first priority should be to work with the legal representatives of the citizen in question, especially in the country where they face execution. Surely, however, that co-operation need not be exclusive, but can be extended to those representing the inmates in this country.
Such cases inevitably attract press attention and other media involvement, and there is a role for organisations such as Amnesty and Reprieve. They have a wealth of experience and knowledge on which the Government could draw. What steps will the Government take to work constructively with such organisations and to see them as an asset, rather than a threat? I hope that the Government accept that it is in the best interests of British citizens facing the threat of execution that they should work constructively with such organisations and defendants' legal representatives in this country. Is the Minister content that such relationships exist between those organisations and the Foreign Office?
I am anxious to allow the Minister as much time as possible to reply.
4.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has raised an important issue, in which, as he kindly acknowledged, I have taken a personal interest over the years. He raised the form of words that we use, and funnily enough the first sentence of my brief says that the UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. We consider it a cruel and inhuman punishment, and no credible academic study has demonstrated any deterrent effect. Also, as we have learned over the years, this country has executed a number of innocent people. I recall that, of the 18 people convicted in connection with terrorist offences in the

131WH
mid-1970s, all of whom turned out to be innocent and in whose release I played a part, 10 would have hanged had we had the death penalty at the time. As Kofi Annan has said:
"The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process."
The UK removed the death penalty from its statute books in 1998, although it had not been carried out here for many years. The UK has also ratified protocol 13 of the European convention on human rights, which prevents use of the death penalty in all circumstances, including times of war. The UK is an advocate of worldwide abolition of the death penalty. Indeed, promoting its universal abolition has become one of the most important elements of our human rights policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked that we consider in particular the death penalty as it affects British nationals. I shall outline the general issues first and turn to the case of Kenny Richey later. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) announced to the House on 27 February 2001, the Government's policy is to make representations at whatever stage and level is judged appropriate from the moment that imposition of the death penalty on a British national becomes a possibility. That change reflects the fact that, in certain cases, the previous policy of waiting until all legal avenues have been exhausted was perceived as coming into play too late to have an impact. That was especially the case in the United States, where, as we know, the legal process continues up to the person reaching the door of the death chamber. Our policy extends to all categories of British national, including dual nationals in the country of their second nationality—people to whom we are not automatically entitled to provide consular assistance.
Seventy-eight countries retain the death penalty. Our lobbying efforts on behalf of individual British nationals in any of those countries are in addition to the more general lobbying that the Government regularly undertake to abolish capital punishment. Although international law does not prohibit the death penalty per se, it imposes certain limitations on its use. For example, it should not be imposed on juvenile offenders, and all those sentenced to death should have the right to seek commutation of the sentence. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the death penalty were imposed on a British national in violation of those limitations, we would be active in raising those issues at an early stage. If cases do not raise issues of international law, our lobbying focuses on our abolitionist position.
I have been asked when it is appropriate to make representations. The approach depends on the individual case and the country concerned. The timings and nature of representations are determined by when and how they would be most effective, and we take great care not to do anything that would be counterproductive or prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings. In the US, for example, discretion on whether to seek the death penalty lies with the prosecution. We therefore seek to engage with the prosecution at the earliest possible stage and persuade it not to seek the death penalty in the first place.
132WH
In other countries, such as the Philippines, the death penalty is mandatory for certain crimes and the judge has no option but to impose a death sentence. Our representations may focus on the possibility of clemency or commutation of the sentence, once all legal avenues have been exhausted. In all cases, we ensure that our representations are appropriate and that we are not doing something that would be better dealt with by the individual's legal representatives.
We are aware of 11 British nationals currently on death row overseas. A further six face charges that may attract the death penalty. In the last year alone, the Government made a number of representations on behalf of British nationals facing the death penalty. In the United States, for example, the British consul general in Houston wrote to the district attorney supporting a request from a British national's legal team for additional time to prepare a repeal case. In Nigeria, the British high commission has made representations to the attorney general and the state governor of Lagos about a British national sentenced to death for murder. The governor in that case has the power to grant clemency once all appeals have been exhausted. In Malaysia, the Foreign Secretary and the British high commissioner made representations to various members of the Malaysian Government requesting that they commute the death sentence for a British national convicted of drug offences. In all cases, we keep in close touch with the lawyers of the national concerned and our interventions are made in consultation with them.
We have developed other ways to help. First, in the Foreign Office consular directorate, the department responsible for assisting British nationals in distress overseas, we have created the post of human rights adviser, and we have seconded a specialist with a background in international human rights law to the FCO. The adviser takes the lead on all death penalty cases involving British nationals and seeks to ensure that we do everything that we appropriately can to prevent the death penalty from being sought or carried out.
Secondly, in 2002 the Foreign Office established a pro bono lawyers panel. The panel brings together some 60 UK solicitors and barristers who are experts in human rights and/or criminal law, and who are willing to work for free on behalf of British nationals facing trial proceedings overseas where there are human rights concerns, and that includes British nationals facing the death penalty. Obviously, those lawyers cannot themselves represent their clients in court, but they can operate effectively in an advisory capacity, working alongside a local lawyer. We have, for example, appointed a member of the panel to assist the British national sentenced to death in Nigeria.
Mr. Carmichael: While I welcome what the Minister says about local representatives in the country concerned making representations, they are presumably the same people who will be making representations on behalf of British interests in relation to a whole range of matters. If the representation were to come directly from Government in London, it might have a more substantial impact.
Mr. Mullin: I was talking about pro bono lawyers helping the local lawyer, but I also mentioned a case in Malaysia in which the Foreign Secretary and the high commissioner made representations. That sometimes happens, when we judge it appropriate.
We also consider what role the EU might play in helping to prevent a death sentence from being carried out on a British national. The EU is active in lobbying for worldwide abolition of the death penalty, and we work with it.
I welcome this opportunity to set out what we have done for Kenny Richey to date, and what we might do further, depending on the outcome of his appeal. It is worth noting that he became eligible for British nationality only in May last year, owing to an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. By that time, he had already been on death row for 16 years as an American national. Mr. Richey is now a dual British-US national and, as the hon. Gentleman said, British consular staff have been successful in requesting the right to see him. Mr. Richey is now able to raise his welfare concerns with us, which we follow up on his behalf.
Members of the British consulate in Chicago keep in regular contact with Mr. Richey's trial lawyers, and co-ordinate with them any representations made on his behalf. They are from a highly respected firm, and we have every reason to believe that they are professional and competent in their handling of the case. The British consul general recently raised our concern and interest in Mr. Richey's case with the Governor of Ohio, Bob Taft, and informed him that if Mr. Richey's appeal for a retrial is successful, we will lobby him further on Mr. Richey's behalf. Under the Ohio judicial system, the governor is empowered to grant clemency in death
134WH
penalty cases once all proceedings have been exhausted. He has said that he will be open to further representations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about amicus curiae briefs; we are carefully considering the recent request for the Government to submit one in Mr. Richey's case, and we are consulting his trial lawyers about that. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Government's criteria for deciding whether to submit such a brief. We take into account factors such as whether our intervention would assist and the nature of the legal issues involved. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Prime Minister would consider intervening personally. We will consider that at the appropriate time, but that is still some way off.
We recognise the important role of non-governmental organisations in promoting worldwide abolition of the death penalty and the campaigns that they run on behalf of individuals facing the death sentence. Their efforts are often instrumental in highlighting irregularities, particularly in those cases that may, in turn, feed into Government or EU co-ordinated representations. We value and respect the work of NGOs and are keen to work with them to co-ordinate efforts wherever possible. However, it is important to note that NGOs and Governments will take different, but often complementary, routes to achieve the same aims.
In conclusion, I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to working towards worldwide abolition of the death penalty and will do all that they can to help any British national, including Mr. Richey, who faces the death penalty.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Advertising
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money was spent on advertising and promotional literature for her Department's initiatives, broken down by year since 1997. [183810]

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

  £million

  2001–02

  6.6

  2002–03

  4.7

  2003–04

  2.5

  This includes communications on a wide range of matters, much of it necessary or beneficial to the public and the wide range of industries in which Defra has an interest, together with local government, voluntary organisations and other bodies.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board, with specific reference to the launch of the consultation on its status; and what discussions she has had with (a) farming organisations and (b) the TGWU on this subject. [184436]

  Alun Michael
  I can confirm that Ministers at Defra are fully committed to the continued operation of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales. The Board plays an important role in protecting the interests of agricultural workers including the migrant workers employed on farms.

  The Agricultural Wages Board as a non-departmental public body was last reviewed in 1999. There is no longer a requirement to undertake reviews at regular intervals and further reviews will be undertaken by this Department as necessary to confirm that the Board is delivering high quality services efficiently and effectively.

  Following the last review of the Board we announced that some aspects of the Board s operation would be modernised. We plan to introduce these changes through a Regulatory Reform Order. We do not intend
  240W
  to reduce the protection given to agricultural workers. However, one of our objectives will be to align the operation of the Agricultural Minimum Wage legislation and general employment law as closely as possible. This will lessen the burden on employers in agriculture and allow them to benefit from the more flexible approach available under the National Minimum Wage legislation (including the revised output work provisions that will be introduced in October).

  The Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty met representatives of the NFU and the Transport and General Workers Union to discuss detailed proposals in January 2003 and November/December 2004. This issue was also raised in a meeting with members of the Transport and General Workers Union on 24 June. A consensus on the way forward is now emerging and we hope to bring forward more detailed proposals for changes to the Agricultural Wages legislation before the end of the year.

  Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many copies of her 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. [183842]

  Alun Michael
  Defra does not have the information on how many copies were printed as the departmental report is published by The Stationery Office Ltd. which determines the print quantities, based on a commercial judgment, and receives all revenues.

  Defra is responsible for the design, editorial, typesetting and proofing of the document and the cost for these items since the formation of the department in 2001 are:

  £000

  2002

  17,512

  2003

  15,200

  2004

  16,993

  The report is available, free of charge, on the Department's website.

  Bottled Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the number of litres of bottled(a) sparkling and (b) still water consumed in the United Kingdom in each year since 2002; and what percentage was supplied in (i) plastic, (ii) glass and (iii) other materials. [184859]

  Alun Michael
  Figures published by Zenith International in the 2004 Sucralose Soft Drinks Report estimate that bottled water consumption in 2002 was 1,760 million litres, of which 83 per cent. was still and
  241W
  17 per cent. sparkling, and 2,070 million litres in 2003, of which 85 per cent. was still and 15 per cent. sparkling. Figures published by Mintel in its Bottled Water Report in June 2003 indicates that 79 per cent. of bottled water is packaged in plastic bottles, 20 per cent. in glass bottles and 1 per cent. in cans.

  Business Fines
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the average fine imposed on businesses prosecuted by the Environment Agency was in each financial year since 1999–2000; [184850]

  (2) how many businesses were (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully prosecuted by the Environment Agency in each financial year since 1999–2000. [184851]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table gives figures relating to Environment Agency prosecutions of registered companies. It does not include sole traders, who cannot be distinguished from individuals on the agency's database.

  Prosecutions of registered companies by the Environment Agency

  Financial year

  Number of successful prosecutions

  Number of unsuccessful prosecutions

  Average fine (£)

  1999–2000

  286

  10

  7,575

  2000–01

  307

  12

  6,737

  2001–02

  317

  7

  7,354

  2002–03

  325

  5

  8,356

  2003–04

  271

  2

  7,229

  Cross Compliance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will make a decision on cross compliance; and if she will make a statement. [185143]

  Alun Michael
  We will be making an announcement shortly on cross compliance conditions.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to delay the introduction of cross compliance; and if she will make a statement. [185144]

  Alun Michael
  We will be making an announcement shortly on cross compliance conditions.

  £000

  Processing and marketing gram

  Rural enterprise scheme1

  Vocational training scheme

  East Midlands

  3,021

  3,541

  297

  East of England

  998

  2,297

  303

  North East

  670

  1,882

  52

  North West

  1,264

  2,477

  453

  South East

  962

  2,408

  246

  South West

  1,255

  3,948

  451

  West Midlands

  1,090

  3,112

  367

  Yorks and Humberside

  758

  2,318

  211

  1RES funds are also available to non-farming businesses.

  Curry Report
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate Sir Don Curry made of the funding necessary to implement his Food and Farming Report; what funding she is making available for it; by what mechanism those funds are to be allocated among rural areas; how much will be paid to each region; how much will be used in urban areas; and if she will make a statement. [182561]

  Alun Michael
  Sir Don Curry estimated that implementation of that; recommendations in the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food would cost in the region of an extra £500 million over the following three years.

  The Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food (SSFF), which builds on the work of the Curry Commission, was launched in December 2002. As part of the 2002 Spending Review, the Government announced a sum of £500 million to implement the strategy. This is in addition to existing spending by Defra and other Government Departments which is already being used to deliver aspects of the strategy.

  The additional funding provided covers a number of major aspects of the strategy. These include the new Environmental Stewardship Scheme (Entry Level and Higher Level) and the IT system to underpin all the England Rural Develop Programme (ERDP) schemes; improvements in livestock traceability and other major animal health and welfare measures; and new food chain initiatives such as the Food Chain Centre and English Farming and Food Partnerships.

  Regional delivery of the strategy will be facilitated by many public body and industry representatives and these organisations will work together with both resource and funding support to deliver the vision set out in the strategy. They are making use of Government grants, industry support and the resources of Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies, as well as other Government bodies participating in regional steering groups. Existing support programmes. including the ERDP have been targeted to deliver SSFF regional action plans. Hitherto, land-based scheme budgets have not been managed on a regional basis, but they will be in future when the new ERDP IT system is rolled-out next year. Budgets for the three ERDP project-based schemes are managed on a regional basis, and the following table summarises expenditure on these schemes in 2003–04:
  243W
  Given the number of public and industry bodies contributing to regional delivery it is not possible to quantify precisely the level of support available to fund regional delivery. Implementation of SSFF is one of the core tasks of the Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies, and their funding from Defra reflects this. Funding for the Government Offices is provided directly by Defra. The current Defra contribution to the RDA 'single pot', administered by DTI, is to enable RDAs to address rural productivity issues, which are a key factor in achieving the outcomes of the national Sustainable Food and Farming Strategy. In addition, Defra is making a further £1.5 million available to the RDAs in the current financial year to assist with the implementation of regional delivery plans. New tasking arrangements for RDAs, which will take effect from April 2005, will include specific reference to contributing to delivering a customer-focused, competitive and sustainable farming and food industry.

  It is not possible to differentiate precisely between funds that will be spent in rural areas and funds that will be spent in urban areas, but it is clear that the vast bulk will be spent in rural areas.

  Dairy Cattle
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total number of dairy cattle in England was for the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what the estimated figure is for 2004–05. [184819]

  Alun Michael
  The number of dairy cows and heifers that have calved in England is shown in the following table for 1994 to 2003. Provisional figures from the June 2004 census will be available in a statistics notice to be published on the 16 September 2004 on the Defra website.

  Number of dairy cows and heifers that have calved in England 1994 to 2003

  Dairy cows (Thousand)

  1994

  1,897.0

  1995

  1,809.3

  1996

  1,783.3

  1997

  1,700.3

  1998

  1,642.6

  1999

  1,659.2

  2000

  1,575.3

  2001

  1,490.2

  2002

  1,462.2

  2003

  1,434.7

  Note:

  Figures prior to 2000 are for main holdings only, 2000 onwards include main and minor holdings.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total number of dairy farms was in England for the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what the estimated figure is for 2004–05. [184820]

  Alun Michael
  The number of holdings in England whose predominant business dairy is shown as follows. Equivalent figures from the June 2004 census will be published on the Defra website in early 2005.
  244W

  Number of dairy type holdings in England 1994 to 2003

  Number (Thousand)

  1994

  20.6

  1995

  19.6

  1996

  18.9

  1997

  18.0

  1998

  17.0

  1999

  16.3

  2000

  15.2

  2001

  14.1

  2002

  14.3

  2003

  13.6

  Note:

  Figures prior to 2000 are for main holdings only, 2000 onwards include main and minor holdings.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census.

  Dairy Farm Workers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total number of farm workers employed on dairy farms in England was for the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what the estimated number is for 2004–05. [184818]

  Alun Michael
  The number of employees on holdings in England whose predominant business is dairy is shown in the following table for 1994 to 2003. Equivalent figures from the June 2004 census will not be available until early 2005.

  Number of employees on dairy type holdings in England 1994 to
  2003

  Employees (Thousand)

  1994

  26.4

  1995

  25.6

  1996

  24.7

  1997

  23.4

  1998

  21.0

  1999

  18.8

  2000

  16.0

  2001

  14.7

  2002

  14.7

  2003

  13.4

  Notes

  1. Employees exclude farmers, partners, directors and spouses if they work on the holding.

  2. Figures prior to 2000 are for main holdings only, 2000 onwards include main and minor holdings.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census.

  Disposable Nappies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many disposable nappies she estimates were(a) used and (b) disposed of by (i) landfill, (ii) incineration and (ii) other means in each year since 2001. [184853]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not collect information on the amount of disposable nappies used nor of the disposal route.
  245W
  The Strategy Unit Report "Waste Not Want Not" estimated that in 2000–01 nappies comprised around 2 per cent. of household waste, equivalent to 350,000 tonnes. In 2002–03 75 per cent. of our household waste was sent to landfill and 7 per cent. to incineration.

  Domestic Waste Sites
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects her Department to publish the criteria for the treatment expected at the domestic waste sites which are to be allowed to accept cells containing treated toxic waste. [183796]

  Mr. Morley
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the provision in the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (as amended) that allows stable, non-reactive hazardous waste to be landfilled in a separate cell in a non-hazardous landfill site. The criteria for stabilised non-reactive granular hazardous waste are set out in part 3, paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 of the amended Regulations. Equivalent criteria for monolithic wastes are being developed and will shortly be issued for consultation.

  Eggs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the enforcement difficulties that led to the decision of the Council of Ministers to remove the derogation from marking for ungraded eggs. [184195]

  Alun Michael
  The Commission (supported by other member states, but not the UK), argued it was necessary to clamp down on fraudulent sales (eggs being sold other than by the producer) through markets. There is no evidence of any significant problems of this sort in this country.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact upon(a) egg producers, (b) small markets and (c) consumers of her proposed requirement for ungraded eggs to be marked. [184197]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has received over 3,000 inquiries from small-scale egg producers on the Registration of Laying Flocks Order and the Egg Marketing Regulations. All producers must register with departments in order to obtain an identifying code. Currently small producers with less than 350 birds are exempt from this requirement, provided that the eggs are ungraded and sold direct to the final consumer.

  Because of enforcement difficulties in other member states, it was agreed in November 2003 that part of the derogation from marking for ungraded eggs be removed. From 1 July 2005 farmers selling eggs from their own farms at local public markets will no longer be exempt from the requirement to mark their eggs, irrespective of the number of laying hens kept A Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment was prepared on this in November 2003.
  246W
  The cost for small producers to purchase the necessary equipment is low. A hand stamp can be bought for around £30. The time required to register as a producer and then to stamp eggs is unlikely to be significant. The majority of small producers appear to be satisfied that the costs are reasonable and can be borne comfortably.

  Some producers with fewer than 350 laying hens will therefore have to register for the first time, in order to obtain a distinguishing number. This measure had the support of the majority of other member states. Sales in farm shops and door-to-door do however remain exempt.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what penalties she plans to impose for a breach of the proposed requirement for ungraded eggs to be marked. [184198]

  Alun Michael
  If prosecution is required under the Egg Marketing Standards, then any person who fails to comply with any requirement properly made to him by an authorised officer of the Minister or of a food authority under these Regulations, or contravenes or fails to comply with any Community provision, will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 (currently £5,000) on the standard scale.

  We will encourage producers to comply with the new Regulations and provide any necessary advice. Our Egg Marketing Inspectorate will take a sensible and proportionate approach to enforcement. Prosecution will be taken only as a last resort.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 1 July 2004,Official Report, columns 361–62W, on egg stamping, what the (a) date and (b) nature was of the Council of Ministers meeting which agreed to remove the derogation from marking for ungraded eggs; and what legislation she plans to bring forward to implement the proposed requirement for ungraded eggs to be marked. [184199]

  Alun Michael
  The meeting at which the agreement was reached to remove the derogation from marking for ungraded eggs was an Agriculture and Fisheries Council which was held on 17 November 2003.

  The legislation anticipated to implement the proposed requirement would be The Eggs and Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Enforcement) (England) Regulations. We hope to bring these Regulations forward later this year, following formal consultation.

  Energy Efficiency
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the external costs associated with waste disposal, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [184582]
  247W
  Mr. Morley
  The Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management, published in May 2004 identified and quantified the health and environmental impacts of different municipal waste management options. A second related report, to be published shortly, will identify the economic values for the impacts identified in the Health and Environmental Effects review. Combined, these studies will provide a range of external costs for each municipal waste management option.

  Table C4. External costs and benefits of different waste management options

  Waste management option

  External cost estimate, £per tonne of waste, 1999 prices

  Landfill

  3

  Incineration (displacing electricity from coal-fired power stations)

  -17

  Incineration (displacing average-mix electricity generation)

  10

  Recycling

  -161

  Ferrous metal

  -297

  Non-ferrous metal

  -929

  Glass

  -196

  Paper

  -69

  Plastic film

  17

  Rigid plastic

  -48

  Textiles

  -66

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of fisheries management schemes employing individual transferable quotas and effort control, based on days at sea. [184817]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The most recent evaluation of various alternative fisheries management systems was carried out by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit and set out in their "Net Benefits" report published on 25 March 2004. We will be examining the Strategy Unit's findings in detail with stakeholders before settling how to take them forward.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural. Affairs how much funding has been allocated for flood defences in(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06. [184067]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government continue to recognise the importance of flood management and have agreed, as part of the recent Spending Review, to carry forward the significant increases in funding allocated in Spending Review 2002. Total Government funding of flood and coastal defence in England is planned to be £478 million in 2004–05 and at least £564 million in 2005–06.

  Fly-tipping
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will propose to the Environment Agency that it establish a national enforcement squad to specialise in detection and prosecution of incidences of fly-tipping, especially of hazardous waste. [183231]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has been working closely with the Environment Agency on proposals to help tackle fly-tipping. The agency already has a national enforcement
  248W
  These studies look at the direct impact of different waste management activities, but do not employ a full life cycle analysis to take account of, for example, the benefits of recycling.

  Table C4 in Appendix B to Waste Strategy 2000 Part 2 provides estimates of the external costs and benefits of different waste management options (Source: adapted from Coopers and Lybrand (1997)).

  concordat and enforcement officers who deal primarily with tackling investigation of serious, larger incidents of fly-tipping.

  Defra will work closely with the agency on efforts to increase the enforcement of illegally disposed waste by ensuring they have a comprehensive toolkit of powers to deal with fly-tipping.

  The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 gave the Secretary of State power to issue statutory directions to the agency and local authorities on the division of responsibilities for using their clear up powers to tackle fly-tipping. Defra has recently consulted on the proposed directions, which will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Environment Agency on fly-tipping; and what joint activities are being undertaken. [183707]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2004]Defra has been working very closely with the Environment Agency to tackle fly-tipping. Recent work has included bringing forward measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which allowed the Secretary of State to issue statutory directions to the Agency and local authorities to clarify the division of responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping.

  The ASB Act also led to the development of the Flycapture database, which the Agency has developed on behalf of Defra. The system went live on 5 April 2004 and take-up has been encouraging, with around 90 per cent. of local authorities registered in the first month.

  Defra are currently exploring with the Agency the possibility of developing a comprehensive training package tailored for local authorities. This will allow the Agency to pass on their experience in enforcement to local authorities ensuring fly-tipping is prevented and penalised accordingly.
  249W
  The Department will carry on working closely with the Environment Agency to ensure that they have a suitable toolkit of powers to properly tackle the illegal disposal of waste or fly-tipping.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to extend the requirement to report fly-tipping to fly-tipping on private land. [183226]

  Mr. Morley
  Section 55 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 set up a requirement for waste collection authorities and the Environment Agency to submit data to Defra on incidents of fly-tipping. The new database went live in April.

  Take up of the system has been excellent with over 90 per cent. of authorities registered but it is important to ensure that reliability and quality of current data sources is as good as possible before exploring extending the system. The requirements to report to Flycapture will be reviewed after the first year of operation.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will bring forward legislative proposals to make fly-tipping an arrestable offence. [183232]

  Mr. Morley
  Under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the illegal disposal of hazardous waste can incur imprisonment of up to five years on conviction on indictment. This automatically makes it an arrestable offence. Arrest without warrant can occur in relation to arrestable offences or in relation to nonarrestable offences in particular circumstances.

  It is open to question however, whether it would be possible to justify, by reference to the level of seriousness, making any act of fly tipping by itself an arrestable offence or one attracting a custodial sentence. However, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has indicated his intention under the Police Reform Act 2002 to conduct a public consultation on modernising police powers, which includes the intention to rationalise the powers of arrest.

  Hazardous Waste
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much additional expenditure the Environment Agency has allocated in 2004–05 to address unlawful depositing of hazardous waste. [183230]

  Mr. Morley
  The agency's expenditure on enforcement across all its activities amounts to £12 million per annum, funded through Grant in Aid. The Agency uses its judgment to prioritise its enforcement effort to deliver the best outcome to protect the environment and human health. Unlawful activity involving hazardous waste is an enforcement priority for the agency in 2004–5 and it will not hesitate to use its powers where evidence is obtained that may lead to prosecution in the courts.
  250W
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) businesses, (b) trade associations and (c) trade publications her Department has contacted to provide information on changes in the way hazardous waste is treated and disposed of from 16 July onwards. [184770]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: The Department has taken, and will continue to take, a range of measures to inform businesses of incoming legislation and their legal obligations as producers of waste.

  It is not possible t0 give a precise figure of how many individual businesses and trade bodies have been reached as a result of Defra and Environment Agency communications on this subject. A recent Defra survey, carried out among a cross-section of small businesses, showed a 78 per cent. awareness of the Landfill Regulations and an 84 per cent. awareness of the forthcoming Hazardous Waste Regulations.

  The Department works closely with other organisations who are better placed to disseminate information to businesses on our behalf. For example, Envirowise has produced a Hazardous Waste Guide for Chief Executives of small businesses, which will be distributed to over 13,000 businesses.

  The Department has also produced its own smaller leaflet called "Hazard Alert", which has been distributed to a wide stakeholder audience. In addition a dedicated hazardous waste web portal is available at www.hazardouswaste org.uk.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable(a) has operated until now and (b) has been set out for the future, for informing businesses of changes to the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste and the types of waste classified as hazardous, resulting from waste-related European Union Directives. [184771]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]The timetable for implementing changes resulting from European Union Directives usually takes several years, and businesses should expect and anticipate the regulatory changes from an early stage.

  To date, businesses have been informed about these changes through the negotiation of the Directives, via the consultation exercises undertaken on the implementation and regulatory amendments and also by means of stakeholder forums, such as the Hazardous Waste Forum.

  Since early 2004, a Defra communications strategy has been in place to inform businesses about the changes that are being introduced as a result of the Landfill and Hazardous Waste Directives over two years. As part of this function a dedicated website, widely distributed leaflet, a number of stakeholder events and relevant articles in the trade press have been produced.

  Communicating with businesses about these changes will continue while the waste-related European Union Directives are implemented.
  251W

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (Manchester)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Manchester, Central have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. [184172]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 2,889 households in Manchester, Central received assistance from the Scheme.

  Human Pesticide Poisoning
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the cases of human pesticide poisoning mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) in his broadcast comments on Farming Today of 17 June; in each case(a) who was the investigating agency and (b) what information from medical practitioners was obtained; and whose conclusion it was that illness was found not to be due to the effects of pesticides. [184435]

  Alun Michael
  It would be quite wrong for me to release the individual case details of the 60 incidents referred to in my broadcast. They were investigated by the Field Operations Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and detail of individual incidents is presented to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to inform the pesticides approvals process.

  Cases of alleged ill health caused by the use of a pesticide are investigated by the HSE or the Local Authorities. Reports are then submitted to the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel (PIAP) for their assessment. The membership of PIAP includes medical practitioners and a representative from the Department of Health. PIAP considers individual incident and case reports to identify if there is a link between exposure and ill health which may indicate a trend to inform the regulatory system. Medical records are only obtained from GPs and hospital doctors with the consent of the subject. PIAP considers clinical information as it is recorded in medical files.

  The details of the results and conclusions are available in the latest PIAP annual report available at:http://www.hse.gov.uk/fod/pir0203.pdf

  Landfill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she applied for a derogation from the EU Landfill Directive for the years(a) 2006, (b) 2008 and (c) 2018. [182988]

  Mr. Morley
  Article 5(2) of the EC Landfill Directive sets three target years 2006, 2009 and 2016 by which member states must reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfills in proportion to the amount produced in 1995. Under the Directive there is a four-year derogation from these targets available to member states that sent to landfill more than 80 per cent. of their collected municipal waste in 1995. The UK qualifies for this derogation.
  252W
  The UK does not need to apply to make use of the derogation. The Directive only requires member states to inform the Commission if it intends to make use of the derogation. The Government intend to make use of their derogation and will inform the Commission before each target year.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why the targets in the Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004 are measured by weight instead of volume. [182989]

  Mr. Morley
  The Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004 divide the UK's targets under Article 5(2) of the EC Landfill Directive between the four countries of the UK. The Directive limits by weight the amount of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to be sent to landfill from member states. The Regulations set the targets consistently with the way the UK's performance will be measured under the Directive.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the delays to the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. [182990]

  Mr. Morley
  The decision to delay the implementation of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme until 2005, announced by the Minister of State for Local and Regional Government on 19 November 2003, was made as part of Defra's contribution to helping to reduce spending pressures on local government in 2004–05.

  The decision reflected the views of local authorities, received through the consultation on implementing the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme, that more time was needed to prepare for this new scheme which is a significant departure from the normal operations of local authorities. The delay in starting the scheme will mean that waste disposal authorities will have to make steeper annual reductions in the amount of biodegradable waste they landfill in order to meet the first target year of 2010 but they will have more time to plan how to do this.

  The Government are using the additional time to raise awareness of the scheme within local authorities and to support those who plan to make use of its provisions. A series of regional events will be taking place later this month to explain the scheme to local authorities, waste management companies and other interested parties. In addition, workshops will be arranged early in 2005 to give local authority officers hands-on experience of operating a trading scheme. Written and electronic guidance material will also be made available.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's plans are to deal with biodegradable municipal waste which will not be permitted to be sent to landfill under the Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004; and whether she plans to permit an increase in the number of incinerators in the UK as a consequence of the regulations. [182991]
  253W
  Mr. Morley
  It is for individual waste disposal authorities to decide which waste management options to use to meet their statutory obligations in the light of local circumstances. The Government have no plans for the provision of any particular number of incinerators.

  Defra's Waste Implementation Programme provides waste disposal authorities with a package of support measures designed to help them meet their share of the national target for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill. In particular its new Technologies Demonstrator programme aims to establish five plants by the end of 2005 with a further five initiated by the end of 2006. The 10 plants will cover at least four different technologies either not currently available in this country or new to the industry, with a target of diverting at least 240,000 tonnes/annum of biodegradable municipal waste away from landfill. This should encourage the faster development and take up of new and innovative technologies.

  The Statutory Instrument specifies the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to be sent to landfills; it does not impose a ban on land filling above these permitted levels. However, waste disposal authorities responsible for part or the whole of the UK exceeding the maximum amounts set out in the Instrument will be liable to a penalty.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what increased funding will be given to local authorities to cover their responsibilities under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. [182992]

  Mr. Morley
  The cost to local authorities of meeting Landfill Directive obligations was addressed in the main in Spending Review 2002, which included increases to the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) block and PFI credits for local authorities.

  The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme is designed specifically to enable local authorities to choose the most cost effective way to meet their Landfill Directive targets taking account of local circumstances.

  The Spending Review settlement 2004 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 July incorporates additional targeted funding for waste management including an extra:
  £275 million in PFI credits for local authorities in 2006–07 and 2007–08; and
  £35 million in 2006–07 and 2007–08 for the new waste management Performance Reward Grant.

  These additional funds will enable further investment in sustainable waste management and encourage local authorities to meet their targets efficiently.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications of the Landfill (scheme year and maximum landfill amount) Regulations on incineration in England. [183035]

  Mr. Morley
  The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme requires local authorities progressively to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Incineration, with or without energy recovery, provides an alternative to landfill, as does recycling. It is up to local authorities to develop and implement a254W
  strategy for implementing the scheme to match their local circumstances, taking into account statutory recycling and composting targets and planning guidance, among other things.

  Waste Strategy 2000 provided five estimates of waste management options over the period 2000 to 2020. A 'base case' was modelled so that the additional cost of meeting the landfill targets for biodegradable waste and the waste strategy goals could be calculated. The other four models provided different mixes of recycling, composting and incineration and the additional capacity required for those facilities under each option.

  The actual figures for additional capacity can be seen in annex C in Part Two of Waste Strategy 2000 (table C8 on page 194). A copy of the strategy is in the House of Commons Library and can also be accessed through the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk)

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many waste landfill sites she expects to have received a permit to receive hazardous waste by 16 July. [183798]

  Mr. Morley
  Seven dedicated hazardous waste sites will have received a PPC permit to receive hazardous waste by 16 July. This figure comprises five merchant sites and two in-house sites.

  In addition to these, 12 sites are awaiting the final decision on their PPC permit application, but currently hold Waste Management Licences to receive hazardous waste. This figure comprises six merchant sites and six in-house sites. These sites will continue to be able to receive those hazardous wastes allowed under their Waste Management Licence.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money raised under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme has been diverted from local environmental trust distributors to the Treasury. [184644]

  Mr. Morley
  As part of the reform of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, approximately £84 million, £92 million and £92 million was allocated to a new public expenditure programme in England (the Waste Implementation Programme) for the financial years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. The purpose of this programme is to take action to enable local authorities and others to meet the requirements of Article 5 of the EU Landfill Directive to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled.

  Under the reformed Landfill Tax Credit Scheme approximately £47 million a year continues to be available for spending on local community environmental projects in England.

  Mobile Phones/Printer Cartridges
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) mobile phones and (b) printer cartridges were

  255W
  (i) recycled, (ii) reused overseas and (iii) disposed of within the UK waste stream in the most recent year for which figures are available. [184858]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not currently collect data on the numbers of mobile phones and printer cartridges that have been recycled, roused or disposed of in the UK waste stream.

  The Government will be collecting data on the amounts of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), including IT and telecoms equipment, reused and recycled to report to the European Commission when the producer responsibility obligations of the WEEE Directive come into force from August 2005.

  National Trails
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many National Trails there are in the UK. [185095]

  Alun Michael
  There are 15 National Trails in England and Wales and four Long Distance Routes in Scotland.

  Orchards
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional assistance will be available for orchards following the introduction of single farm payment; and if she will make a statement. [183830]

  Alun Michael
  The Commission has confirmed that it will carry over into the single payment scheme land in dual use such as traditional grazed orchards to be considered as forage rather than orchard land, subject to some conditions still to be clarified, and so that they qualify for payments. We are in the process of drafting detailed guidelines for the application of this guidance with the assistance of English Nature and the Forestry Commission.

  Subject to approval by the European Commission, grants to farmers and other land managers for the conservation and restoration of traditional orchards will also be available under the new Environmental Stewardship Scheme, which is to replace the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Schemes in 2005.

  Packaging Regulations
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to incorporate companies that fall below the minimum requirements only because of their franchise arrangements within the working of the packaging regulations. [183503]

  Mr. Morley
  This is a matter currently being considered by the Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP) and subject to their advice, the Government may 256W
  include proposals for amendments to the packaging Regulations in a packaging consultation document that we expect to issue next year.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure that free videos are incorporated into the working of the packaging regulations. [183504]

  Mr. Morley
  This is a matter currently being considered by the Advisory Committee on Packaging's (ACP) "Free Rider" Task Force. The Task Force will submit a best practice document for the identification and detection of free riders to the ACP later this year. Subject to the Committee's advice, the Government will consider what further action is needed.

  Pay Systems
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the most recent review of(a) her Department's pay systems, (b) the pay systems of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible and (c) the departmental equal pay action plan. [181346]

  Alun Michael
  Defra completed an Equal Pay Review and submitted this together with an action plan to Cabinet Office in April 2003. The review covered core-Defra and two of its agencies, Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for which the core-department has pay remit negotiating responsibility.

  The review found that there were no significant pay gaps within the department provided that Defra's multi-year pay settlement was fully rolled out for future years up to and including 2005–06. Defra is now entering the third year of the four-year settlement.

  The Equal Pay Review has been published within Defra and has been accessible to staff via the departments' intranet, Defra Online. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Senior managers will be considering the implications of Defra's Equal Pay Review Action Plan in conjunction with developing new pay arrangements for Defra for 2006 and beyond, following the end of the current multi-year pay settlement.

  Agencies

  Rural Payments Agency

  The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) submitted an Equal Pay Review and action plan to Cabinet Office in 2003 in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. A further Equal Pay Review has now been completed together with a revised action plan. This review and implications of the action plan on RPA pay systems is currently being considered by senior managers and the Trade Unions. Senior managers will be asked to consider placing the review and action plan in the House of Commons Library when the action plan is agreed.
  257W
  Central Science Laboratory

  The Central Science Laboratory completed its Equal Pay Review in April 2003 and the resultant action plan was submitted to the Cabinet Office in May 2003. The contents continue to be subject to consultation with the Trade Unions.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) completed an Equal Pay Review and submitted this together with an action plan to Cabinet Office in April 2003.

  The review found that there were no significant pay gaps as a result of gender difference. There were individual problems as a legacy from earlier pay arrangements; these were addressed in the action plan.

  The Equal Pay Review has been published within CEFAS and the results made known to staff. Implementation of the action plan is the subject of ongoing discussions with the Trade Unions.

  A copy of the Review will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency completed its Equal Pay Review in April 2003 and the resultant action plan was submitted to Cabinet Office in May 2003. The review found that there were no significant pay gaps as a result of gender difference. Implementation of the action plan is the subject of ongoing discussion with the Trade Unions. A copy of the review will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Non-departmental public bodies

  Non-departmental public bodies were not included in the Government commitment to carry out equal pay reviews by April 2003, although several have done so.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to extend post-marketing surveillance to pesticide products in the same way as for new medicinal products. [184449]

  Alun Michael
  The pesticide approvals process requires all approval holders to report any adverse effects to the Pesticides Safety Directorate. In addition a range of monitoring activities are carried out to ensure that pesticide products are formulated and used correctly. These activities include formulation analysis of pesticide products, label checks, and the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme. In addition a number of investigations are carried out by the Health and Safety Executive and local authority Trading Standards officers. Therefore, the Government have no plans to extend the post marketing surveillance of pesticide products.
  258W

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her strategy is to encourage the use of recycled fibre in the private sector. [184954]

  Mr. Morley
  Government recognise that it is not only important to collect materials for recycling, but to make good use of them. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) was set up by Government and the Devolved Administrations to help in this area. Their aim is to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products and to remove the barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

  Over the past three years WRAP have been working with a wide variety of businesses to encourage the use of recycled materials and also to find new uses for recycled materials.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total tonnage of waste collected by community recycling organisations was in England in each year since 2000. [183187]

  Mr. Morley
  According to Defra's latest annual Municipal Waste Management Survey of local authorities in England, the total tonnages of voluntary organisation recycling are:

  Thousand tonne

  2001–01

  35

  2001–02

  35

  2002–03

  37

  However, these figures are likely to be an underestimate as not all recycling carried out by community organisations is reported to local authorities.

  The results of the survey are based on information supplied by local authorities in England for the financial year 2002–03, the latest year for which data are available. A summary of the survey was published on the Defra website in April this year and can be accessed through this link: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/ 040429a.htm

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total value of contracts between community recycling organisations and local authorities was in England in each year since 2000. [183188]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many community recycling organisations were registered in England to collect waste in each year since 2000. [183189]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available. All organisations involved in waste collection are required to have a Waste Carrier's Licence or an Exemption to that requirement. The Environment Agency (EA) issues
  259W
  and regulates the licensing system but its records do not differentiate between commercial organisations, charities, community groups or individuals.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to tackle false claims of recycling achievements by the packaging industry. [183703]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2004]The Department, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Northern Ireland administration, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland has commissioned fact-finding exercises to establish whether there is any substance to the allegations of inappropriate issuing of Packaging Waste Recovery Notes (PRNs) and Packaging Waste Export Recovery Notes (PERNs) by some packaging waste reprocessors and exporters.

  The first fact finding exercise took place last year and investigated the wood packaging waste sector. On completion of the exercise, the fact finding team presented their findings in a report which can be found on the Department's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ topics/packaging/index.htm

  During the course of the exercise the team established that there were no inappropriate operations of the kind that might warrant criminal proceedings. However, some assumptions were being made, for example about the tonnages of packaging waste in mixed loads, that were unrealistic or were made on the basis of insufficient evidence. The team therefore recommended that the amount of wood packaging waste recycled in 2002 should be reduced by 76,400 tonnes. This was done.

  The second fact finding exercise is currently focusing on the plastic packaging waste sector and the findings will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the amount of recycling in London. [184279]

  Mr. Morley
  In common with all local authorities in England, London boroughs were set statutory national recycling and composting targets for 2003–04 and 2005–06.

  To help support achievement of these targets over the last two years, Defra has allocated £24.9 million from the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund to the London Recycling Fund, for a range of sustainable waste management schemes in London. A further £20.55 million has been awarded for 2004–05 to 2005–06.

  Twenty-two London boroughs included a sustainable waste management target in the first round of local Public Service Agreements (PSA). The second round of local PSA negotiation is now under way and four London boroughs have proposed sustainable waste management targets.

  I have also written to all local authorities offering direct consultancy support on waste management projects up to the value of £20,000.
  260W

  Set Aside
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will advise farmers of the rules for(a) set aside, (b) uncultivated fields and (c) permanent pasture; and if she will make a statement. [185145]

  Alun Michael
  With regard to set-aside, we will be advising farmers before the 1 August deadline. We will be making an announcement shortly on cross compliance conditions.

  Single Farm Payments
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to allow farmers to receive single farm payment in Euros; and if she will make a statement. [185233]

  Alun Michael
  The Government are committed in principle to providing farmers with the option of receiving grants and subsidies in Euros. The computer systems at the Rural Payments Agency that will deliver the single payment are being developed with that in mind, and I will make an announcement in due course.

  Stored Departmental Publications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183871]

  Alun Michael
  Defra regularly publishes reports, consultations and publicity material. The current list of titles published by the department and available to the public numbers 1,595, of which 438 are stored digitally and printed on demand. Publications are stored at Defra Publications, based in East Kilbride, Scotland.

  Additionally, The Stationery Office publishes a number of publications on behalf of the department and for these publications retention and storage is a matter for the publisher.

  The titles available are listed on the Defra website.

  Toxic Waste Disposal
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the cost to business of the stock-piling of toxic waste in the six month period following 16 July owing to the short-term shortfall of disposal capacity. [183797]

  Mr. Morley
  None. It is Government policy to ensure as smooth a transition as possible of the implementation of the requirements of the Landfill Directive and to avoid the need for storage of hazardous waste over and above that which normally occurs.

  Waste
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department will launch a public information campaign alerting businesses to their legal obligations as producers of waste. [183197]
  261W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department is taking a range of measures to inform businesses of their legal obligations as producers of waste. Defra has issued a code of practice and information leaflet covering the duty of care requirements which are set out in Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We are currently reviewing the duty of care regime which will result in a consultation later in the year and should assist in raising public awareness.

  With the forthcoming changes to the management of hazardous waste, a dedicated hazardous waste web portal will be available at www.hazardous waste.org.uk from the 16 July 2004. Other measures to inform businesses of these changes include leaflets, updated and signposted Defra. Environment Agency and Envirowise websites, press releases, case study material and a communication network, established primarily through the Hazardous Waste Forum.

  The Envirowise programme, which is partly funded by Defra, offers businesses in the UK advice on their legal obligations relating to waste, together with a range of support and guidance on waste minimisation.

  Defra and the Department for Trade and Industry are informing businesses of their obligations under the Packaging Regulations and the forthcoming Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations and End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Regulations. For example, during the implementation of the WEEE directive the Government have organised over 50 workshops to alert stakeholders to the regulations.

  Defra also supports the Environment Agency-led NetRegs project, which provides businesses with an online plain English guide to the environmental legislation that applies to them. and how to comply with it.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency will establish an online database to monitor flows of wastes and other materials through the economy. [183229]

  Mr. Morley
  Good quality data on waste is vital to monitor and evaluate performance, underpin planning and investment decisions and formulate strategy and specific policy interventions. Defra's Waste Implementation Programme has established a data work-stream to ensure effective co-ordination, provision and dissemination of reliable data on different waste streams, through the development of a national three-year data strategy.

  Already in place is the development of a web-based intranet and central database to provide quarterly data on municipal waste. Waste Dataflow (www.wastedataflow.org) has been established by Defra together with the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, and is widely supported. The system will provide more timely, efficient and accessible data than is currently available, helping to monitor progress against landfill directive targets. The Environment Agency has played an important role in helping to steer this project.

  Our medium-term aim is to develop an accessible central database of current (and where available historic) data on all waste streams, working closely with the Environment Agency.
  262W
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance her Department issues to business producers of waste on how to discharge the statutory duty under section 34 of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act and the extent of due diligence required of such a producer in discharging its duty. [183228]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has produced "Waste Management The Duty of Care Code of Practice" to offer guidance on complying with section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This is available on the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ management/doc/pd f/waste_man_duty_code.pdf

  Defra has recently re-issued a leaflet entitled "Waste and Your Duty of Care" which can also be accessed online at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/doc/index.htm

  A comprehensive review of the duty of care regime is currently under way which will result in a consultation and an updated code of practice.

  Water Voice Office (Exeter)
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is Government policy to close the Water Voice office in Exeter; and if she will make a statement. [185276]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]The Government's policy in relation to Water Voice regional offices is to take forward the recommendations made by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in its report on the organisational and regional structure of the Consumer Council for Water that was published in January 2004, and for an Implementation Steering Group, which includes representatives from Defra, WaterVoice and Ofwat, to decide on the location of merged regional offices for the new Consumer Council for Water.

  PwC recommended that the offices in Exeter and Bristol currently serving the South West and Wessex should be merged in to one office and located either in Exeter, Bristol or at a new site in Taunton. Following consultation with staff in Exeter and Bristol, the Steering Group agreed that the merged office should be located in Bristol.

  Waterways
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans does she have to ensure that the programme of investment on waterway infrastructure will meet the target of seven million tonnes of freight being transported on British Waterways navigations by 2010; and if she will make a statement. [183684]

  Alun Michael
  The target referred to is one set by British Waterways itself, rather than the Government. It is an ambitious target but that is greatly to the credit of British Waterways.

  We encourage British Waterways to facilitate waterway transport by encouraging the transfer of freight from roads to water where this is practical, economic and environmentally desirable. The Government will continue to provide grant in aid to support British Waterways' Corporate Plan and in

  263W
  particular to help it address its backlog of maintenance and so enable it to meet its freight and other objectives. British Waterways is also eligible for grants from the Department of Transport's freight facilities grant programme towards infrastructure investments that will lead to identifiable transfer of lorry movements from roads.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation (State Aids)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has made to the US Administration about state aid for the US aviation industry; and if he will make a statement. [183294]

  Mr. McNulty
  The issue of state aid has been raised in the negotiations between the European Community and the United States over a transatlantic Open Aviation Area. The new EU regulation on protection against subsidisation and unfair pricing practices by third country carriers, which has recently entered force, is designed to address unfair competition arising from subsidies to non-EU airlines.

  Canteen Facilities
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [185244]

  Mr. McNulty
  In 1996–97 the Department's restaurant services were provided by an outside contractor and the contract attracted a subsidy of £25,000. The Department also paid the accommodation and utilities costs. These were borne within the overall costs for the building (so separate figures are not available). The contract was re-let in 2000, it was let on a self-financing basis. This gave the contractor freedom to operate commercially and it obviated the requirement for a cash subsidy. The Department still pays the accommodation and utilities costs. Another contract has recently been let still under the same self-financing principle.

  Civil Aircraft (Safety)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) incidents and (b) complaints regarding the safety of civil aircraft the UK aviation authorities received in (i) 2004 to date, (ii) 2003 and (iii) 2002, broken down by (A) airline, (B) aircraft type and (C) country of registration. [184129]

  Mr. McNulty
  Neither we nor the CAA maintain a central record of complaints about the safety of particular airlines. We receive very few complaints from the public about the safety of airlines and these are dealt with as they arise. Appropriate action is taken if a complaint reveals any non-compliance with required standards.

  Article 117 of the Air Navigation Order establishes a Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) scheme for safety related incidents. The purpose of the scheme is to
  264W
  ensure that the CAA is advised of hazardous or potentially hazardous incidents and defects, and that knowledge of these occurrences is disseminated so that other persons and organisations may learn from them. This enables an assessment to be made by those concerned of the safety implications of each occurrence.

  Occurrence reports are an important part of our open reporting culture and the fact that an occurrence report has been made is not necessarily an adverse indication about the safety standards of an airline. The MOR scheme aims to ensure the safety of the UK industry but some reports, mainly relating to occurrences en route in UK airspace, do involve foreign aircraft.

  The tables, which have been placed in the Libraries of the House, set out the number of aircraft the subject of mandatory occurrence reports by state of registry and aircraft type for the years 2002 to 2004. Slight discrepancies exist between the figures because of the way data is recorded. Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 constrains the Civil Aviation Authority's ability to release information relating to individual companies that it receives under the MOR scheme. I therefore consider that it would be inappropriate for me to undermine those constraints by publishing a list of airlines whose aircraft have been the subject of mandatory occurrence reports.

  Diabetic Retinopathy (Driving Licences)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the minutes of the Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Visual Disorders' special forum on progressive and non-progressive retinopathy. [184634]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The minutes of the meetings of the Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Visual Disorders are published regularly on the DVLA website. At the last meeting the Panel suggested that a useful area of research would be a workshop on retinopathy. We are currently considering whether this initiative should be included in the Department's research programme.

  If approved the results of the workshop will be published.

  Headed Notepaper
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of printing departmental headed notepaper was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [185235]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: The Department does not retain records of the former Department of Transport's expenditure, and to investigate the costs of printing its headed notepaper in 1996–97 could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department for Transport's expenditure on headed notepaper for 2003–04 was £1,424.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how, under his proposals of 15 July, the borrowing of Network Rail is guaranteed. [185425]
  265W
  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: Network Rail's borrowing benefits from support arrangements provided by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). As announced to the House by the Secretary of State for Transport on 15 July 2004, the SRA is to be closed. Its financial obligations, including those in support of Network Rail's borrowing, will be transferred to the Department for Transport, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation. In the meantime, the existing SRA support arrangements will continue.

  Pay Systems
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [181356]

  Mr. McNulty
  A copy of the Department's equal pay action plan will be placed in the Libraries of the House once it is finalised.

  Transport Statistics
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the average journey time between central London and the centre of(a) Manchester, (b) Edinburgh, (c) Bristol and (d) Newcastle by (i) air, (ii) rail, (iii) lorry and (iv) car, including, in the case of air, check-in time at the airport. [182376]

  Mr. McNulty
  Data on journey times by mode between these cities are not held centrally.

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [183892]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport came into existence on 29 May 2002 following Machinery of Government changes. The total travel and subsistence costs for civil servants in the Department for fiscal year 2002–03 were £1,606,589, and for 2003–04 were £1,919,678. Information for earlier years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The totals for the Department's agencies in the same years were £18,696,176 (2002–03), and £21,975,803 (2003–04).

  All travel undertaken by civil servants in the Department for Transport complied with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British troops charged with torture or mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq could be tried in an Iraqi court under Iraqi law. [183244]
  266W
  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave on 1 July 2004,Official Report, column 432W, to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). British troops serving in Iraq have immunity under Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17.

  United Kingdom armed forces, wherever they operate in the world, are subject to English criminal law. They can be tried by court martial for acts committed overseas if those acts would constitute a criminal offence if committed in the UK.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and in what circumstances Ministers were first informed of the practice of hooding; what the nature of the practice was; and what the reasons were for its abandonment. [183944]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The hooding of detainees for the purposes of arrest or transit was a standard procedure for United Kingdom troops prior to Operation Telic and, as such, was not specifically brought to the attention of Ministers. The UK believes that hooding during arrest and transit is acceptable when there is a strong military reason, for example to offer security to our own forces and locations or to provide protection to the detainee (through the prevention of identification by other detainees).

  Military commanders became aware that the practice of hooding could be harmful to prisoners, especially if it was applied inappropriately. They judged that these concerns outweighed the military justification for the continued use of hooding as a means of blindfolding, and that the most prudent, immediate response was to introduce a ban.

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment were(a) awarded medals and (b) mentioned in despatches following their recent deployment in Iraq. [184500]

  Mr. Caplin
  Following their recent deployment to Iraq (from June 2003 to November 2003), four personnel from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment were awarded medals and two were Mentioned in Despatches.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2004,Official Report, column 721W, on Iraq, why he decided to publish the extracts from the document. [185600]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The extract contained the relevant information.

  Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he was informed in July 2003 that the SIS had, in that month, withdrawn reporting from a 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; [185656]

  (2) 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. [185691]
  267W
  Mr. Hoon
  I first became aware that SIS had withdrawn the reports as a result of the Butler Review.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the costs of participation in the European Rapid Reaction Force. [185202]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. National forces declared under the Helsinki Headline Goal are made available to European Union operations on a voluntary, case-by-case basis, as for NATO or United Nations operations. United Kingdom contributions to such operations are provided from within existing forces.

  Management Groups
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the responsibilities of the(a) Defence Housing Executive, (b) Defence Medical Training Organisation, (c) Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, (d) Policy Director, (e) Deputy Chief Defence Staff (Equipment Capability), (f) Chief of Defence Intelligence, (g) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (h) Internal costs, (i) Programme Account and (j) Nuclear Management Groups. [181747]

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

  (a) This organisation ceased to exist on 31 March 2003 when it was absorbed into Defence Estates.

  (b) This organisation ceased to exist on 31 March 2003 following the formation of Defence Medical Education and Training Agency (DMETA).

  (c) This Agency, owned by the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff Personnel (DCDS(Pers)), contributes to operational effectiveness through the provision of pay and administration services to Service personnel. In addition, the Agency provides direct support to the mobilization of reservists and the deployment of improved Operational Manpower systems.

  (d) The Policy Director is responsible for future defence policy and international security policy.

  (e) The Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment Capability) heads the Equipment Capability Customer organisation. whose role is to develop an integrated and affordable equipment programme that meets Defence capability requirements, and to drive the delivery of new and enhanced military capability.

  (f) The Chief of Defence Intelligence is responsible for the provision of defence intelligence to the MOD, the armed forces, wider Government and allies. His areas of responsibility encompass the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) including its agencies, the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency and the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre.

  (g) Training in security, languages, intelligence and photography takes place at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, who also provide advice on intelligence and security policy.

  268W

  (h) This Management Group was discontinued with effect from 31 March 2004. It has been merged with (i) Programme Account.

  (i) The responsibilities of the Programme Account Management Group are: the purchase of new equipment systems and associated weapons including major upgrade programmes and system procurement expenses such as studies and the management and funding of Defence Procurement Agency staff, accommodation and all related activities.

  (j) The responsibilities of the Nuclear Management Group are; to sustain a safe and effective Nuclear Warhead capability and to discharge MOD's liabilities for waste management and decommissioning at the sites of BNFL and UKAEA.

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

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the responsibilities of the(a) Fleet, (b) General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland), (c) Field Army, (d) 1st (UK) Armoured Division, (e) 2nd Division, (f) 3rd Division, (g) 4th Division, (h) 5th Division, (i) UK Support Command (Germany), (j) Joint Helicopter Command and (k) Land Support management groups. [181779]

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

  (a) The Commander-in-Chief Fleet ensures the Royal Navy carries out its responsibilities by delivering an effective and capable Fleet based on flexible support, the continuous development of people, organisations and capability and through the most efficient use of resources.

  (b) It is the responsibility of the GOC NI to implement policy in accordance with Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of General Staff Directives and to support the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the defeat of terrorism and in the maintenance of Public Order in order to assist HMG's objective of returning to normality.

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

  (d) 1st (UK) Armoured Division is to maintain and where possible enhance the Division's capabilities with emphasis on war in order to set the conditions for future success on operations.

  (e) 2nd Division is to provide the most effective regional command and infrastructure support to all formations and units within Scotland and the North of England in order to enable Commander Regional Forces to deliver the required military capability and infrastructure support to CinC LAND.

  269W

  (f) 3rd (UK) Division is to exercise operational command, train designated forces for war and other operations, and conduct operations as directed in order to provide military capability within readiness.

  (g) 4th Division is to deliver, and where possible enhance, both military capability and the provision of infrastructure support to designated formations and units.

  (h) 5th Division is to provide the most effective regional command and infrastructure support to all formations and units within its geographical area in order to enable Commander Regional Forces to deliver and, where possible, enhance the required military capability and infrastructure support to CinC LAND.

  (i) The mission of United Kingdom Support Command (Germany) is to deliver, and where possible enhance, both military capability and the provision of infrastructure support to designated formations and units.

  (j) Commander Joint Helicopter Command's primary role is to deliver and sustain effective Battlefield Helicopter and Air Assault assets, operationally capable under all environmental conditions, in order to support UK's defence missions and tasks.

  (k) Land Support Management Group exists to effectively manage the resources of Headquarters Land Command, and the overall Communication Information Systems requirement for Land Command.

  Missiles
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nations he estimates have(a) air, (b) land and (c) submarine-launched (i) cruise and (ii) skim missiles with a range of more than 20 nautical miles. [185574]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold the information requested on all countries.

  Entry level 1 and 2(%)

  Entry level 3(%)

  Level 1 (%)

  Level 2+(%)

  Sample size

  Literacy

  England

  5

  11

  40

  44

  7,874

  North East

  8

  14

  41

  37

  877

  Northumberland

  8

  21

  38

  33

  182

  Tyne and Wear

  7

  15

  42

  36

  310

  County Durham

  5

  10

  39

  46

  191

  Tees Valley

  10

  15

  43

  33

  294

  Numeracy

  England

  21

  26

  28

  25

  8,040

  North East

  28

  27

  25

  21

  894

  Northumberland

  41

  23

  22

  15

  182

  Tyne and Wear

  24

  26

  24

  26

  317

  County Durham

  23

  24

  28

  25

  192

  Tees Valley

  31

  30

  24

  15

  303

  1please note the small sample size

  Countryside Interpretation Centres
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what programmes his Department has established for collaboration between schools and independent countryside interpretation centres. [185548]
  270W
  The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms has seven categories of conventional arms for nations to report against, int hiding Section VII—Missiles and Missile Launchers. However returns are made on a voluntary basis and the UN does not hold all this information either.

  Prisons
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to police officers employed in British-run military and civilian prisons in Iraq; and how long it lasts. [177245]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no British-run civilian prisons in Iraq. The only British detention facility in Iraq is the Divisional Temporary Detention Facility in Shaibah. Internees are guarded by soldiers of the Military Provost Staff who are trained to Home Office standards. No civilian prison or police officers are employed in Shaibah.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Basic Skills Agency Data
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will update the data prepared for each English constituency by the Basic Skills Agency in 2000; and what the updated information is for each constituency in the North East Region. [185169]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In May 2004 the DfES commissioned work to produce local level estimates of literacy and numeracy in England based on the results of the Skills for Life survey (published in October 2003). The survey mapped skill levels to the National Standards for Adult Literacy and Numeracy. These estimates will update those provided by the Basic Skills Agency and will be available via the DfES's website in autumn 2004.

  At the current time, based on the Skills for Life survey findings, we can provide estimates of literacy and numeracy levels for the North East and its constituent Learning and Skills Council areas:

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We welcome collaboration between schools and independent countryside interpretation centres and would encourage schools to develop relationships with them.

  More specifically, our Growing Schools programme has worked with 12,000 schools and 40 partner

  271W
  organisations which specialise in the field of outdoor education to assist teaching about food, farming and the countryside both within and beyond the school grounds. The programme is now further developing an accreditation scheme for countryside centres such as estates, farms, woodlands, parks, gardens and outdoor museums.

  Our London Challenge programme has commissioned the Field Studies Council to provide outdoor learning experiences for London pupils over a three year period.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many dental clinical academics hold honorary consultant contracts. [181642]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detailed information has been published by the Council of Heads of Medical Schools and the Council of Deans of Dental Schools in "Clinical Academic Staffing Levels in UK Medical and Dental Schools", May 2004. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) consultants and (b) advisers his Department employs; and what the annual cost is of their employment; [184739]

  (2) how many (a) consultants and (b) advisers his Department has employed for more than six months in the last year; and what projects they were assigned to; [184741]

  (3) how many (a) consultants and (b) advisers are currently paid from departmental programme budgets; and what the total associated costs are; [184742]

  (4) how many (a) consultants and (b) advisers have been taken out of schools to work on his Department's projects. [184743]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Working in partnership and involving front line practitioners in policy thinking and system change is fundamental to our vision for managing the transformation of the education system. We consult regularly with schools and take advice from headteachers and teachers to support the development of our policies.

  Authority to use consultants and advisers is delegated to Directorates and data on numbers is not recorded centrally. The cost of consultants charged to administration budgets in 2003–04 was £4.7 million. The cost charged to programmes is not recorded centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Education (Nottingham)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers and teaching assistants posts will be lost at the end of the current school year in Nottingham City maintained schools; [184654]
  272W
  (2) how much money Nottingham local education authority lost from its formula allocation by the imposition of a funding ceiling; and how many of the lost teaching posts this could have saved; [184655]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the change in teacher numbers in Nottingham on educational standards in city schools; [184656]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the funding of primary and secondary schools in Nottingham in 2005–06. [184657]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department collects statistics on numbers of teachers and support staff in January each year and will be publishing the figures for January 2004 by local education authority in the autumn. These show an increase in full-time equivalent regular teachers in Nottingham City between 1999 and 2003 of 210 (10 per cent.). Schools make changes in their staffing levels every year in response to a range of issues including changing pupil numbers, new school priorities and the resources available to them.

  The calculation of the Education Formula Spending Share has a floor and ceiling component which ensures that all authorities see a minimum increase per pupil which is in part funded by having a ceiling which imposes a maximum increase per pupil. In 2004–05 Nottingham City local education authority received the ceiling increase (6.8 per cent. per pupil) which reduced its Education Formula Spending Share by £2.8 million.

  The funding allocation for each local education authority for 2005–06 will be announced in the provisional local government finance settlement in the autumn. However, every authority will receive an increase in the Schools Formula Spending Share of at least 5.5 per cent. per pupil. [Primary and nursery schools will receive a minimum funding increase per pupil of 5 per cent. and secondary schools of 4 per cent. where pupil numbers do not change.]

  Grammar Feeder Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many eligible feeder schools there were in each of the last five years in(a) the state sector and (b) the independent sector for grammar schools subject to the feeder school provisions of the grammar school ballot regulations, broken down by local education authority in England. [184748]

  Mr. Miliband
  Responsibility for identifying qualifying feeder schools for the purpose of petitions and ballots to decide the future admission arrangements of grammar schools falls to the designated ballot administration company, Electoral Reform Services. Consequently, the Department does not collect this data.

  Oversubscribed Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the oral answer of 8 July 2004,Official Report, column 1022, if he will publish the guidance and regulations which require schools wishing to expand to take account of (a) the local situation, (b) other schools in the area, (c) the adjudicator and (d) other factors. [185598]
  273W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The current statutory guidance to decision-makers and those wishing to publish proposals is available on the Department's website and hard copies are sent to interested parties on request. In deciding proposals for the expansion of schools, School Organisation Committees and Adjudicators are required to consider a range of factors including relevant local issues, the impact on neighbouring schools and the effect on standards in the area, though there is a "strong presumption" in favour of popular and successful schools being able to expand.

  The Five Year Strategy document announced plans for a new fast track process to enable popular and successful schools to expand more quickly. We will consult on amendments to regulations, procedures and guidance in September. We intend that the decision on proposals will continue to be for the School Organisation Committee (SOC) or, where they cannot agree unanimously, the schools adjudicator. Decision-makers will continue to decide proposals on their merits, taking into account all relevant factors. The current strong presumption that proposals should be approved will be reinforced in revised guidance.

  Partnership for Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the Board Members of Partnership for Schools indicating the other public sector appointments each member holds. [182506]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Board Members of Partnerships for Schools are all officials of the Department:

  Stephen Crowne

  Peter Stanton-Ife

  Lorraine Chapman

  The first two are also directors of Partnerships for Church of England Schools.

  Post-16 Education (Stalybridge and Hyde)
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much will be spent per learner in Stalybridge and Hyde in(a) school sixth-forms and (b) further education colleges in 2004–05. [185364]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not collect information on the level of funding per pupil in school sixth-forms and further education colleges at the local level. Mark Haysom, the Learning and Skills Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Member with details of funding provided for(a) school sixth-forms and (b) further education colleges in 2004–05 in the local area covering Stalybridge and Hyde. A copy of his letter will be placed in the House Libraries.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to provide specific funding to help further education colleges in Stalybridge and Hyde refurbish and rebuild their estates. [185365]

  Alan Johnson
  All of the Department's post-16 learning and skills sector capital investment is allocated to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The Department does not provide a specific budget to the LSC for rebuilding and refurbishing property in further 274W
  education colleges at either the local or regional levels. It is for the LSC to determine for itself the right level of capital investment is further education colleges. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member on this matter. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision has been made to protect schools against the risk of financial failure on the part of a private finance initiative contractor. [185399]

  Mr. Miliband
  Most PFI deals involve stand-alone special purpose vehicles (SPVs) with other investors and contractors, plus bank financing. It is a usual feature of PFI projects that the banks have the opportunity to step in and find a new contractor in the event of insolvency and we would expect the banks to do this. The Department for Education and Skills is not party to schools PFI contracts; these are between the local authority and the relevant consortium. Officials are ready to assist and advise local authorities if this should prove necessary.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost to the education budget of(a) school admissions and appeals, (b) the School Adjudicator and (c) school admissions policy staff in his Department in the last year for which figures are available. [185242]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The Department does not collect data on expenditure by each local authority on the administration of school admissions and appeals. However, for the financial year 2004–05, LEA net planned budgets to cover this expenditure totals £46 million, or approximately £307,000 per local authority. This includes budgets for funding delegated to governing bodies of schools that are their own admission authority and administer the system themselves.

  For the financial year 2003–04, outturn figures showed the total cost of the Schools Adjudicators and their support staff to be £637,572 and the total cost of school admissions policy staff to be £530,287.

  School Meals
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what encouragement is given to(a) local education authorities and (b) schools to source locally grown produce for school meals; and if he will make a statement. [185281]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In 2003 the Department produced a purchasing guide for schools and LEAs that encourages them to source locally grown produce for school meals. In addition, there are case studies of good practice available on the Teachernet website at http:// www.teachernet.gov.uk/.

  Surplus Places Rule
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the surplus places rule was abolished. [184632]
  275W
  Mr. Miliband
  There has been no formal surplus places rule. In the past, local authorities bid for capital support for new pupil places in areas where there was pupil growth, to meet their statutory duty to provide sufficient school places. In assessing the bids, my Department took account of places in surrounding schools in coming to a view on how many additional places to support each year. However, capital funding for school buildings can come from a number of sources, including other capital programme authorities' own resources and agreements with developers.

  From 2004–05, against a background of rising capital investment in school buildings, and in order to simplify the process for allocating resources on pupil places criteria, we have moved to making allocations by formulae.

  In addition, from 2003-04 we have set up a dedicated capital stream and issued guidance that has a strong presumption in favour of expansion to enable successful and popular schools to expand.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many copies of his Department's annual report were printed in each year since 1997; how many were sold in each year; and what the(a) publication costs and (b) sales revenue were. [183883]

  Gareth Thomas
  DFID's first departmental report was produced in 1998.

  Between 1998 and 2002 publication of DFID's departmental report was handled by The Stationery Office Limited (TSO). The cost of production was met by DFID. The cost of printing was met by TSO. TSO provided an agreed number of copies to DFID and retained revenue from sales.

  The following table includes the number of copies supplied to DFID, the number of copies issued by TSO and the production costs met by DFID. The total number of reports produced is not available, nor is the revenue earned by TSO.

  Copies supplied to DFID

  Copies issued by TSO

  Cost of production met by DFID (£)

  1998

  1,500

  605

  33,672

  1999

  2,662

  531

  65,051

  2000

  3,842

  509

  98,000

  2001

  5,000

  547

  81,576

  2002

  3,500

  531

  61,235

  From 2003 the arrangements with The Stationery Office Limited (TSO) were changed. DFID handled both the production and print of the report itself, providing the required number of copies to TSO. TSO retain the revenue of any copies sold. The report is also available to download, free of charge, from DFID's website.

  This second table includes the number of copies produced, the additional number of copies issued by ISO, and the cost of printing and production met by DFID.
  276W

  Copies produced by DFID

  Copies issued by TSO

  Cost of printing and production by DFID (£)

  2003

  3,000

  440

  76,480

  2004

  3,050

  1351

  45,000

  1To date.

  Haiti
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Haiti. [184330]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: DFID is addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Haiti primarily through its contribution to the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and through its shareholding in the World Bank. Both organisations provide grants to Haiti's National Programme for HIV/AIDS.

  The Global Fund approved two grants to Haiti amounting to US $25 million in late 2002. As a result, the National Programme accelerated its delivery of treatment and care to a target group of 500,000 poor people. So far, US $17 million has been disbursed.

  The World Bank agreed a US$ 2.9 million grant to Haiti in early 2003 for the prevention and control of infectious diseases including HIV/AIDS. The grant is being implemented with the support of the Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). In addition, DFID has provided support to WHO/PAHO to help kick-start the provision of affordable Anti-Retro-Viral medicines globally, from which Haiti will benefit.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures he proposes to cater for women affected by AIDS and their children. [185547]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK Government's new strategy, 'Taking Action: The UK's Strategy for Tackling HIV and AIDS in the Developing World', launched by the Prime Minister on 20 July 2004, prioritises women and young people. Chiefly, the UK Government will:Support comprehensive programmes for women that address not only their access to sexual and reproductive health and rights but also access to education, employment and social protection.
  Support efforts to promote girls' education and work to support programmes tackling gender violence and stigma and discrimination.
  Strengthen the links between AIDS and Sexual and Reproductive Health programmes.
  Make support for orphans and vulnerable children a cornerstone of our response, by dedicating at least £150 million over the next three years to address their needs, including through:
  securing international commitment to UNICEF's Strategic Framework;
  reflecting our commitment in the Country Assistance Plans in all affected countries; and

  277W
  working on a range of interventions to assist keeping children productively in school, secure access to health care and social protection.
  Support prevention and treatment programmes that meet the needs of marginalised groups.
  Promote the greater involvement of people with HIV and AIDS—including women, young people and marginalized groups—in planning and delivering programmes.
  Ensure the human rights of marginalised and vulnerable groups, including women and children, are given proper attention, including:
  supporting legislative reform to improve the human rights environment—including anti discrimination legislation, legislation to regulate the conduct of public institutions like the police, and to guarantee individuals access to services.
  Working with the formal justice sector to make justice systems more responsive to human rights concerns and more accessible to vulnerable groups.

  The UK Government will also support research to build the evidence base and contribute to effective AIDS programmes worldwide. DFID will work to help coordination and information sharing between the various research initiatives concerned with the delivery and the impacts of HIV treatment. In particular DFID will support research efforts, which address access to treatment by the poorest and most vulnerable, including women and children.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures he proposes to take to tackle AIDS in Asia. [185581]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID currently funds major HIV and AIDS programmes in eight countries in Asia1, and supports regional initiatives to reduce the spread of infection and provide services for vulnerable groups. Fuller details are set out in the table on page 20 of the recently launched "Taking Action, the UK's Strategy for Tackling HIV/AIDS in Developing Countries".

  DFID will continue to strengthen political leadership and public support for action in all the Public Service Agreement countries in Asia. DFID will intensify its support to national programmes including through non-Government organisations, for example, by supporting India's National AIDS Control Organisation and targeting vulnerable groups in Vietnam and Bangladesh.

  DFID will assist the Chinese Government to expand the delivery of services for high risk populations in the poorest provinces of China, and to replicate the approach on a national basis.

  1Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, China, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam.

  International Aid (Water and Sanitation)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development by how much and by what proportion UK international aid spending on water and sanitation will change in the next three years. [185473]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Total bilateral expenditure on water and sanitation represents approximately 6 per cent. of the Department for International Development's (DFID's) total bilateral aid budget about £85 million per year over the last three years. DFID channels a significant proportion of its assistance 278W
  through multilateral channels such as the European Union, the World Bank and UN organisations (£1.3 billion in 2001–02): of this DFID's contribution to water and sanitation is estimated at around £40 million per annum. DFID supports international initiatives aimed at raising the profile of water and sanitation and achieving better coordination. These include the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council; the Water and Sanitation Programme (attached to the World Bank); and the Global Water Partnership.

  DFID does not budget on a sectoral basis. DFID's work and resource allocation is shaped by developing country priorities, notably through support to their poverty reduction strategies; by what other donors are doing; and by our comparative advantage. It is therefore not possible to predict with accuracy water and sanitation sector expenditures for future years. DFID recently published a Water Action Plan that outlines our commitment to ensuring that the water and sanitation targets are given the same international priority as the other MDGs.

  Kenya
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance, health and medical advice is being given to Kenya to combat HIV/AIDS; and if he will make a statement. [185018]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is planning to spend £7.1 million during the next financial year to tackle HIV/AIDS. Most of this is to support the Government of Kenya's National Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS. This strategy will work alongside non-governmental agencies to ensure that HIV/AIDS concerns are considered in all relevant Government activity. Among other initiatives, DFID is supporting the equitable delivery of Anti Retroviral Treatment (ART), including a communication strategy to reduce misuse, and Home Based Care especially for orphans. Alongside the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), DFID is also funding the social marketing of condoms, especially in rural areas.

  In education, DFID has been training teachers to teach children about HIV/AIDS. This programme was found to delay the age at which both girls and boys have sex and increased the use of condoms by girls. DFID is therefore increasing this activity and expects to cover 5,000 schools over the next year.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance is being given to Kenya; and for which projects. [185019]

  Hilary Benn
  Last year, DFID's development assistance to Kenya was £29 million. This year our allocation has increased to £37 million. DFID's Country Assistance Plan makes provision to increase our development assistance to £50 million by 2005–06, but final decisions will depend on progress on the Kenyan Government's Economic Recovery Strategy, including its efforts to tackling corruption.

  The following is a list of projects in Kenya that have approved funding for this year through bilateral assistance. There are a number of additional programmes that an, being developed.
  279W

  £million

  Project description

  Allocation

  Forecast spend 2004–05

  ABLH Smallholder Marketing

  2,819,000

  406,423

  Smallholder Dairy Project

  2,007,000

  322,968

  Farm Africa—Goat Project II

  1,453,000

  355,892

  Farming Systems Kenya

  433,000

  86,008

  Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

  120,000

  34,385

  Support to Kenya Land Reform

  472,000

  114,150

  Sabatia Food Security Project

  462,289

  33,801

  Kwale Rural Support

  2,100,000

  300,000

  Assistance Road Sector Reform

  400,000

  54,439

  Financial Sector deepening

  11,370,000

  2,035,914

  Approtech Micro-Irrigation

  1,700,000

  192,796

  Business Partnerships Programme

  2,000,000

  146,889

  Enabling Environment

  2,900,000

  620,000

  Business Services Market Dev

  2,700,000

  600,000

  Support for Private Sector Dev

  400,000

  150,000

  Strengthening Govt Finance

  1,030,000

  110,935

  Assist, to Population Census

  2,140,050

  624,537

  Political Empowerment Project

  7,340,000

  825,000

  Legal Sector Reform

  3,000,000

  1,712,591

  Monitoring and Evaluation

  150,000

  75,091

  Environmental Governance Prog.

  2,200,000

  816,868

  Poverty Reduction (PROLOGS)

  6,600,000

  1,271,945

  Public Expenditure Mgmt

  950,000

  350,000

  CBS Statistical Data

  250,000

  450,000

  Ndhiwa Health Education

  908,785

  44,582

  WaterAid Dev

  725,971

  66,551

  ASAL Water

  1,000,000

  113,189

  CARE Garissa Water

  405,693

  127,253

  Kitui Sand Dams

  353,059

  50,739

  Education for Employment

  450,000

  44,090

  SPReD III Prim. Education

  4,390,000

  690,902

  HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Ph 3

  34,895,419

  6,000,000

  Safe Motherhood

  2,054,000

  197,376

  Anti-Malarial Treatment

  573,081

  100,000

  Malaria Control in Kenya

  6,163,820

  2,502,773

  Decentralisation of Health Sery

  3,500,000

  1,011,260

  Social Marketing of Bednets

  27,800,000

  5,800,000

  Social Marketing of Condoms

  8,636,000

  1,100,000

  Oxfam Programme Partnership Agreement

  425,000

  425,000

  ActionAid Programme Partnership Agreement

  3,000,000

  1,100,000

  Reduction of Conflict

  250,000

  250,000

  Turkana Emergency Relief Programme

  653,000

  653,000

  Total

  31,957,347

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the progress being made to assist Kenya in the provision of(a) the roads network and (b) water distribution in the North West of the country. [185122]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID supports development work in North West Kenya through partners such as Oxfam and Water Aid Kenya (locally known as Maji na Ufanisi). This work includes long-term development and short-term humanitarian assistance carried out in close collaboration with the Kenya authorities and with local communities. The long-term development approach involves strengthening local organisations to press the Government to provide basic services, including roads and water, and at the same time building community capacity to provide services such as bore hole maintenance at local level.

  Part of Oxfam's current work in response to the famine in the North West (which is supported by DFID) is the provision of water for domestic use (construction and rehabilitation of bore holes and pan/dams, well protection and other water points) for both domestic and livestock use. As a result of this, the pressure on water in the North West has been reduced even during this period of drought and famine.
  280W
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement about the accounting, auditing and anti-corruption safeguards in place in respect of schemes run by his Department in Kenya. [185666]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's programme in Kenya is subject to the same rigorous safeguards as all our development assistance. These are intended to ensure that funds are spent sensibly, in line with our objectives and with minimal risk of fraud or misappropriation. For this reason, DFID is unable at present to provide poverty reduction budget support to the Kenyan Government, since we are not yet convinced that the Government are seriously committed to fighting corruption and are making good progress on their overall reform programme. However, we can make progress on the Millennium Development Goals by supporting specific sectors and projects.

  DFID is also supporting the central Government systems that are intended to ensure that public financial resources are monitored and used more effectively.

  DFID, alongside other donors, are also working to strengthen key institutions that are directly involved in fighting corruption. There is to be increased support to the Director of Public Prosecution, Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and civil society organisations, such as Transparency International, that work to improve the transparency of public resources.

  In continued dialogue with the Government, the UK has made clear to the Kenyan Government that allegations about unsatisfactory tendering and contracting procedures are serious and need to be fully investigated. DFID has remained categorical that firm action should be taken against those found to have acted corruptly. DFID has continued to press the Government to pass important legislation including the Public Procurement Bill, the Public Financial Management Bill, and the appointment of a credible Head of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Authority.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to suspend aid to the Kenyan Government. [185852]

  Hilary Benn
  I am keeping the situation under close review, but have no plans to suspend our assistance to Kenya. Our assistance is designed to support long term change in Kenya that will lead to improved governance, and to help Kenya to make sustainable progress towards the MDGs. The faster the pace of reform, and the more conducive the environment, the faster progress we will make.

  DFID's Country Assistance Plan (CAP), launched with the Government of Kenya last month, makes clear that we want to support the implementation of Kenya's Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS). Tackling corruption is a major priority of the ERS. DFID's CAP makes provision to increase our development assistance to £50 million by 2005-06, but final decisions will depend on ERS progress, including tackling corruption.

  Palestinian Authority (Funding)/Territories
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures his Department
  281W
  is taking to ensure transparency and accountability of (a) European Union and (b) other international funding to the Palestinian Authority. [185093]

  Hilary Benn
  Substantial progress has been made since 2002 in improving the transparency and accountability of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) financial management systems. This has largely been driven by the Palestinian Finance Minister with donor encouragement.

  DFID supported a World Bank Country Financial Accountability Assessment which endorsed the major improvements made. It also identified key actions needed to further improve the systems. The recently established World Bank Public Financial Management Reform Trust Fund will also encourage further financial reform.

  Disbursement of funding is conditional on the PA's achievement of certain agreed benchmarks. DFID has contributed, and the EC plans to contribute, to the trust fund. The World Bank and donors will carefully monitor the use of donor funds. This benchmark approach was also successfully used by the EC in its earlier budget support to the PA. Allegations about the misuse of these funds have been looked at in great detail, but no evidence has been found that EC funds have been used for anything other than their original purpose.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to monitor the extent of poverty in the Palestinian Territories. [185092]

  Hilary Benn
  Poverty in the Palestinian Territory has increased dramatically since the intifada started in September 2000. According to the latest World Bank report approximately 50 per cent. of Palestinians are living in poverty on less than $2.1 per day. 16 per cent. of the total population currently live in deep or absolute poverty on less than $1.5 per day. DFID monitors the situation closely through our engagement with, and support to, Palestinian partners and like-minded donors who seek to analyse and find ways of addressing the deepening crisis.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid his Department has given to the Palestinian Territories. [185094]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provides technical and financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, and Palestinian civil society. It aims to enhance the prospects for peace, make Palestinian governance and institutions more effective and accountable, and encourage more harmonised delivery of humanitarian and development assistance. DFID plans to spend £28.5 million on support to Palestinians in the current financial year.

  South America (Aid)
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will restore development aid to South American countries, with particular reference to Peru. [184887]
  282W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID will continue to provide development assistance to South America through our contributions to multilateral institutions; through a regional bilateral programme, which will include support for Brazil and the Andean region to be managed out of our office in La Paz (from which Peru will benefit); and through central DFID support for nongovernmental organisations working in the region. DFID remains committed to supporting poverty reduction in Peru through all these channels.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the United States Agency for International Development about joint approaches to other nations to seek contributions to humanitarian relief in Darfur. [185583]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department For International Development has a good working relationship with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and is in frequent contact, both in-country and between capitals, to ensure a co-ordinated approach when encouraging other donors to contribute to the humanitarian relief effort in Darfur. DFID plans to continue working with USAID on a donor lobbying strategy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of displaced women in Darfur, Western Sudan. [185584]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations has estimated the total number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Darfur, Western S Alan at 1.2 million. UN agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are currently on the ground assessing the food, shelter and sanitation needs of these people. However, at this time the exact ratio of male to female IDPs is unknown.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of deaths resulting from bombing by Sudanese Government aircraft of locations in Darfur near Chadian border towns in the first three weeks of June. [185586]

  Hilary Benn
  At present there is no information to confirm the bombing by Government aircraft of locations in Darfur near Chadian border towns. The ongoing deployment of the African Union-led Ceasefire Commission, to which DFID has contributed £2 million, should help increase the information from the ground.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of villages in Darfur, Western Sudan, that have been destroyed by Sudanese Government forces and Janjaweed militias. [185587]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not able to verify which settlements have been destroyed by the Government of Sudan, Janjaweed militias, Sudanese Liberation Army
  283W
  (SLA) or Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) forces. The Humanitarian Information Unit of the United States Department of State currently estimates the total number of villages destroyed at approximately 347. A further 96 are estimated to have been damaged but not destroyed.

  It is not possible at this stage to determine the ethnicity of the people that occupied destroyed or damaged settlements. The African Union has begun

  £000

  Project or sector aid

  Programme aid

  Technical cooperation

  Aid and trade provision

  Grants and other aid in kind

  Humanitarian assistance

  1997–98

  137

  —

  369

  —

  491

  4,337

  1998–99

  115

  —

  176

  —

  413

  23,497

  1999–2000

  106

  —

  15

  —

  319

  2,755

  2000–01

  97

  —

  14

  —

  309

  4,491

  2001–02

  93

  —

  34

  —

  322

  5,149

  2002–03

  87

  —

  407

  —

  2,696

  16,032

  2003–04

  90

  —

  291

  —

  3,445

  20,836

  DFID debt relief

  Total DFID programme

  CDC investments

  Other

  Total gross public expenditure

  1997–98

  342

  5,677

  —

  —

  5,677

  1998—99

  —

  24,201

  —

  —

  24,201

  1999–2000

  —

  3,196

  —

  —

  3,196

  2000–01

  —

  4,912

  —

  —

  4,912

  2001–02

  —

  5,598

  —

  —

  5,598

  2002–03

  —

  19,222

  —

  —

  19,222

  2003–04

  —

  24,663

  —

  —

  24,663

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan about(a) the ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention on the Prohibition and Elimination of the Worst Form of Child Labour and (b) the reflection of that ratification in national legislation. [185592]

  Hilary Benn
  Sudan ratified the International Labour Organisation Convention on the Prohibition and Elimination of the Worst Form of Child Labour on 7 March 2002. DFID's embassy in Khartoum raises human rights issues on a regular basis both bilaterally and multilaterally as part of the EU-Sudan dialogue.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours
  Andrew Mackinlay(a)(b)
  To ask the Prime Minister whether his Office and members of the general public are able to identify numbers of honours recipients by postcode; and if he will make a statement. [185271]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of honours recipients, including postal addresses are held centrally for administration purposes. However, full postal addresses are not made publicly available.

  Cabinet Secretary
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what future role in security and intelligence matters he intends to give the Cabinet Secretary. [185635]
  284W
  investigations into reported infringements of the ceasefire. These investigations will help determine who is responsible for such infringements.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) financial and (b) other support has been provided by his Department to Sudan in each year since 1997. [185588]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the following table.

  The Prime Minister
  The Butler Review makes no specific recommendation on this point. Existing arrangements will continue.

  Cyprus
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Republic of Cyprus; and which Cypriot politicians he met during that visit. [185017]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not visited the Republic of Cyprus.

  Iraq (Briefing Papers)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister who commissioned the briefing papers on Iraq, referred to in paragraph 610 of the Butler Report; who decided not to circulate them to Cabinet Ministers; and for what reason. [185634]

  The Prime Minister
  Material on a range of issues related to Iraq was commissioned by the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat. The resulting papers were circulated to the Departments involved.

  Iraq (Intelligence)
  Adam Price(a)(b)
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether the head of MI6 and the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee were informed that SIS had withdrawn reporting in July 2003 from a 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; [185688]
  285W
  (2) whether (a) members of the Cabinet Office and (b) the Intelligence and Security Committee was informed that SIS had withdrawn reporting in July 2003 from a 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; [185689]

  (3) whether members of (a) his and (b) Cabinet Office staff were informed in July 2003 that the Secret Intelligence Service in that month had withdrawn reporting from a source who claimed that the production of biological and chemical agents had been accelerated by the Iraqi regime, because the source of the reporting had subsequently been deemed unreliable. [185788]

  The Prime Minister
  We have nothing further to add to the remarks that were made in yesterday's debate on Iraq.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [185690]

  The Prime Minister
  As my Official Spokesman made clear on 16 July, it was as a result of the Butler Review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Link
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the market penetration of business link operators. [185454]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Link Operators were used by around 606,000 customers in 2003–04 comprising 435,000 existing firms (representing a 40 per cent. growth in use by existing firms between 2002–03 and 2003–04) and 171,000 pre-start businesses. Expressed as a ratio of the Inter-Departmental Business Register of around 1.8 million firms (the largest official count), this is a market penetration rate of 34 per cent. in 2003–04.

  A more detailed table is provided:

  BLO usage—all customers, in-year cumulative

  Percentage

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Existing Businesses 1

  14

  17

  24

  Pre-starts1

  2n/a

  2n/a

  10

  Total customer usage

  —

  —

  34

  VAT Registrations 1995–2002

  Thousand

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  All industries

  165.8

  171.0

  187.7

  187.5

  181.4

  184.0

  174.6

  175.8

  Agriculture, fishing

  4.4

  4.6

  4.7

  4.1

  3.7

  3.6

  3.3

  3.8

  Mining, energy, water

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Manufacturing

  14.5

  14.7

  14.4

  13.4

  12.7

  12.0

  10.8

  10.1

  Construction

  15.8

  15.4

  19.7

  18.5

  18.2

  17.8

  18.3

  18.9

  Wholesale, retail, repairs

  37.8

  37.7

  37.5

  36.9

  37.1

  36.1

  31.3

  32.7

  Hotels, restaurants

  15.6

  16.1

  17.0

  16.8

  17.8

  18.2

  19.1

  19.2

  Transport, communication

  8.5

  8.4

  9.2

  9.2

  9.4

  9.5

  9.3

  9.3

  286W

  BLO usage—all customers, in-year cumulative

  Number

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Existing Businesses

  245,342

  309,665

  435,293

  Pre-starts

  2n/a

  2n/a

  170,749

  Total customer usage

  —

  —

  606,042

  1Rate per 100 VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses.

  2 Pre-start users not available as an annual figure prior to 2003–04.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the levels and cost of regulations imposed on business by her Department since 1997. [185536]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 January 2004, Official Report, column 124W.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new regulations her Department has introduced in the last year. [185537]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of statutory instruments (Regulations, Orders and Rules) introduced by the Department in 2003 was 145. A listing of DTI statutory instruments produced between 1991 and 2003 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  During 2003 they include: The Enterprise Act 2002 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2003, The Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2003 and The Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2003.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new business start-ups there were in each year since 1995, broken down by industry. [185331]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start ups in England and Wales in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before.

  DTI figures based solely on UK VAT registrations by main industry group are shown as follows for the period 1995 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in Autumn 2004.
  287W

  VAT Registrations 1995–2002

  Thousand

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Finance

  1.5

  1.7

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  1.6

  1.2

  Business services

  48.4

  54.6

  64.7

  69.3

  63.3

  66.9

  63.1

  63.2

  Education, health

  1.8

  2.0

  2.2

  2.1

  2.3

  2.2

  2.2

  2.3

  Other services

  17.4

  15.6

  16.3

  15.3

  14.9

  15.7

  15.5

  15.0

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/analytical/vatstats.php

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1995. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Business Support
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to evaluate the impact on skills of each of the business support products her Department launched in April. [183685]

  Ms Hewitt
  As part of its Review of Business Support, DTI carried out a review of evaluations of previous schemes and identified key success factors. This included assessment of the impact on skills, and on other drivers of productivity growth. The successful elements of previous schemes have been incorporated into the new business support products.

  The new products are also subject to rigorous monitoring and evaluation, which includes measurement of the impact on skills.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the overlap between the provision of business support products administered(a) directly by the Department and (b) by regional development agencies. [185457]

  Ms Hewitt
  The complex array of more than 100 DTI business support schemes that existed at the time of the DTI Review in 2001 has been replaced with a tighter, more targeted package of support based on nine business support products. The Department's work to transform its support to business specifically looked at the issue of overlap and duplication and this was addressed so that the new product set are broad in their scope and avoid duplication. The Department's externally led Investment Committee continues to provide independent scrutiny to ensure our investments in business support products deliver the economic and customer benefits we intend, and that we take action to address any weaknesses identified through rigorous evaluation. This work extends to ensuring that there is no overlap or duplication in DTI's business support offering.

  With regard to regional development agencies (RDAs), DTI and the RDAs are working together with the specific aim of avoiding any over lap on the provision of business support products. RDAs have committed themselves to ensure that any new business support schemes or initiative they create will not duplicate or
  288W
  overlap existing DTI business support products. RDAs will seek to build on national DTI products by co-funding and tailoring them to meet regional needs where possible.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many business support schemes are currently supported by her Department. [185491]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI has a set of nine business support products.

  These are:

  Support area

  Products

  Succeeding through innovation

  Knowledge transfer networks Collaborative research and development Grant for investigating an innovative idea Grant for research and development Knowledge transfer partnership

  Achieving best practice in your business

  Access to best business practice Support to implement best business practice

  Raising finance

  Small firms loan guarantee

  Regional Investment

  Selective finance for investment in England

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public funding has been spent on business support agencies in the last year. [185475]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The main business support agencies funded directly by the DTI are the Business Link Operators (BLOs) who provide services to small businesses.

  In 2003–04 BLOs received Core Services grants from the Small Business Service totalling £139.5 million.

  Most BLOs sub-contract the delivery of some of their services to Enterprise Agencies and other service deliverers as do other Government Departments, RDAs, and local authorities. European funds are also available in certain areas. The level of funding varies from BLO to BLO based on local needs, priorities and access to additional funding streams. The SBS does not systematically collect information on the level of service provision sub-contracted by BLOs.

  Coal
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total tonnage of coal mined in England and Wales was during the last 12 months for which figures are available. [185336]
  289W
  Mr. Timms
  The information available on the amount of coal produced in England and Wales for the 12 months ended March 2004, in millions of tonnes, is as follows:

  Tonnes million

  Deep mine

  Opencast

  England

  14.1

  3.7

  Wales

  0.6

  1.1

  A further 6.8 million tonnes, all from opencast mines, was produced in Scotland in the same period.
  Source:
  Coal Authority data as published in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2004 to be published on 29 July 2004 and accessible through the DTI website. Output is the tonnage declared by operators to the Coal Authority, including estimated tonnages.

  Corporate Environmental Engagement Index
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the findings of the corporate environmental engagement index published by Business in the Community. [184555]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has not made an assessment of the findings of the Business in the Community (BITC) corporate environmental engagement index. However BITC have published a report on the main sector trends from both the Business in the Environment and Corporate Responsibility Indices as "Benchmarking Responsible Business Practice" (www.bitc.org.uk).

  The department contributes financially to the work on the Corporate Responsibility Index.

  Departmental Audit
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will commission an independent audit of the activities of her Department and its sponsored agencies and non-departmental bodies between 1997–98 and 2003–04 with the purpose of establishing what proportion of the total departmental spending was inefficient over that period; [185458]

  (2) what proportion of the reductions in core civil service posts in her Department by 2007–08 will be relocated to sponsored agencies in the regions. [185500]

  Ms Hewitt
  Sir Peter Gershon's report on his review of public sector efficiency, "Releasing Resources to the Front Line", sets out agreed efficiency targets for all Government Departments including DTI.

  Procurement

  DTI will aim to achieve savings by improving procurement through a combination of developing and implementing better purchasing practice, making better use of resources within technical and economic research, centralising marketing operations and moving to e-procurement, and savings on rent increases and building service costs by rationalising DTI's estate. This rationalisation involves reducing headquarters in London from six to three buildings over the Spending Review period.
  290W
  Back Office Rationalisation and Abolition of Posts

  My Department hits developed plans that will enable it to deliver mor:. efficiently DTI's priorities and responsibilities, as reflected in the spending plans announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. These plans will drive forward efficiencies in all areas of my Department's work, including:
  the rationalisation and streamlining of all our 'back office' services, including the processing of routine financial and personnel work and a reduction in the number of office support service posts following rationalisation of the Department's London estate from six buildings to three; and
  the adoption of a new approach to policy work involving the more effective prioritisation of policy projects and the centralised handling of routine policy enquiries and correspondence.

  In conjunction with our estate rationalisation strategy, staff will also operate within a flexible workspace arrangement whereby there will be eight desks available for every 10 staff.

  Business Support

  DTI has conducted a review of its Business Support schemes ahead of the Spending Review with a view to working to clear high-level strategic objectives, increasing value created through the investment of taxpayers' funds, rigorous monitoring and evaluation, and improving the customer experience in dealing with DTI. Over 100 schemes have been rationalised into 10 new products, the List one of which will be introduced in 2005. The effectiveness of the new products and resultant efficiency savings will be realised over the Spending Review period.

  Savings in the order of £20 million are projected by the end of the Spending Review period, as a result of closing inefficient schemes.

  In addition, DTI is rationalising its use of third party contractors to deliver the new Business Support products. By consolidation of the contractor portfolio and more effective procurement. further cost savings of approximately £4 million a year are anticipated over the Spending Review period as the DTI's commitment to legacy schemes is exhausted. The level of support provided to business is expected to remain unchanged at around £500 million per annum.

  Agencies and NDPBs

  All of DTI's agencies and non-departmental public bodies are tasked with delivering efficiency gains over the Spending Review 2004 period. Over the Spending Review period, DTI expects the agencies and NDPBs to achieve some £15 million savings, the majority of which is cashable. It is anticipated that these savings will be achieved through a combination of continued delivery and increased output within a climate of reduced funding, reduced estate expenditure and reduced unit cost.

  As Companies House, Patent Office are trading funds, and NWML is a net funded agency, they do not appear on DTI's Expenditure Limit and their savings are not claimed against the Department's 2.5 per cent. annual efficiency savings target. These bodies are, however, still expected to generate efficiency gains which

  291W
  they intend to achieve through a number of measures i.e. e-delivery, reduced staff costs, and increased output/reduced processing times.

  Other than a very small number of Office of Science and Technology posts moving to the Research Councils in Swindon, there are no plans to meet DTI staff reduction targets by relocating posts from the core Department to sponsored agencies

  Audit of inefficient spend

  DTI is committed to ensuring that all aspects of the Department, including its agencies and non-departmental bodies operate efficiently both now and going forward. We have just completed an efficiency project, reviewing efficiency in DTI, which was scrutinised by the Gershon Review. We continually review our activities as part of annual business planning to deliver greater value for money. We therefore have no plan to commission an in-depth audit of past activities—to do so would be an inefficient use of resources.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on(a) mobile phone costs, (b) hospitality and (c) taxi costs in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [185377]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]:
  Information on spend for 1996–97 would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  The latest information available is for 2003–04. Against a Department Expenditure Limit of £5.6 billion, spend on mobile phone costs was £279,000; spend on hospitality and entertainment costs was £1,121,000 and spend on taxi costs was £171,000. These figures are taken from the Department's financial records, and are subject to audit.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost of refurbishments to the fabric of buildings owned by the Department has been since May 1997. [185379]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: My Department undertakes a wide variety of projects as part of ongoing maintenance and improvements of its current stock. The total capital cost of minor works, maintenance, and renovation projects involving significant works to the building services and fabric, since 1997 are as follows:

  Financial Year

  £million

  1997–98

  2.0

  1998–99

  2.0

  1999–2000

  2.15

  2000–01

  1.8

  2001–02

  4.75

  2002–03

  2.20

  2003–04

  2.30

  The additional expenditure incurred in Financial Year 2001–02 was due to the project to extend the conference facilities and associated services at 1 Victoria Street.
  292W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on press officers in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available, broken down by grade. [185383]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The information is not held in the form requested and could be recovered only at disproportionate cost.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirements are(a) in place and (b) proposed for businesses to provide an account of the (i) environmental and (ii) social impact of their activities. [184556]

  Mr. Timms
  We encourage business to provide information to a wide range of stakeholder interests on their social and environmental performance. To help business report on their environmental impacts we have published a series of voluntary guidelines, which cover subjects including greenhouse gas emissions, waste and water. We also support the Business in the Community Corporate Responsibility Index and the ACCA Annual Sustainability Reporting Awards.

  We published draft Regulations on the Operating and Financial Review for consultation in May 2004. These proposals will require quoted companies to provide a narrative report giving a discussion and analysis of the company's business and the main trends and factors underlying the results and financial position of the business and likely to affect performance in the future. Where necessary to an understanding of the business, directors will need to include information on employees, the environment and social and community issues.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to the statement of 1 July 2004, Official Report, column 22WS, regarding the Export Credits Guarantee Department, if she will make a statement on the(a) financial objectives and (b) aims of the Trading Fund's Realisations account; [182760]

  (2) which unrecovered claims outstanding with the Export Credits Guarantee Department will be transferred to the Trading Funds Realisations account; who the debtor is in each case; what the amount of outstanding debt is in each case; and what the project type is in each case. [182761]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 12 July 2004]: The objective of the Realisation Account will be to maximise the asset value of the Account consistent with Government strategy on international debt. Details will be worked out during the pilot Trading Fund.

  The unrecovered claims to be vested in the Realisations Account are those currently reported under Account 1 of ECGD's Resource Accounts, except that Account 1 unrecovered claims on heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) are to be omitted. These will be handled outside the Trading Fund under the auspices of the Government's strategy on international debt.
  293W
  As explained in my recent answers of 15 June 2004, Official Report, column 818W and 13 January 2004, Official Report, columns 696W, it is not possible to provide all the details that have been requested. However, I am able to supply, as follows, a market-by-market breakdown of all the unrecovered claims that ECGD will transfer to its Realisations Account.

  £sterling1

  Market

  Unrecovered claims

  Algeria

  100,209,724.83

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2,745,763.44

  Argentina

  31,705,354.61

  Bahrain

  69,465.62

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  902,966.24

  Brazil

  147,578,918.84

  Canada

  786.95

  Croatia

  46,475,237.64

  Cuba

  52,146,568.31

  Cyprus

  454.00

  Ecuador

  26,841,427.89

  Egypt

  134,073,410.89

  France

  83,801.01

  Gabon

  74,718,999.71

  Greece

  120,555.67

  Grenada

  957,608.78

  Indonesia

  99,656,279.35

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  28,766,647.48

  Iraq

  621,894,072.68

  Italy

  71,063.06

  Jamaica

  1,138,927.55

  Jordan

  216,358,944.62

  Korea, Democratic People's Republic

  5,864,356.17

  Kuwait

  1,350,264.38

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  8,972,335.50

  Macedonia

  2,401,002.75

  Morocco

  19,846.714.94

  Nigeria

  1,655,102,497.14

  Peru

  54,255,361.16

  Philippines

  6,150,721.69

  Poland

  360,214,998.71

  Portugal

  1.00

  Russian Federation

  572,046,141.98

  Saudi Arabia

  1,305,765.53

  Serbia Republic

  150,035,718.87

  Seychelles

  8,866.35

  Singapore

  5,326.27

  Spain

  64,866.50

  United States

  3,207,078.66

  Zimbabwe

  987,401.12

  1 As at 30 June 2004.

  Capitalisation for ECGD's Trading Fund has been based upon data related to 31 March 2003 and will be updated prior to inception of the Trading Fund.

  Gershon Review
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what processes she aims to use to achieve the savings through improved procurement as part of Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review into public services; and what parts of her Department's estate she intends to rationalise; [185023]

  (2) what the estimated recyclable savings are that she anticipates making from her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies as part of Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review into public services; and through what mechanisms she intends to achieve those savings; [185024]
  294W
  (3) which back office functions she intends to rationalise as part of the implementation plan agreed as part of Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review into public services; [185025]

  (4) what measures she has put in place to increase the effectiveness of her Department's business support products; and what savings she expects to make from this activity as a result of the Gershon review of public sector efficiency; [185026]

  (5) if she will provide details of the present activities of the posts in her Department due to be abolished as a result of the Gershon review of public sector efficiency. [185027]

  Ms Hewitt
  Sir Peter Gershon's report on his review of public sector efficiency "Releasing resources to the front line" sets out agreed efficiency targets for all Government Departments including DTI.

  Procurement

  DTI will aim to achieve savings by improving procurement through a combination of developing and implementing better purchasing practice, making better use of resources within technical and economic research, centralising marketing operations and moving to e-procurement, and savings on rent increases and building service costs by rationalising DTI's estate. This rationalisation involves reducing headquarters in London from six to three buildings over the Spending Review period.

  Back Office rationalisation and abolition of posts

  My department has developed plans that will enable it to deliver more efficiently DTI's priorities and responsibilities, as reflected in the spending plans announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. These plans will drive forward efficiencies in all areas of my Department's work, including:
  the rationalisation and streamlining of all our "back office" services, including the processing of routine financial and personnel work and a reduction in the number of office support service posts following rationalisation of the Department's London estate from six buildings to three; and
  the adoption of a new approach to policy work involving the more effective prioritisation of policy projects and the centralised handling of routine policy inquiries and correspondence.

  In conjunction with our estate rationalisation strategy, staff will also operate within a flexible workspace arrangement whereby there will be eight desks available for every 10 staff.

  Business Support

  DTI has conducted a review of its Business Support schemes ahead of the Spending Review with a view to working to clear high-level strategic objectives, increasing value created through the investment of taxpayers' funds, rigorous monitoring and evaluation, and improving the customer experience in dealing with DTI. Over 100 schemes have been rationalised into 10 new products, the last one of which will be introduced in 2005. The effectiveness of the new products and resultant efficiency savings will be realised over the Spending Review period.
  295W
  Savings in the order of £20 million are projected by the end of the Spending Review period, as a result of closing inefficient schemes.

  In addition, DTI is rationalising its use of third party contractors to deliver the new Business Support products. By consolidation of the contractor portfolio and more effective procurement, further cost savings of approximately £4 million a year are anticipated over the Spending Review period as the DTI's commitment to legacy schemes is exhausted. The level of support provided to business is expected to remain unchanged at around £500 million per annum.

  Agencies and NDPBs

  All of DTI's agencies and non-departmental public bodies are tasked with delivering efficiency gains over the Spending Review 2004 period. Over the Spending Review period, DTI expects the agencies and NDPBs to achieve some £15 million savings, the majority of which is cashable. It is anticipated that these savings will be achieved through a combination of continued delivery and increased output within a climate of reduced funding, reduced estate expenditure and reduced unit cost.

  As Companies House, Patent Office are trading funds, and NWML is a net funded agency, they do not appear on DTI's Expenditure Limit and their savings are not claimed against the Department's 2.5 per cent. annual efficiency savings target. These bodies are however still expected to generate efficiency gains which they intend to achieve through a number of measures i.e. e-delivery, reduced staff costs, and increased output/ reduced processing times.

  Other than a very small number of Office of Science and Technology posts moving to the Research Councils in Swindon, there are no plans to meet DTI staff reduction targets by relocating posts from the core Department to sponsored agencies

  Audit of inefficient spend

  DTI is committed to ensuring that all aspects of the Department, including its agencies and non-departmental bodies operate efficiently both now and going forward. We have just completed an efficiency project, reviewing efficiency in DTI, which was scrutinised by the Gershon Review. We continually review our activities as part of annual business planning to deliver greater value for money. We therefore have no plan to commission an in-depth audit of past activities—to do so would be an inefficient use of resources.

  Internet Drug Sales
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department has taken to prevent companies from abroad advertising via the internet drugs for sale that are only available in the UK with a prescription from a general practitioner. [183495]

  Mr. Timms
  The responsibility for regulating medicines lies with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health. Accordingly, my officials will write to the Chief Executive of MHRA Professor Kent Woods asking him 296W
  to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to promote manufacturing sector jobs(a) in Havering and (b) in the UK. [184250]

  Jacqui Smith
  With the Government's Manufacturing Strategy—the first for over 30 years—which we developed in partnership with industry, trade unions, and other stakeholders, we are taking a range of actions to create a modern manufacturing sector with a highly skilled, highly paid workforce. We published a review of the Government's Manufacturing Strategy on 15 July 2004, highlighting what has been achieved since the Strategy was established in May 2002. Details of the review are available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/manufacturing.

  Manufacturers in Havering benefit from the actions the London Development Agency is taking to ensure a strong and sustained manufacturing base through its support of the London Production Industries Commission, and the London Manufacturing Advisory Service which has handled over 2,200 enquiries and added value of nearly £3 million a year to manufacturing companies in London in its first two years. The Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence in Dagenham also provides educational and training opportunities for local industry, including that of Havering, with access to leading edge technology through links with Ford, their suppliers and other local and international companies.

  Metric Standardisation
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects on the UK of metric standardisation in terms of trade with(a) Europe and (b) the rest of the world; and if she will make a statement on the impact on British competitiveness of the transition to metric standardisation. [182741]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is Government's understanding that many business sectors undertook metric standardisation in the 1960s and 1970s. The Department has no recent information on the extent to which particular sectors may not have undertaken metric standardisation.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote the completion of the UK's transition to metric standardisation. [182742]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government do not see a need to promote metric standardisation. All business sectors are free to undertake metric standardisation where they see benefits in doing so.

  National Grid
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has held with representatives of National Grid Transco regarding the maintenance of the grid system. [185453]
  297W
  Mr. Timms
  As part of the regular contracts Ministers and officials have with National Grid Transco, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with Roger Urwin the company's Chief Executive on 9 February 2004. A range of issue were discussed at the meeting including those arising from the Engineering Inspectorate's investigation following the major power failures last year. Maintenance and repair were factors that were looked at as part of the investigation.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the age of each nuclear power station in the UK. [185338]

  Mr. Timms
  British Energy and BNFL's operational stations commenced operations in the following years:

  British Energy

  Year commenced

  Station

  1976

  Hinkley Point B

  1976

  Hunterston B

  1983

  Dungeness B

  1983

  Heysham 1

  1983

  Hartlepool

  1988

  Heysham 2

  1988

  Torness

  1995

  Sizewell B

  BNFL

  Year commenced

  Station

  1966

  Dungeness A

  1966

  Sizewell A

  1968

  Oldbury

  1971

  Wylfa

  Post Offices
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub-post offices have closed within the Greater London area during each of the last five years. [185340]

  Mr. Timms
  Data for Greater London are available from March 2000. The net closure figures for the London region are:

  Year to end March

  Number

  2001

  10

  2002

  16

  2003

  144

  2004

  2155

  1Including 11 under the urban reinvention programme.

  2 Including 142 under the urban reinvention programme.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of people who use post offices threatened with closure at(a) The Green, Bearsted, (b) The Spires, Downswood and (c) Roseacre, Bearsted. [185159]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.
  298W

  Privacy
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to require the manufacturers of phones with camera and video functions to incorporate an audible beep or ring when these functions are used in order to safeguard the privacy of those being photographed. [185627]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have no plans to make this a policy requirement. Some mobile phone manufacturers already set their handsets to make a noise particularly when the camera function is used. We are aware that other manufacturers are reviewing their position in the light of concerns expressed by consumers etc.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) running costs and (b) total expenditure of each of the regional development agencies in England was for each year since each was established. [185008]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 11 May 2004,Official Report, column 247W.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the prospects for achieving the 2010 renewables energy target. [185545]

  Mr. Timms
  The target is challenging but we believe it remains achievable We have worked hard to put an attractive system for new investment in place and the industry is responding.

  There are many areas where there is still a great deal of work to be done such as the planning system both onshore and offshore and the development of the grid network. However, we are working closely with all the relevant interests, for example, via mechanisms such as the Wind Energy and Civil and Military Aviation Working Group, to ensure that any outstanding issues are resolved in a timely fashion.

  The review of our primary support mechanism, the Renewables Obligation, will enable us to assess progress towards the target and consider in detail the points on incentives made by the final report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, on the practicalities of renewables.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in her Department announced in the spending review will be of special advisers. [185482]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 20 July 2004, Official Report, column 190W.
  299W

WALES

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 cost and (b) sales revenue were. [183880]

  Mr. Touhig
  The costs for annual and departmental reports were as follows:

  £

  Cost

  2004

  Annual Report

  11,515

  2003

  Departmental Report

  20,200

  2002

  Departmental Report

  19,697

  2001

  Departmental Report

  23,933

  Note:

  Information on 1999–2000 is not readily available and providing this information would require disproportionate cost. The Department only came into existence in 1999 so there were no reports prior to this.

  The Wales Office produces 250 copies of the report each year for its own use and to lay in the House Libraries. The Wales Office does not sell copies of the report and as such does not receive any revenue from such sales.

  The number of sale copies printed is a matter for The Stationery Office. The Wales Office receives neither revenue from these copies, nor sales figures for the report.

  Departmental Publications (Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183863]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office have published a Departmental Report and a Departmental Resource Accounts Report annually from 2000 to 2003 through The Stationery Office. Copies of these reports are held in the London and Cardiff Offices.

  In 2004, the Wales Office has published an Annual Report, replacing the Departmental Report, and a further Departmental Resource Accounts Report, both through The Stationery Office, as well as the Office's Welsh Language Scheme, which was produced internally. All of these are also held in the London and Cardiff offices.

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases against his Department 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
  300W
  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. [181467]

  Mr. Touhig
  The former Welsh Office records show that one case was brought against them in 1998 by an employee in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act, but the claim was not upheld. Information on how much was spent can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  No claims have been brought against the Wales Office since its establishment on 1 July 1999.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department has taken to increase the rate of implementation of EU funding programmes in Wales. [183023]

  Mr. Hain
  None. Responsibility for implementing the structural funds programme is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Health/Education Services
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what cross-border measures he is undertaking to improve(a) health and (b) education services in Wales. [183175]

  Mr. Touhig
  I will answer this question in two parts:

  (a) Whether a patient is resident in England or in Wales, they are offered NHS care at the most clinically and geographically appropriate location for their treatment. In border areas there are numerous examples of long established relationships between health commissioning bodies and treatment providers across the border.

  (b) Pupils who live in England and attend schools in Wales are required to follow the national curriculum for Wales and vice versa. Schools on both sides of the border are free to choose examinations and qualifications from any of the awarding bodies irrespective of where those bodies are located.

  Job Losses (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisors. [185468]

  Mr. Touhig
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 20 July 2004, column 190W, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Pay Systems
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the most recent review of(a) his Department's pay systems and (b) the departmental equal pay action plan. [181354]
  301W
  Mr. Touhig
  Staff serving in the Wales Office have been on secondment or loan from other Government Departments—predominantly from the National Assembly for Wales. Their pay is therefore set by their home Departments rather than by the Wales Office.

  Department for Constitutional Affairs staff working at the Wales Office since our merger in June 2003 fall under the DCA pay system and so are paid in accordance with the pay scheme of the DCA.

  Richard Commission
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether changes in the constitutional position of Wales consequent on the report of the Richard Commission will be subject to a referendum. [183022]

  Mr. Hain
  The Richard Commission reported to the Welsh Assembly Government, which has not yet approached the Government with any representations concerning the report. When we receive such representations, we will give them full consideration, including whether they require a referendum.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Cultural Objects
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has held in relation to the creation of a national database of stolen or otherwise tainted cultural objects in the last six months, with particular reference to discussions with(a) the Home Office, (b) the police, (c) bodies in the cultural sector and (d) other organisations; and if she will make a statement. [185678]

  Estelle Morris
  Officials within the Department worked jointly on a Home Office funded Options Appraisal, carried out by independent consultants. As part of that appraisal process, the police, bodies in the cultural sector, and other organisations, such as commercial providers of cultural databases, were invited to discuss their views. We are still considering how best to move forward in light of the findings of the report.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of running her Department's canteen facilities was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185983]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows:

  DCMS did not have a canteen in 1996–97.

  A catering facility was opened in 2001 and in the 2003–04 year cost £67,431.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost of refurbishments to the fabric of buildings owned by her Department has been since May 1997. [185984]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS does not own any buildings; all buildings occupied by the Department are leased from commercial landlords.
  302W
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost of printing departmental headed notepaper was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185985]

  Mr. Caborn
  A record of expenditure at this level of detail within the overall stationery budget for 1996–97 is no longer available. The expenditure on headed notepaper in 2003–04. the last full year for which information is available, was £3,500

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department has spent on(a) mobile phone costs, (b) hospitality and (c) taxi costs in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [186003]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is included in the table. All expenditure on official hospitality is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in Government guidance. The hospitality expenditure figure for 2003–04 reflects the changes made in 2002–03 in the way hospitality expenditure was captured to include associated staff costs following the contracting out of the hospitality service. Figures for 2004–05 are not available at present.

  £000

  1996–97

  2003–04

  Mobile telephones

  1—

  35,000

  Hospitality

  41,000

  278,144.29

  Taxi costs

  16,914.69

  221,878.36

  1It is not possible to provide an expenditure figure for mobile telephones in 1996–97 save at disproportionate costs.

  2 Provisional total pending finalisation of annual accounts.

  Libraries
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to extend the Lending Time project to other library services using volunteers. [185498]

  Estelle Morris
  The Framework for the Future Action Plan contains a strategic objective to develop an inclusive library service that reflects and helps build cohesive communities. Volunteering is an integral component of this. Lessons will be drawn from the Community Service Volunteers (CSV) Lending Time project along with other experience of community engagement and used to develop a work programme which will take a wider approach to community engagement. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) are currently considering a proposal from CSV to provide, expert advice and support through a national post funded by Framework for the Future. This person would work with a group of key partners as an advisory group to the work programme.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations made in Shared Intelligence, the evaluation report of the Lending Time project. [185510]
  303W
  Estelle Morris: The recommendations from the Shared Intelligence evaluation report will be used by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) to develop a work programme widening the library approach to community engagement. The experiences from the Lending Time project will be used to ensure that volunteering will be an integral part of this work programme. Funding will come from the Framework for the Future Action Plan and a plan is currently being considered to include a national post at MLA for a member of Community Service Volunteers (CSV), who led the Lending Time project, to provide expert advice and support to the work programme alongside an advisory group of experts.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for a second phase of the Lending Time: Volunteers in Libraries initiative. [185769]

  Estelle Morris
  Lending Time was an agreed three-year project and has now come to an end. The lessons drawn from the project and the recommendations from the evaluation report will be used by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) to support the development of a wider strategy of community engagement for libraries. This will encompass volunteering within a range of initiatives and will be funded through the Framework for the Future Action Plan. In order to utilise the experiences from the Lending Time project further, MLA are currently considering funding a national post for a member of Community Service Volunteers (CSV) to support and advise the development of this strategy.

  Recruitment and Employment Costs
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the(a) recruiting and (b) salary and other employment costs associated with the post of (i) Chairman of die UK Film Council, (ii) Chairman for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and (iii) Chairman of the Museum, Libraries and Archives Council. [184372]

  Estelle Morris
  The direct costs associated with the three public appointments referred to are set out as follows. The average cost of officials' time in running an appointments process, based on 2003–04 figures, was £2,500 per campaign.

  (i) UK Film Council
  Cost of advertising—£14,491.74
  Chair's remuneration—The post is unpaid. However, £198 per day may be claimed, plus travel and subsistence. The time requirement for the post is four days on average per month.

  (ii) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
  Cost of advertising—£14,093.81
  Chair's remuneration—£45,000 per annum plus reasonable expenses.

  (iii) Museum, Libraries and Archives Council
  Cost of advertising—£12,477.06
  304W
  Chair's remuneration—£32,640 per annum plus reasonable expenses.

  School Athletics
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what support her Department gives to the English Schools' Athletic Association; [185878]

  (2) what representations her Department has received regarding the future of the English Schools' Athletic Association; [185879]

  (3) what action her Department has taken to promote athletics in schools. [185880]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department provides no funding support to any schools sport association. It is Government policy that schools sport associations work closely with, and receive their core funding from, the governing bodies for their sports. DCMS officials and Ministers have held regular discussions with officers of the English Schools Athletic Association and UK Athletics over the past year about the future of competitive schools athletics. This is an issue that will be taken forward over the coming months by UK Sport and Sport England as part of the Foster Review implementation.

  DCMS, the Department for Education and Skills and Sport England are supporting the secondment of a Development Manager to the National Council for School Sport. He is working with schools sport associations—including athletics—to embed competitive school sport in governing body one-stop/whole sport plans and to ensure that schools competition structures dovetail with the new infrastructure being established under the national strategy for PE, School Sport and Club Links.

  The results of the 2003/04 PE, School Sport and Club Links Survey showed that athletics is the fourth most popular sport in school sport partnership schools (provided in 90 per cent. of schools) and the fourth most popular in terms of links between schools and clubs (32 per cent. of schools with links to clubs). Athletics is one of 22 sports receiving funding from the Club Links programme to increase the number of such links.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in her Department announced in the Spending Review will be of special advisers. [185478]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 July 2004, Official Report, column 190W.

  Tourism
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of regional development agencies in developing tourism in Manchester Central. [184170]

  Mr. Caborn
  The North West Development Agency (NWDA) is working closely with Marketing Manchester, the nominated Destination Management
  305W
  Organisation (DMO) for Manchester. DMOs are effectively mini tourist boards that will ensure a strong visitor and market focus to all that is done within the region, and aim to strengthen the connection that exist within the region between businesses and other organisations that make up the tourism sector.

  Marketing Manchester also has a key role in securing funds for tourism development from the NWDA. Hence any funding for Manchester Central would need to be secured via that route. During 2003–04 Marketing Manchester received £898,000 to promote and develop tourism within the sub region. A similar amount has been identified to support their work during 2004–05.

  Unfortunately at this stage NWDA cannot show a specific breakdown of funding provided to Manchester Central but the impact of NWDA funding to Marketing Manchester will certainly have been beneficial to the Manchester Central tourism product.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visitor attractions have signed up to the Visitor Attraction Quality Assurance Scheme. [186034]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Visitor Attraction Quality Assurance Service (VAQAS) has accredited 510 visitor attractions.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the rate of productivity in the tourism industry has been in each of the last 10 years; and what criteria are used to measure these rates. [186036]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department estimates the rate of change of labour productivity in Tourism.

  Data is derived from the Annual Business Inquiry, carried out by the Office for National Statistics. This takes the form of estimates of Gross Value Added and numbers in employment. Productivity is estimated as the ratio of Gross Value Added to numbers in employment, and the rate of change from one year to the next is calculated.

  Information has been collected in its present form only since 1998. The latest figures are those for 2002.

  The figures are as follows:

  Percentage

  1998–99

  + 3.1

  1999–2000

  + 4.0

  2000–01

  + 2.5

  2001–02

  + 4.6

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 cost and (b) sales revenue were. [183882]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.
  306W
  The Scotland Office has had 150 copies of its Annual Report printed each year since 1999. The report is also available on the Office's website.

  The printing costs to the Scotland Office were as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  1,020

  2000–01

  3,160

  2001–02

  3,869

  2002–03

  4,036

  2003–04

  4,119

  Other costs of printing and publication of the report are met directly by the publisher, The Stationery Office Limited (TSO), and did not fall to the Government. TSO recoups these costs through sales and uses its commercial judgment as to the number of copies printed. The numbers sold and the revenue from sales are matters for the publisher.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who the Finance Director of(a) the Scotland Office and (b) the Registers of Scotland 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 in each of the last five years. [183456]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 14 July 2004]: The Scotland Office a distinct entity within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Head of Finance at the Scotland Office is Norman Kernohan. He does not hold a professional accountancy qualification but he has full access to advice from professionally qualified staff in both the DCA and the Scottish Executive. The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999 and since that date none of its accounts have received a qualified opinion.

  Questions about the Registers of Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183859]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. The Office has no staff working solely on public relations or publicity. The cost of press office staff was as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  1,244,078

  2000–01

  139,705

  2001–02

  134,702

  2002–03

  299,166

  2003–04

  3111,202

  1 Part year cost from 1 July 1999.

  2 Part year cost because of vacancies.

  3 Estimated.

  307W

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the travel costs were of civil servants in(a) his Department and (b) its predecessor Department in each year since 1997. [183891]

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

  The following table shows the overall expenditure costs of civil servants in the Scot Land Office and the Office of the Advocate-General on travel and subsistence since that date.

  £

  1999–2000

  1179,669

  2000–01

  318,858

  2001–02

  330,496

  2002–03

  346,373

  2003–04

  2264,407

  1 Part year: the Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  2 Financial year 2003–04 costs are provisional, pending finalisation of Annual Accounts.

  All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in the Civil Service Management Code.

  Departmental Publications (Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183860]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Most of the publications for the Scotland Office and the Office of tire Advocate-General are produced on our behalf by commercial publishers, such as The Stationery Office. The retention and storage

  £000

  Financial Year from 1 March

  Region

  Location

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  South West

  Bristol/Exeter

  422

  397

  407

  502

  526

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  488

  391

  437

  456

  439

  Scotland

  Glasgow

  396

  382

  435

  498

  531

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Leeds

  —

  283

  393

  448

  425

  North West

  Liverpool/Manchester

  1,097

  644

  584

  689

  611

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  334

  228

  255

  281

  305

  North East

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  367

  360

  390

  401

  349

  Central Southern

  Southampton

  421

  412

  457

  499

  446

  Wales

  Cardiff

  407

  349

  383

  452

  407

  East Midlands

  Nottingham

  355

  323

  336

  400

  355

  South East and East Anglia

  Cambridge

  299

  412

  440

  519

  468

  London

  London

  69

  259

  280

  332

  286

  Total

  —

  4,656

  4,442

  4,799

  5,477

  5,150

  Childcare Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for the childcare tax credit have been(a) rejected and (b) initially paid and then rejected as invalid. [185695]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not readily available and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the average time between submission of an application for a childcare tax credit and the first payment; [185702]
  308W
  of items published commercially are matters for the publishers. Policy divisions with the Office retain small quantities of publications for working purposes. Details of recent publications are on the Scotland Office website, www.scottishsecretary.gov.uk.

TREASURY

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further benefits for community amateur sports clubs he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [185012]

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further benefits for community amateur sports clubs he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [185012]

  John Healey
  The 2004 Spending Review has made increased funding available to sport. The benefit to Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs) will depend on the spending plans of the Department for Culture Media and Sport. The Government are keen to ensure that as many eligible amateur sports clubs as possible benefit from the tax and other reliefs available to CASCs. The Chancellor will continue to keep the scheme under review in the context of the annual Budget process.

  Bank of England (Regional Offices)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Bank of England's regional offices; and what their annual expenditure was in each of the last five years. [184976]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following table provides the annual expenditure of the Bank's regional agencies for the last five years:

  (2) what the length is of the average claim for childcare tax credit. [185704]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Claims for the childcare element of the working tax credit are made as part of a single claim for child and working tax credits. For the time taken to process such claims, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 8 September 2003,Official Report, columns 21–22W.

  Departmental Accounting Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who the Finance Director of(a) the Treasury, (b) the

  309W
  Inland Revenue Trust, (c) Customs and Excise, (d) the Government Actuary's Department, (e) the Crown Estate, (f) the Royal Mint, (g) the Office of National Statistics, (h) National Savings and Investments and (i) Inland Revenue is; what accountancy qualifications

  Department

  Finance Director

  Accountancy qualifications

  HM Treasury

  Mrs Hilary Douglas (Managing Director, Corporate Services)

  None, but supported by a fully qualified Head of Finance

  Customs and Excise

  Ms Mary Keegan (from 1 September 2004)

  Fellow, Institute of Chartered Accountants

  Ms Alison French

  None, but supported by a qualified and experienced team

  Government Actuary's Department

  Mrs Kirn Clegg

  Associate, Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

  The Crown Estate

  Mr John Lelliott

  Fellow, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

  The Royal Mint

  Mr Huw Edwards

  Associate, Institute of Chartered Accountants

  Office for National Statistics

  Mr Peter Murphy

  None

  National Savings and Investments

  Mr Trevor Bayley

  Fellow, Institute of Chartered Accountants

  Inland Revenue and The Inland Revenue Trust

  Mr Stephen Jones

  None

  As to the qualification of the accounts of the Chancellor's departments, I refer the hon. Member to the accounts themselves.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of his Department's annual report were printed in each year since 1997; how many were sold in each year; and what the(a) publication costs and (b) sales revenue were. [183884]

  Ruth Kelly
  Publication of HM Treasury's Departmental Report is handled by The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO), who are responsible for determining print runs and for selling copies of the report. Sales figures for the previous seven years are as follows:

  Edition

  Copies issued by TSO

  1998

  589

  1999

  524

  2000

  484

  2001

  547

  2002

  465

  2003

  426

  2004

  306

  Printing and publication costs for the Treasury Departmental Report are met by The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO) and in recent years the document has been designed in-house by members of the Treasury's publishing unit.

  For information on direct publication costs incurred by the Treasury in previous years, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Brent South (Mr. Boateng), to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 1190W.

  Employment (Over-65s)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people over 65 years have been in work in 310W
  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. [183419]

  Ruth Kelly
  The answer is as follows.

  (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [184519]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Stephen Hepburn dated 21 July 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the number of people over 65 in employment in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. I am replying in his absence. (184519)
  The attached table gives estimates of the number of people aged 65 and over in employment in Tyne and Wear and the United Kingdom for the three months ending in May of each year from 1997 to 2004. However, the Office for National Statistics' Labour Force Survey (LFS) sample size is too small to give reliable estimates for the Jarrow Parliamentary Constituency and the South Tyneside Unitary Authority.
  As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling Variability.

  People 65 and over in employment

  £000

  3 months ending May each year

  UK

  Tyne and Wear

  1997

  432

  4

  1998

  444

  3

  1999

  464

  3

  2000

  459

  4

  2001

  421

  3

  2002

  477

  3

  2003

  525

  3

  2004

  540

  6

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Fuel Taxation
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce fuel taxation. [185204]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 July 2004,Official Report, column 1014W.
  311W
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to use funds raised from road and fuel taxes specifically for road construction and improvement projects. [185205]

  John Healey
  Revenue from any particular tax is not generally earmarked to any particular part of the public spending programme. However, the Government have a commitment to ring fence any revenue from fuel duty increases above inflation to improving public transport and modernising the road network.

  Government Offices (East Midlands)
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time equivalent employees of the Inland Revenue in the east midlands there were in each year since 1997. [185493]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of full-time equivalent employees of the Inland Revenue in the Government East Midlands region on 1 April each year since 1997 were:

  Number

  1997

  3,714

  1998

  3,807

  1999

  3,951

  2000

  4,010

  2001

  4,060

  2002

  4,080

  2003

  4,385

  2004

  4,368

  The reasons for changes in staff numbers in a single Government region are difficult to accurately measure as they do not reflect organisational divisions within IR or changes in organisational design over the period. Nationally, Inland Revenue growth, since 1997, of which a proportion will be reflected within East Midlands, can be attributed to workload growth, spend to save initiatives, programmes such as the Grabiner review of the informal economy, mergers with the contribution and benefit agencies and the introduction of new tax credits work.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2003–04. [185130]

  John Healey
  As the Treasury's Green Minister, I am committed to improving the environmental impact of the Department's operations, to integrating environmental considerations across policy areas, and to improving the economic analysis underpinning the Government's environmental initiatives.

  In the financial year 2003–04, as the Treasury's Green Minister my work included the development of a range of environmental policy measures including those announced in the pre-Budget report on 10 December 2003 and Budget on 17 March. It also included membership of the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Green Ministers and the Sustainable Development
  312W
  Taskforce, and meetings with representatives of non-governmental organisations and other key stakeholders on topics ranging from climate change to waste to aviation.

  MRSA (Frimley Park Hospital)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the practice at Frimley Park Hospital of not recording MRSA on death certificates where it was the cause or a contributory cause of death; and if he will make a statement. [184667]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Registrar General for England and Wales, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 21 July 2004:

  As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking if the Chancellor will investigate the practice at Frimley Park Hospital of not recording MRSA on death certificates where it was the cause or a contributory cause of death. (184667)

  The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 places an individual responsibility on the medical practitioner in attendance on the deceased to certify the cause of death to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, rather than on any organisation. The Registrar General has no specific power to instigate an inquiry into an accusation of this nature. Coroners can only investigate where a death is referred to them.

  The Government published a position paper on death certification and Investigation in March 2004 outlining proposals for reform. In the interim, the General Register Office will be issuing guidance to all doctors on the best practice for death certification under current legislation. This will remind them of their duty to certify the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief, recording each condition which contributed to the death.

  There were 7 deaths in Frimley Park Hospital in the years 2000 to 2002 where the cause of death was wholly or partly attributable to MRSA1.

  1Identified using the methodology described in Griffiths C, Lamagni TL, Crowcroft NS, Duckworth G and Rooney C (2004) Trends in MRSA in England and Wales: analysis of morbidity and mortality data for 1993–2002. Health Statistics Quarterly 21, 15–22.

  Objections to Ministerial Decisions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list occasions since 1992 when a Permanent Secretary in his or her role as accounting officer has lodged a note of dissent formally objecting to a ministerial decision. [185628]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Norman Baker) on 24 March 2004,Official Report, column 839W.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated expenditure by the Office for National Statistics in compiling regional-level statistics and indicators was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [184977]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  313W
  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mrs. Caroline Spelman, dated 21 July 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the estimated expenditure by the Office for National Statistics in compiling regional-level statistics and indicators was in the most recent year for which figures are available. I am replying in his absence. (184977)

  The estimated expenditure relating to the Regional and Local Division and the Regional Accounts branch of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) was £1.1 million 2003/04. These work areas have responsibility for the production of a range of statistics and analyses at Government Office region level (including sub-regional figures as appropriate).

  There is also significant expenditure by ONS on the Neighbourhood Statistics programme, which primarily addresses the need for statistics for smaller local area, to inform neighbourhood renewal initiatives.

  In addition, many work areas in ONS produce regional-level statistics as part of their routine statistical outputs. However, an estimate of the total expenditure across ONS on the production of regional-level statistics would be very approximate and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  The Allsopp Review of Statistics for Economic Policy Making, whose final report was published in March 2004, made a number of recommendations for improving regional statistics in the UK. In the Government's recent 2004 Spending Review ONS was given the objective of implementing the recommendations of the Allsopp Review. As a result a higher level of ONS's resources will be allocated to regional statistics work than has been the case in recent years.

  Oil Price
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made in recent economic forecasts of the price per barrel of oil in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [184744]

  Ruth Kelly
  The assumption underlying the public finance projections, audited by the NAO is stated in Box C1, page 251 of the 2004 FSBR.

  Pension Schemes (Public Sector)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers have joined each public sector pension scheme in each year since 1997–98. [185710]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Policy (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new policy proposals or significant changes in policy were produced in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; how many of these were screened for their environmental impacts; and how many were the subject of separate environmental appraisals. [185100]

  John Healey
  Chapter 7 of the 2003 and 2004 Budget books (HC 500 and HC 301) shows how budget measures sit alongside other policies as part of the Government's approach to the environmental elements of sustainable development and sets out the environmental impacts of measures introduced in recent 314W
  Budgets that have a significant effect on the environment or which serve an environmental purpose (Tables 7.1 and 7.2)

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is produced for all major Budget measures. From spring this year the RIA includes a requirement to consider environmental impacts.

  Regional Productivity Growth
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to measure productivity growth by region following the 2004 Spending Review Key Performance Agreement with the Department of Trade and Industry to make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions. [185509]

  Ruth Kelly
  The 2002 Spending Review introduced a joint target for the Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to improve the growth rate in every English region and over the long term reduce the persistent disparities in growth rates between the regions. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland regional development is substantially devolved.

  The Technical Note published after the 2002 Spending Review, available on the Departmental websites, sets out how this target will be measured, looking at regional Gross Value Added per head figures produced by the Office for National Statistics. The 2004 Spending Review has reaffirmed this target, and an updated Technical Note will be published on 31 July.

  It was also announced that the Office for National Statistics will implement the recommendations of the Allsopp Review in full, which in its final report in March, set out the implications of the regional agenda for economic statistics.

  In addition, the Treasury and DTI published a consultation document, Productivity in the UK 5, in March on how progress against productivity, and the drivers of productivity, could best be monitored. A full response to Productivity 5 will be made available soon.

  Stamp Duty (Residential Property)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue implication of restructuring stamp duty on residential property sales to charge marginal rates of(a) 0 per cent. on property sales of £120,000 or less, 2 per cent. on sales revenue between £120,000 and £249,999, 5 per cent. on sales revenue between £250,000 and £499,999, 8 per cent. on sales revenue of £500,000 and above, (b) 0 per cent. on property sales of £120,000 or less, 3 per cent. on sales revenue between £120,000 and £249,999, 5 per cent. on sales revenue equal to £250,000, 8 per cent. on sales revenue of £500,000 and above and (c) 0 per cent. on property sales of £120,000 or less, 3 per cent. on property sales between £120,000 and £249,999, 5 per cent. on sales revenue of £250,000 and 7 per cent. on sales revenue of £500,000 and above. [185385]

  Ruth Kelly
  The estimated revenue cost, in 2005—06, of restructuring stamp ditty on residential property sales
  315W
  according to the three schemes described in the question is given in the following table:

  Price of residential property

  Tax regime 1 Marginal rates

  Tax regime 2 Marginal rates

  Tax regime 3 Marginal rates

  £0 to £119,999 (percentage)

  0

  0

  0

  £120,000 to £249,999 (percentage)

  2

  3

  3

  £250,000 to £499,999 (percentage)

  5

  5

  5

  £500,000 and above (percentage)

  8

  8

  7

  Revenue Cost (£ million)

  1,020

  430

  570

  This does not include any allowance for behavioural changes.

  Tax Credits
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances backpayments of(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit are paid as a series of regular payments rather than as a lump sum. [185683]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 17 July 2003,Official Report, columns 465–66W.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer of 13 July,Official Report, columns 1014–15W, on tax credits, when figures for 2003—04 will be available. [185389]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The timing of complete figures on overpayments in 2003–04 will depend on the timing of the replies to the Annual Review, the time taken to obtain any extra information needed to process them, and the proportion of replies containing provisional income data.

  West Sussex (Demographic Population)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the demographic population breakdown of West Sussex; [185514]

  (2) how many people moved into the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust area in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; [185515]

  (3) what the population of the south-east region is, broken down into those (a) under the age of 20 years, (b) between 20 and 60 years and (c) over the age of 60 years. [185521]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Tim Loughton dated 21 July 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions concerning the number of people that moved into the Adur, Arun and Worn-ling Primary Care Trust area in 2003 and 2004 and also the pop elation breakdown of the South East and the demographic breakdown of West Sussex. I am replying in his absence. (185515, 185514, 185521)
  316W
  Unfortunately I am not able to answer your question regarding the number of people moving into the Primary Care trust, as statistics on population flows for Primary Care Trust areas are not currently available. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) will be publishing population estimates by Primary Care Organisation area for the first time on 21 October for 2001, 2002, and 2003.

  The first of the two attached tables shows a demographic population break down for West Sussex based on mid-2002 population estimates. The second table shows mid-2002 population estimates for those who are aged under 20, 20 to 59, and those aged 60 years and over in the South East govrnment office region.

  As announced by ONS on 8 July, revised mid-2002 population estimates are due to be released on 9 September. Information about the revisions can be found at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ downloads/theme_population/PEU announcement_08Jul.pdf

  Mid-year 2002 population estimates for West Sussex

  Thousand

  Age bands

  Male

  Female

  Total

  0–19

  91.4

  85.9

  177.3

  20–59

  189.1

  197.1

  386.2

  60+

  81.7

  110.6

  192.4

  0–4

  21.1

  20.3

  41.4

  5–9

  23.4

  22.0

  45.4

  10–14

  24.7

  23.4

  48.2

  15–19

  22.2

  20.1

  42.3

  20–24

  17.7

  18.1

  35.8

  25–29

  18.2

  19.4

  37.6

  30–34

  23.6

  25.7

  49.4

  35–39

  28.8

  29.2

  57.9

  40–44

  26.7

  27.3

  54.0

  45–49

  24.6

  25.2

  49.9

  50–54

  24.9

  26.1

  51.1

  55–59

  24.5

  26.1

  50.6

  60–64

  18.7

  20.3

  39.0

  65–69

  17.6

  20.0

  37.6

  70–74

  16.4

  20.1

  36.5

  75–79

  13.2

  18.5

  31.7

  80–84

  9.2

  15.5

  24.7

  85–89

  4.6

  9.9

  14.5

  90+

  2.0

  6.4

  8.4

  Note: Figures may not add exactly due to rounding.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Population for the South East, Mid-year2002

  Thousand

  Age bands

  Male

  Female

  Total

  (a) 0–19

  1,017.7

  959.5

  1,977.3

  (b) 20–59

  2,167.1

  2,184.8

  4,351.9

  (c) 60+

  747.5

  961.7

  1,709.2

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Working Tax Credit/Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parents were in receipt of the lone parent element of the working tax credit in 2003–04. [185717]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information is contained in the various issues of "Child and Working Tax Credits. Quarterly Statistics", which can be found on the Inland Revenue website at:
  www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the budgetary cost of the lone parent element of the working tax credit was in 2003–04. [185718]
  317W
  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to provide a split of total spending between the different elements of the working tax credit. The amount of award payable is reduced as family income increases, and this reduction is applied to the total value of all the elements taken together.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost of disregarding maintenance payments for the purposes of calculating working tax credit and child tax credit. [181838]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest estimate is of the cost of disregarding maintenance payments for the purposes of calculating working tax credit and child tax credit. [182117]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Members to my answer to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on 19 July 2004,Official Report, column 44W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Growth Areas (Infrastructure Projects)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department is taking to ensure that infrastructure projects can be funded in growth areas. [185312]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  In the statement I gave to the House on Tuesday 13 July following the Spending Review Settlement I announced that funding for the growth areas outside the Thames Gateway would double by 2007–08. I hope to announce the full details of the allocation when the House returns in September.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also established a new Community Infrastructure Fund to provide transport infrastructure in all growth areas, providing £200 million over the SR04 period.

  Private investment, captured through developer contributions in areas of high land value will also play an important part in supporting the development of the Growth Areas.

  Housing (Hertfordshire)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to improve the availability of(a) social and (b) affordable housing in Hertfordshire. [185313]

  Phil Hope
  Through the Housing Corporation, Hertfordshire will gain around 1,170 homes for rent and low cost home ownership over this year and the next. This is a very significant increase on the 273 homes completed in 1997–98.

  Following the Spending Review, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that an extra 10,000 social rented homes a year will be provided, in England, by 2007–08. Over the next three years, the
  318W
  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide more than 40,000 affordable homes for essential public sector workers and others in need.

  Right-to-Buy System
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to prevent abuses of the right to buy system. [185314]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In March 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister reduced right to buy discounts in 41 local authority areas under the greatest housing market pressure and we have included provisions in the Housing Bill to tackle exploitation of the scheme.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also made it easier for landlords in rural areas to restrict the resale of ex-Right to Buy homes to local people. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends shortly to lay an Order before Parliament in accordance with section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, designating Test Valley as a rural area for this purpose, in addition to the 30 other areas already designated.

  Sustainable Communities (Student Areas)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on developing sustainable communities in student areas of major towns. [185315]

  Phil Hope
  Student populations can bring real benefits to local neighbourhoods. However, universities and local authorities need to work together more closely to reduce potential problems in areas of high student populations. Last month we agreed to fund a project between Universities UK and the Local Government Association to improve the way that students are housed in local communities.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of the Planning Inspectorate. [185316]

  Keith Hill
  The Planning Inspectorate serves The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), the Welsh Assembly Government and other Government Departments by dealing with appeals, development plans and other casework under planning, housing, environment and allied legislation.

  Its mission is:
  "To use our impartial expertise in planning and land use to help shape well planned environments."

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for the development of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. [185317]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 12 July we announced, as part of the Spending Review 2004, that a further £525 million of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) resources would be made available in each of the years 2006–07 and 2007–08. We expect to make a further announcement on the distribution of these resources later in the year.
  319W

  Polluted Land (Investment)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to promote investment in cleaning up polluted land for new house building. [185318]

  Keith Hill
  The Government have a wide-ranging package of fiscal measures to support regeneration including a contaminated land tax. credit designed to encourage the reuse of contaminated land. The Office has also negotiated a state aid approval from the European Commission that allows public sector support for the remediation of derelict and contaminated land. Furthermore, the Office is working closely with English Partnerships to develop a National Brownfield Strategy to ensure the best use of previously developed land, including contaminated land.

  Market Renewal Pathfinder Programme
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Market Renewal Pathfinder programme in Heywood and Middleton. [185319]

  Phil Hope
  The Middleton area of Rochdale is included in the Oldham Rochdale Partners in Action (the Market Renewal Pathfinder). Following submission of their strategic scheme, the pathfinder has been allocated £53.5million Housing Market Renewal Funding up to March 2006. Some of this will contribute to the funding of a comprehensive regeneration programme in the right hon. Gentlemen's constituency area of Middleton including works:o refurbish over 800 homes to a decent homes standard, construction of over 300 private new homes and providing safe and secure off road parking for more than 3,000 homes.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing regional assemblies. [185320]

  Allocations: 2004–05 and 2005–06

  Social rent

  Low cost home ownership

  Units

  Percentage of total

  Units

  Percentage of total

  Camden

  230

  54.2

  49

  11.6

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  458

  37.1

  287

  23.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  325

  48.5

  136

  20.3

  Haringey

  488

  54.3

  154

  17.1

  Islington

  369

  37.5

  39

  4.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  170

  66.9

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  635

  62.4

  193

  19.0

  Lewisham

  301

  62.6

  129

  26.8

  Newham

  525

  46.1

  205

  18.0

  Southwark

  425

  49.2

  155

  17.9

  Wandsworth

  41

  12.3

  132

  39.8

  Westminster

  215

  56.1

  47

  12.3

  Total for London

  9,877

  51.8

  3,510

  18.4

  320W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The House is debating this afternoon three Orders to enable referendums to take place. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has already considered Orders on the date for those referendums and the local government options in the three regions where referendums are proposed.

  Following a 'yes' vote in any one of those regions we will move as soon as possible to introduce legislation that will enable us to establish regional assemblies.

  Fire and Rescue Service Equipment (Purchasing)
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes his Department has implemented to the purchasing of fire and rescue service equipment. [185321]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been working with fire and rescue authorities and suppliers to develop a National Procurement Strategy that aims to deliver improved cost effectiveness, to maintain competition and stimulate innovation. In the meantime, fire service circulars issued in 2003 and 2004 gave advice on the arrangements to be used pending publication of the strategy.

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what proportion of the affordable housing to be built in(a) Camden, (b) the City of London, (c) Hackney, (d) Hammersmith and Fulham, (e) Haringey, (f) Islington, (g) Kensington and Chelsea, (h) Lambeth, (i) Lewisham, (j) Newham, (k) Southwark, (l) Wandsworth and (m) Westminster in (i) 2004–05 and (ii) 2005–06 will be (A) social housing for rent, (B) low cost home ownership stock, (C) low cost home ownership stock for key workers and (D) intermediate rented housing for key workers. [185255]

  Keith Hill
  Allocations for funding by the Housing Corporation through its Approved Development Programme for schemes due to start in 2004–05 and 2005–06 in the London boroughs specified are set out in the following table. The data include the numbers of units for social rent, low cost home ownership for key workers and others and intermediate rent for key workers.
  321W

  Key Workers Low Cost Home Ownership

  Key workers intermediate rent

  Units

  Percentage of total

  Units

  Percentage of total

  Total units

  Camden

  67

  15.8

  78

  18.4

  424

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  398

  32.2

  93

  7.5

  1,236

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  175

  26.1

  34

  5.1

  670

  Haringey

  203

  22.6

  54

  6.0

  899

  Islington

  275

  27.9

  302

  30.7

  985

  Kensington and Chelsea

  43

  16.9

  41

  16.1

  254

  Lambeth

  169

  16.6

  20

  2.0

  1,017

  Lewisham

  45

  9.4

  6

  1.2

  481

  Newham

  241

  21.2

  168

  14.7

  1,139

  Southwark

  226

  26.2

  58

  6.7

  864

  Wandsworth

  107

  32.2

  52

  15.7

  332

  Westminster

  45

  11.7

  76

  19.8

  383

  Total for London

  3,872

  20.3

  1,820

  9.5

  19,079

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many units of affordable housing for(a) rent and (b) sale were built with funding generated by recycled capital grant in 2003–04, broken down by Government office region; [185256]

  (2) what reports he has received of recycled capital grant being used for purposes other than investment in new affordable housing. [185259]

  Keith Hill
  Information is not currently available on the number of affordable housing units provided with recycled capital grant in 2003–04.

  Provisional reports from the Housing Corporation indicate that for 2002–03, a total of 2,733 units were completed using recycled capital grant. Of this amount, 400 units were for social rent, 426 units were for shared ownership, while 1,907 units were re-improvements to existing stock.

  English Partnerships
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what share of its budget for remediation costs English Partnerships has brought forward into the first three months of the 2004–05 financial year to allow works to be undertaken before the implementation of the next phase of the Landfill Directive. [184946]

  Keith Hill
  Less than 1 per cent. of English Partnerships' total projected remediation costs for 2004–05 were brought forward into the first three months of the financial year to allow works to be undertaken before implementation of the Landfill Directive.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what(a) amount and (b) percentage English Partnerships has increased the allowance for remediation costs in (i) the Thames Gateway and (ii) the coalfields in its 2004–05 budget to meet anticipated additional costs arising from the implementation of the ban on co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. [185090]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not had to provide any additional funding to English Partnerships in 2004–05 for increased remediation costs arising from the ending of the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. English Partnerships is committed to best practice and sustainability in regeneration and has always made 322W
  allowances for remediation costs on the presumption of seeking the most economic waste treatment solution that minimises the removal of material to landfill. These efforts have been strengthened with the approach of the directive trigger date and English Partnerships has worked on a project level to mitigate cost effects on individual sites including examining feasibility for and effecting in-situ bio remediation.

  Government Office of the East Midlands
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time equivalent employees of the Government Office of the East Midlands there have been since the establishment of its structure. [185496]

  Phil Hope
  The table below sets out the number of full-time equivalent employees of the Government Office for East Midlands at annual intervals since May 2000:

  Date

  Number of full-time equivalent employees

  May 2000

  213.5

  March 2001 (nearest available figures)

  204.2

  May 2002

  209.6

  May 2003

  240.4

  May 2004

  298.7

  Figures prior to 2000 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The increase in the number of full-time equivalent employees reflects th! fact that since 2000, staff from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office have joined the Government Office. The increased numbers between 2003 and 2004 reflect, in particular, growth in the Community Cohesion, Crime Reduction and Sustainable Communities teams.

  Home Ownership Task Force
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 739W, on the Home Ownership Task Force, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Department's discussions with the Housing Corporation on the Home

  323W
  Ownership Task Force's recommendation of greater transparency in the setting of rent and other charges for shared ownership housing. [185257]

  Keith Hill
  Greater transparency in rent setting and other charges continues to be discussed with the Housing Corporation as part of the implementation of the Government's response to the Home Ownership Task Force which was announced on 6 May 2004.

  Housing (North-west)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of current demographic trends in the north-west on the region's housing stock. [185284]

  Keith Hill
  This issue will be addressed in the forthcoming full review of regional planning guidance for the north-west.

  Planning Applications (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning applications approved by the London borough of Wandsworth have been opposed in each of the last three years. [185345]

  Keith Hill
  Assuming that the question is about call-in of planning applications by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for his own determination following a public inquiry, the answer is as follows:

  2001—None;

  2002—Three;

  2003—None;

  Call-ins take place when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State considers it necessary to call in the planning application to determine himself, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority. He will, in general only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. It would not be correct to regard call-in as an indication of his opposition to the proposals.

  Regional Planning Guidance (North-west)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of regional planning guidance on the affordability of homes in the north-west. [185283]

  Keith Hill
  This issue will be addressed in the forthcoming full review of regional planning guidance for the north-west.

  Shared Ownership
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total amount of capital receipts from shared owners staircasing up their equity share was in each year since 1997. [185258]

  Keith Hill
  The following table shows the total amount of capital receipts from shared owners staircasing up their equity share in each year since 1997.
  324W

  Recycled capital grant fund (RCGF) shared ownership staircasing analysis

  Number of units involved

  Amount (£ million)

  1997–98

  1,913

  26.144

  1998–99

  2,043

  28.287

  1999–2000

  3,321

  52.223

  2000–01

  3,210

  49.394

  2001–02

  3,603

  58.828

  2002–03

  4,554

  79.986

  Total

  18,644

  294.862

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 5 July 2004, Official Report, columns 458–59W, on shared ownership housing, what the average rent and service charge was on the 50 per cent. stake held by the registered social landlord in a(a) one-bed, (b) two-bed and (c) three-bed shared ownership property in (i) Tower Hamlets, (ii) the eastern sub-region, (iii) London and (iv) England in the latest year for which figures are available. [185254]

  Keith Hill
  The following table shows the average rent and service charges for shared ownership properties where a 50 per cent. stake is held by the registered social landlord, broken down by the number of bedrooms, in Tower Hamlets, the east London sub-region, London and England in 2003–04.

  Shared ownership sales during 2003–04

  Average monthly rent and service charges for those who purchased a 50 per cent. stake

  Number of sales

  Monthly rent (£)

  Monthly service charge (£)

  One bedroom

  Tower Hamlets

  7

  123.90

  38.11

  East London

  27

  151.15

  57.43

  London

  165

  155.55

  58.66

  England

  339

  139.83

  50.30

  Two bedrooms

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  209.84

  51.36

  East London

  120

  198.01

  53.30

  London

  331

  189.36

  49.47

  England

  1,420

  142.50

  34.26

  Three bedrooms

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  164.30

  0.00

  East London

  39

  201.63

  26.88

  London

  89

  197.24

  25.16

  England

  682

  152.79

  19.27

  Because the buyer took a 50 per cent. stake, the average price paid by the buyer represents one-half of the property.

  The figures include the following schemes:

  Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership, Shared Ownership for the Elderly, Leasehold Schemes for the Elderly, Ordinary Shared Ownership Schemes

  East London sub-region 1 is an amalgamation of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Redbridge, Waltham Forest

  Source:

  Housing Corporation, CORE Sales
  325W

  Starter Home Initiative
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) social workers and (b) nurses were assisted by the Starter Home Initiative in 2003–04. [185520]

  Keith Hill
  Between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004, the Starter Home Initiative helped nearly 100 social workers and over 1,200 nurses into home ownership.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disabled people in London are receiving help with fares to work under the access to work scheme. [185472]

  Maria Eagle
  Between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004, Access to Work helped 364 new customers in London with travel to work costs. A further 802 customers who had applied for assistance prior to 1 April 2003 continued to receive assistance during the same period.

  Appointees
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of applications for appointeeship(a) involve an interview with the claimant and (b) rely on the discussion with a carer or professional alone; [182699]

  (2) what monitoring takes place to ensure that appointees spend the benefit in the best interests of the claimant; [182701]

  (3) how many cases there were in 2002–03 where concerns about appointeeship were brought to the attention of the Department; how many were investigated; and in how many cases the appointeeship was revoked. [182702]

  Maria Eagle
  Appointees are normally interviewed by a visiting officer to ensure their suitability and awareness of their roles and responsibilities; a visit will also be made to the customer, although exceptions may be made where the customer is in hospital.

  While formal monitoring of appointeeships is not carried out thereafter, officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can revoke the authority of appointees where there are concerns that they are not acting in the interests of the person claiming benefit.

  Information regarding the numbers and types of interviews carried out, and how many cases were investigated, is not available as statistics are not collected centrally.

  Attendance Allowance (Over-80s)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in London aged(a) 80 years and over, (b) 85 years and over and (c) 90 years and over are in receipt of attendance allowance. [184876]

  Maria Eagle
  The numbers of attendance allowance recipients in London by age are set out in the table.
  326W

  Thousand

  All

  123.1

  Under 80

  48.4

  80 to 84

  31.5

  85 to 89

  24.5

  90 and over

  18.7

  Note:

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

  Source:

  AD information Centre.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of computer systems which support the delivery of pensions and income support have been replaced since 2000. [185058]

  Jane Kennedy
  None of the computer systems supporting the delivery of pensions and income support have been replaced. They are however subject to upgrading to reflect legislative changes and procedural improvements as required.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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 cost and (b) sales revenue were. [183878]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was created in June 2001 with a specific new purpose of promoting opportunity and independence for all. The Department has published three annual reports, in spring 2002, 2003 and 2004. Information on the number of copies produced and publication costs falling to the Department are shown in the table.

  Year of publication of Departmental Report

  Number of copies printed

  Publication costs falling to Department for Work and Pensions (£)

  2002

  2,000

  94,940

  2003

  2,500

  73,089

  2004

  1,500

  40,752

  Other costs associated with sales and distribution are met directly by the publisher, The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO), and do not fall to government. Information on the number of copies;old and sales revenue are matters for the publisher.

  The Department of Social Security printed 1,075 copies of its annual report in 2001 at a cost of £66,537. Information on previous years is not available. As an agency of the Department for Education and Employment, the Employment Service was included in the annual reports of that department.

  Departmental Re-branding
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost was of re-branding the Department in 2001. [185534]
  327W
  Maria Eagle
  The total cost of re-branding my Department to accommodate its name change in 2001 was £232,044, which includes the application of the logos to key items such as stationery, building signs and electronic media.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people haw. left employment in his Department because of(a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175680]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not collected on the number of resignations or dismissals from the Department resulting from anxiety, stress, depression, or other mental health reason.

  The number of medical retirement certificates issued for mental health reasons over the last four financial years is in the table.

  Number of certificates

  2000–01

  81

  2001–02

  85

  2002–03

  64

  2003–04

  55

  Notes:

  The figures relate only to the number of medical retirement certificates issued. These may not all have resulted in medical retirements taking place.

  DWP was formed in June 2001. Figures for 2000–01 and April and May 2001 relate to the former Employment Service and Department of Social Security.

  Figures were not collected prior to April 2000.

  The Department is committed to providing a safe working environment for all of its staff and has a range of support in place to help identify and tackle the causes of work related stress, anxiety and depression. This includes both preventative policies, such as the use of the HSE's Management Standards, and policies to help manage those cases that have resulted in individuals taking time off work. For example, an Attendance Management policy, a confidential employee assistance counselling service, and an occupational health provider service who provides advice on medical conditions including mental and behavioural disorders.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to promote the development of(a) supported employment opportunities and (b) intermediate labour market solutions to help those who are blind or partially-sighted. [182539]

  Maria Eagle
  Like all jobless people, where they meet the eligibility criteria, disabled people or those with health problems can access the full range of Government employment programmes, including intermediate labour market initiatives.

  Workstep provides support in jobs for disabled people who have more complex barriers to finding and keeping work but who, with the right support, are able to make a valuable contribution in their job and where appropriate develop and progress to open employment. Workstep providers are required to work with all clients
  328W
  on a qualifying benefit, including clients who are blind or partially sighted. Remploy, which is the largest provider of the Workstep programme, supports over 230 people with visual impairments in a variety of jobs.

  A number of organisations with their roots in helping people who are blind or partially sighted are also directly involved with Workstep as providers. These organisations include: Action for Blind People, Royal London Society for the Blind, Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries, the Royal Aberdeen Workshops for the Blind and Disabled and Merthyr Tydfil Institute for the Blind. In line with the Workstep ethos, these organisations deliver support to clients with a range of disabilities.

  The Access to Work programme is open to disabled people already in employment (including self-employment), people changing jobs and unemployed people about to start work. It helps towards the additional employment costs resulting from disability, for example, help with the costs of travelling to work, adaptations to premises and special equipment.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many enforcement notices were issued by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last seven years. [184681]

  Jane Kennedy
  Over the last seven years the Health and Safety Executive has issued the following number of enforcement notices. The figures for 2003–04 will be publicly available in the Offences and Penalties report, due for release in late October 2004.

  Year1

  2 Total enforcement notices issued

  1996–97

  37,444

  1997–98

  38,911

  1998–99

  10,900

  1999–2000

  11,340

  2000–01

  11,056

  2001–02

  11,082

  2002–03

  13,324

  1Year refers to operational year, which runs 1 April to 31 March.

  2 The table refers to total enforcement notices issued in Great Britain and includes improvement and prohibition notices.

  3 In 1996–97 and 1997–98, HSE issued "Notices of Intent" that required a satisfactory outcome be secured within two weeks so as to avoid serving an improvement notice. As a result, some improvement notices were not issued. If the notices of intent were not issued, the number of enforcement notices would have been about 540 higher in 1996–97 and 630 higher in 1997–98. This system is no longer used.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to ensure that no recipient of incapacity benefit suffers a reduction of net weekly income due to withdrawal of income support and related benefits; what assessment he has made of the number of individuals whose net weekly income is reduced in this way; and if he will make a statement. [184745]
  329W
  Maria Eagle
  We have made no estimates of the number of incapacity benefit (IB) recipients who have experienced a reduction of net weekly income due to withdrawal of income support and related benefits.

  In most cases, people will be better off receiving incapacity benefit than an income-related benefit. In addition, as the position of those who lose entitlement to income support is no different from that of any other person whose income is above income support levels, it would be unfair to introduce special arrangements for people in these circumstances.

  New Deal for Lone Parents
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parents were on the New Deal for Lone Parents in 2003–04; and what the associated budgetary cost was. [185719]

  Jane Kennedy
  Between April 2003 and March 2004, 226,2801 individuals participated on New Deal for Lone Parents. The estimated outturn spend on the programme is £66 million.

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Pay Systems
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [181357]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions looks at its pay systems every year to inform the annual pay award process. There is no review report; the outcomes are captured in the pay offer we make to staff. Of the five non-departmental public bodies (NDPB), which the Department is responsible for, two—Remploy and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority?complete a yearly review, which they will place in the Library by the end of August 2004. Both the Disability Rights Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are currently reviewing their pay progression arrangements. The outcomes of both these reviews will be placed in the Library when completed. The Rent Service's most recent review was completed in 2002, and we will arrange for a summary to be provided for the Library by the end of August 2004.

  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is committed to reviewing its pay policies to ensure that they are compliant with the current equal pay legislation and do not either directly or indirectly discriminate against any group of employees.

  An Equal Pay Audit was completed in January 2002 in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance. This was based on details from the agencies which formed the Department for Social Security. Following the creation of DWP and the consequent alignment of pay policies, the findings from this report are now out-of-date. The Department is currently undertaking an Equal Pay Audit to review existing DWP policies and to inform the further development of its reward strategy. Once this is complete, a copy of the action plan will be placed in the Library.
  330W
  Although non-departmental public bodies (NDPB) are not committed to completing an equal pay review, they are encouraged by the Department to conduct them. NDPB's staffed by civil servants follow the Cabinet Office commitment (e.g. HSE). Of the five NDPB's that the Department is responsible for, two (the Disability Rights Commission and The Rent Service) have conducted equal pay reviews, and the relevant documents will be put into the library by the end of August 2004. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has no current plans to complete an equal pay review, as they will cease to exist from 5 April 2005. Remploy will be making plans to complete an equal pay review on appointment of their new HR Director on the 26 July 2004.

  The final NDPB, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), submitted a draft equal pay action plan to Cabinet Office in 2003. When a finalised version has been agreed that incorporates the findings from a current review of pay progression arrangements it will be placed in the Library.

  Pension Centre (Swansea)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his plans for the pension centre in Swansea. [185329]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since the Budget announcement, detailed planning has been taking place across the Department. This has included discussions on the future size and shape of The Pension Service. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions issued a written statement on 29 June 2004,Official Report, columns 8–9WS announcing the first phase of that transformation.

  Planning continues across the Department and we will inform the House when firm decisions are made.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the quality of work carried out at Swansea Pension Centre. [185330]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Service deploys quality support teams to assess the accuracy of payments made by pension centres. These teams sample pension credit payments and state pension payments for Swansea Pension Centre three times per year. Swansea Pension Centre also conducts a monthly survey of its customers to measure their satisfaction with the service provided.

  Swansea Pension Centre is currently achieving all key performance targets.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the take-up of pension credit. [185418]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Statement by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 July 2004,Official Report, columns 77—78WS.
  331W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of pensioners he estimate will not be claiming pension credit by 2006. [185422]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department has set a Public Service Agreement target for at least three million pensioner households, corresponding to around 3.7 million individuals, to be in receipt of pension credit by March 2006 and is on course to achieve this. A projection based on available data suggests that approximately 3.85 million households, corresponding to around 5 million individuals, are likely to be eligible for Pension Credit in Great Britain in 2005–06. This projection, rounded to the nearest 50,000 households or individuals, includes a number of assumptions which will be sensitive to change. It is subject to a wide margin of error and should be used as a broad indication of the likely eligible population only.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many working days per 100,000 workers were lost for reasons of work-related injury and ill-health in each of the last seven years. [184675]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not available in the form requested. Estimates of the number of working days lost as a result of work-related injury are obtained every three years through the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The latest estimate, for 2000–01, is 27,900 working days lost per 100,000 workers, compared with an estimate of 25,800 in 1997–98.

  For work-related illness, the only available estimate in the seven-year period is bared on information obtained from the 2001–02 LFS. The survey estimated that 140,000 working days per 100,000 workers were lost as a result of self-reported work-related ill-health.

  A combined estimate for work-related injury and ill-health, covering 2003–04, will be published later this year.

CABINET OFFICE

  Job Losses (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisors. [185470]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr. Boateng), on 20 July 2004, Official Report, column 190W.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what areas of work Lord Birt is engaged upon. [182247]
  332W
  Mr. Alexander
  Lord Birt is the Prime Minister's unpaid strategy adviser and works alongside the Strategy Unit on a range of issues. He is also an external member of the Cabinet Office Strategy Board. The nature of Lord Birt's work is to provide private internal advice to the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. This advice is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Public Meetings (Access)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action is being taken to encourage(a) central and (b) local government departments and agencies to ensure that public meetings are accessible for those with disabilities. [180912]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Where central and local government departments and their agencies are holding public meetings as a service to the public, they are covered by the service provider provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and have legal duties under Part 3 of the Act to make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to make use of them. In some instances, public meetings may form part of the function of a central or local Government department or its agencies. Currently, the access duties under Part 3 of the DDA do not extend to functions of public bodies. However, a proposal in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill would bring all such functions within the scope of Part 3 of the Act.

  The Government are currently running a campaign to remind service providers of their duties under the DDA. The campaign focuses on the new duties being introduced from 1 October 2004, which require service providers to make reasonable adjustments to physical features of premises which make access to the service impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people.

  The Disability Rights Commission (DRC), which is a non-departmental public body of the Department for Work and Pensions, published a revised statutory Code of Practice in 2002 explaining the service provider provisions, including the new duties from October 2004. In addition, the DRC has been working in partnership with the Local Government Association to raise awareness of the implications of the service provider duties for local authorities and to develop guidance on implementing the DDA duties within local authority service provision.

  Security Vetting
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations he has received on the merits of re-establishing an inter-departmental committee of security vetting authorities. [184398]

  Mr. Alexander
  The most recent periodic review of the Government's personnel security system recommended the creation of a new official committee focusing on this area. That was accepted and that committee will work to ensure the continued effectiveness of personnel security policy and practice throughout Government, and in those organisations with which Government works in partnership.
  333W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ammonium Nitrate
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department keeps on file records of thefts of ammonium nitrate;(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) on farms within the United Kingdom. [172743]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In England and Wales, numbers of thefts of ammonium nitrate are not collected separately from other thefts. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Alun Michael) on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 857W. Ammonium nitrate in itself is not classified as an explosive.

  Asylum Seekers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals whose application for asylum had been rejected absconded in each year since 1997. [183924]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of asylum applicants who have absconded is not available except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Some asylum seekers who have "absconded" may have left the UK voluntarily; others may remain in the UK illegally. Applicants do not always inform the Immigration Service prior to leaving the UK. The Immigration Service's policy on contact management, the means by which the Home Office maintains contact with asylum seekers throughout the process, was introduced in 2002. The policy is being continuously enhanced with the proposed expansion of the detention estate; the development of more static reporting centres; the development of Immigration Service staff based at police stations; the rollout of induction centres at the beginning of the asylum process and the piloting of biometric reporting i.e. voice recognition, tagging and kiosk based reporting.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances individuals are required to wear an electronic tagging device. [183925]

  Mr. Browne
  Individuals in England and Wales are required to wear a tag when sentenced by a court to a curfew order or curfew requirement with electronic monitoring; on release from prison under the Home Detention Curfew Scheme; or as a requirement of a bail or licence condition.

  Individuals who are liable to detention under immigration legislation may, in future, be required to wear an electronic tagging device if a Chief Immigration Officer, adjudicator or judge of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission considers, following an individual risk assessment, that the risk of absconding can be managed through the additional safeguard of electronic monitoring by tagging as an alternative to detention.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support is being offered to failed Iraqi asylum seekers being returned to Iraq. [184516]
  334W
  Mr. Browne
  Since July last year the Home Office has been facilitating, the return of small numbers of Iraqi citizens who want to return home through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Individuals returning under this programme receive independent advice and practical assistance with travel arrangements.

  Enforced returns to Iraq will begin as soon as the practical arrangements for the returns programme are in place. The details of the returns programme have not yet been finalised, but are likely to include a package of support for returnees.

  Failed asylum seekers of any nationality, including Iraqis, who are destitute and unable to leave the UK immediately for reasons entirely beyond their control may seek accommodation from National Asylum Support Service (MASS) under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Those who do not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria but who are willing to register with the IOM for a voluntary departure would be eligible for accommodation under section 4 while they are waiting for their voluntary return to be arranged.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) community support officers there were in the Greater Manchester Police in each of the last 10 years; and what his projections are for the next three years' spending period. [184746]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is set out in the table. The Greater Manchester Police had record police strength at the end of December 2003.

  We have made no projections for force strength over the next three years. It is for the Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police to determine the mix of officers and support staff within the budget set by the police authority over the next three years.

  As at 31 March

  Police Officer strength

  Police (support) staff strength

  Community Support Officer strength

  1993–94

  6,967

  2,638

  —

  1994–95

  7,037

  2,674

  —

  1995–96

  6,938

  2,749

  —

  1996–97

  6,922

  2,612

  —

  1997–98

  6,949

  2,661

  —

  1998–99

  6,810

  2,623

  –

  1999–2000

  6,795

  2,822

  —

  2000–01

  6,909

  2,858

  —

  2001–02

  7,217

  3,135

  —

  2002–03

  7,343

  3,173

  160

  2003–04

  17,770

  Not available

  2185

  1Police officer strength as at 31 December 2003.

  2 CSO strength as at 31 March 2004.

  Correspondence
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will answer letters dated 22 February and 19 May from the hon. Member for Vauxhall about a constituent, reference number: S1003233. [184698]
  335W
  Mr. Browne
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 21 July 2004.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration staff were 336W
  employed at each of Heathrow airport's four terminals at 1 January in each year since 1997. [183301]

  Mr. Browne
  The following table sets out the number of full-time equivalent immigration officials employed at Heathrow airport, Terminals 1–4, at 1 January for the last eight years.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  TN1

  187.1

  209.2

  189.8

  194

  179.4

  203.1

  210.3

  234.9

  TN2

  231.7

  225.7

  201.6

  192.5

  188.2

  208.8

  205.7

  193.1

  TN3

  1_

  278.5

  270

  269.8

  277.5

  326.7

  332.6

  308.2

  TN4

  199.2

  186.9

  179.6

  180

  187.2

  186.9

  195.4

  196.9

  Total

  618

  900.3

  841

  836.3

  832.3

  925.5

  944

  933.1

  1Figures are unavailable for Heathrow Terminal 3 for the years 1997. 1998 figure is for 1 February 1998 for Terminal 3.

  In addition since 1 January 2004 127 officials have been trained or allocated training places for deployment at Heathrow airport.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the race impact assessment of the identity card scheme. [182298]

  Mr. Browne
  The identity cards scheme will be an inclusive scheme, designed to cover everyone who has the right to be in the United Kingdom. It will show that everyone belongs to our society whether they were born here, have chosen to make their home here or are just staying for a while to study or work. It will help people prove their identity to access services such as free health treatment or benefits and give everyone confidence that legal migration will not result in increased fraudulent use of hard-pressed public services. If our communities have confidence in our immigration controls, they will be more welcoming of new arrivals, helping to promote a more cohesive society.

  The identity cards scheme itself is non-discriminatory as it is intended to cover everyone in the United Kingdom for longer than a specified period (three months). The scheme will not, in general, require people to obtain a specific, additional document as it will be designed to make use of existing documents that will be designated as identity cards. Most members of the identity cards "family" will be enhanced versions of existing identity documents which are very widely held familiar documents that are already used as proof of identity.

  A partial race impact assessment was published with the draft Bill (CM 6178). This was developed following consultation with representatives of black and minority ethnic groups and research undertaken with these groups. Further assessments will he made as the design of the scheme develops, focusing mainly on how the introduction of ID cards affects the use of existing police powers, how the scheme is administered and its use in relation to access to services and employment.

  Immigration
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Indian passport and travel documents were sent to the constituent of the hon. Member for Walsall, North without explanation or information on how to proceed, ref 5773882. [185289]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: I understand that on the occasions that my hon. Friend's constituent applied for a No Time Limit (NIL) endorsement, his documents were returned to him with a covering letter explaining that a further endorsement cannot be placed in his passport whilst he is in possession of a valid travel document endorsed with an NIL stamp.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacant homes in the borough of Trafford are held under contract to the National Asylum Support Service, broken down by(a) local authority, (b) private landlords and (c) housing association properties; and at what cost. [182000]

  Mr. Browne
  Details of the properties and costs of accommodation contracted to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) cannot be disclosed since this information is part of the contract between NASS and the provider and must be treated as commercial in confidence.

  Racist Visitors
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on allowing into the UK those with well-known racist and anti-semitic views who intend to speak at public meetings; and if he will make a statement. [183118]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 12 July 2004]: The Immigration Rules make provision for a person to be refused entry if their presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good. Each case is considered on its individual merits. Once admitted to the UK a person is expected to abide by UK law.

  UK Passports Service
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the efficiency of Special Mail Services in delivering United Kingdom passports; and if he will make a statement. [182803]

  Mr. Browne
  The United Kingdom Passport Service assesses the performance of Special Mail Services (SMS) on a regular basis. Since the new arrangements for secure delivery of UK passports commenced on 9 February SMS have successfully delivered just over
  337W
  3 million passports and have surpassed their key performance target of delivering 97 per cent. of passports on the next working day. On current information recorded losses of passports total 219 over the five month period.

  Based on the first five months of contract performance SMS and UKPS have identified a number areas of SMS's performance including the security of their premises and vetting of their staff where arrangements need to be strengthened. UKPS will be closely monitoring the implementation of planned improvements to their performance over the next few months.

  The SMS contract was awarded following a competitive tender and the payments made to SMS are in line with the contract, delivering the anticipated value for money for passport customers.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of the UK Passports Service to cash cheques for passport applications before processing the application itself. [184201]

  Mr. Browne
  Yes, all payments for passport services are processed as soon as the application is received. There are good reasons for this. On security grounds, so that large sums of money are not held at passport offices. On grounds of regularity, so that passports are only issued to customers who have paid in full and for process efficiency. In processing over 5 million passport applications annually it would be impossible to keep payments with applications throughout the whole issuing process.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether compensation is payable for(a) delay and (b) distress in the case of an error by the UK Passports Service in transposing an incorrect photograph onto a passport application. [184218]

  Mr. Browne
  The compensation policy of the UK Passport Services (UKPS) which reflects good practice guidance issued by the Cabinet Office and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, is to reimburse the reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred by customers as a direct consequence of clear errors or omissions by its staff. It is not UKPS's normal policy to make compensation payments for loss of enjoyment, distress or inconvenience arising from such errors. Each claim is treated on its merits, and for audit purposes documentary evidence is needed to confirm significant additional expenditure incurred by a passport applicant.

  In the case of an error by the UKPS in inserting an incorrect photograph in an issued passport, under the terms of its policy, if additional costs have been incurred by the customer as a result of such an error, this would provide a basis for a claim on UKPS for compensation.

  V2 Rocket Incidents
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether document reference number H0198/105, relating to V2 rocket incidents from September to December 1944, has been(a) retained by his Department and (b) withheld from the public domain. [182975]
  338W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The document (piece) has not been formally retained at the Home Office. It appears to have been lost after halving been temporarily retained for administrative purposes when related records were transferred to The National Archives in 1972. The National Archives catalogue will be amended to show the piece is missing.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anti-terrorism Measures
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made at the recent talks at Hassop Hall with his European counterparts on anti-terrorism measures. [184265]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I hive been asked to reply.

  This question has been referred to me as I hosted the meeting at Hassop Hall with my Interior Ministry counterparts from France, Germany, Italy and Spain. We discussed a range of issues that relate to cooperation on counter-terrorism. It was a very useful meeting covering a number of areas of joint interest.

  ID cards can allow travel throughout the EU, so we need to ensure that security standards are on a par with those relating to EU visas, residence permits and passports.

  We felt that it would be important to look at strengthening ID card security, specifically measures on the incorporation of biometric identifiers, and methods to ensure a more robust issuing procedure.

  Following on from this we felt that strong support should be given to the Commission's proposals for further action in facilitating the exchange of information on lost, stolen and forged passports between member states and Interpol. This would be on a basis consistent with G8 and ICAO initiatives.

  We discussed how there could be benefits in Europol focusing on a number of clearly defined tasks in the counter-terrorism field. This could be in addition to its main role on organised crime. Analyses of the links between organised crime and terrorism, and the flows of finances that support terrorist organisations were considered. We particularly welcomed presidency ideas concerned with the disruption of these flows.

  Ensuring our security through co-operation is a key goal for all member states. I believe that through discussion and working together closely we can give impetus to these important areas of work in the EU and deliver real practical outcomes.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Foreign Office spent on(a) recruitment consultants and (b) management consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [184503]

  Mr. Straw
  The figures for 1996–97 could be established only at disproportionate costs.
  339W
  Expenditure on external consultants in general is reported annually in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Departmental Report, available in the Library of the House and on the FCO's website: www.fco.gov.uk. Expenditure specifically on management consultants is not categorised separately and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Expenditure on consultants, the bulk of this being expenditure associated with our major Information and Communications Technology and estate construction programmes, for 2002–03 (the latest figures available) totalled £23.7 million. Out of that total the FCO spent £1.31 million on recruitment consultants.

  Detention/Imprisonment Principles
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government recognises the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. [184829]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK supported the adoption of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment by the United Nations in 1988.

  The Principles are not specifically embodied in UK domestic legislation. However, they are effectively applied by means of existing legislation and procedures governing the detention of individuals, and by the system of independent checks of places of detention by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, as well as by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

  Diego Garcia
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of all his Department's(a) legal, (b) environmental and (c) economic studies on Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands; and what correspondence has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the United Si ales Administration since November 2000 on Diego Garcia. [184389]

  Mr. Rammell
  Reports of studies relating to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) are placed in the Library of the House if they are likely to be of parliamentary or public interest. For instance the study into the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the Territory was deposited in the Library in July 2002. Correspondence between the UK and US Governments about Diego Garcia is confidential to the two Governments and is withheld under exemption 1(c) of Part 2 the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) dredging and (b) the expansion of naval facilities at Diego Garcia since 1980. [184966]

  Mr. Straw
  The US Naval Support Facility on Diego Garcia, which had been established pursuant to an agreement between the two Governments of February 1976 as a development of the previous US naval communications facility there. Following an Exchange of Notes between the Governments of the UK and the 340W
  US in August and September 2001 the US Naval Support Facility was designated as a Bomber Forward Operating Location and various infrastructure upgrades to the facility were agreed. The 2001 Exchange of Notes recorded the understanding of the two Governments that this was consistent with the scope and purpose of the facility as provided for in the 1976 agreement. Further infrastructure upgrades were similarly approved by the two Governments in July 2002. In addition, an Exchange of Notes between the two Governments in June and July 1999 recorded their agreement to the construction and operation on Diego Garcia of a monitoring facility, primarily for inclusion in the International Monitoring System, established under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty of 1996.

  As regards dredging, it will be necessary to obtain this information from the authorities on Diego Garcia. When it has been received, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and place copies in the Library of the House.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the European Constitution will have on the UK's existing international treaties. [184257]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the ages are of the UK citizens in custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [183302]

  Mr. Mullin
  The ages of each of the four British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay are 24, 24, 31 and 36.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide an update on the situation of the British Guantanamo detainees. [183318]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have consistently sought to resolve the position of the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. Our position is that the British detainees should either be tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom.

  Following discussions with the US Government, led for the Government by my noble Friend the Attorney-General, we concluded that the US military commission process would not provide sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards. The Government therefore asked that all nine British detainees be returned to the UK. Five were returned in March.

  Following a visit by officials to Washington in May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated our request that the remaining four detainees be returned to the UK. We continue to work to resolve their situation.

  India
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to(a) the Indian

  341W
  Government and (b) the Chief Minister of Orissa concerning the arrest of Pastor Suresh Samal and five other Christians from the village of Kilipal; [184988]

  (2) what representations he has made to (a) the Indian Government and (b) the Chief Minister of Gujarat concerning (i) the kidnap and suspected rape of a Christian woman, Manulaben Dinana, by a gang connected with Hindu militant groups and (ii) the recent destruction of a Christian graveyard by officials in Ahmedabad; [184990]

  (3) what representations he has made to (a) the Indian Government and (b) the Chief Minister of Tripura concerning the attack on Pastor Letthang Gangte, of the Evangelical Congregational Church of India and his family on 19 April in the village of Rajghat, West Tripura. [184991]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not raised these specific incidents with the Government of India. We do however monitor reports of attacks against minorities and raise these issues with the Government of India. We continue to urge the Indian authorities to ensure the right to freedom of religion is upheld, and to raise our concerns about incidents of religious intolerance in India, including attacks against Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians; and to urge that those responsible should be brought to justice. In this context, we welcome the commitment by Dr. Manmohan Singh to maintaining communal harmony at all costs in India.

  Iran
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with Iran in recent months as regards its nuclear programme. [184238]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously adopted a Resolution on 18 June calling for Iran to co-operate more actively with IAEA inspectors and to resolve outstanding questions regarding its nuclear programme.

  Together with our French and German partners, the Government is urgently engaged in seeking to persuade Iran to re-engage fully with the IAEA, and to honour its commitments made in the Tehran Declaration of 21 October 2003.

  We will continue to monitor developments closely.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were raised at the recent EU/Iran Human Rights Dialogue meeting; and what assessment has been made of the progress being made by Iran on these issues. [185437]

  Mr. Rammell
  Discussions at the fourth meeting of the EU/Iran Human Rights Dialogue, held in Tehran on 14–16 June, covered a range of human rights issues in Iran. The EU delegation raised particular concerns about Iran's judicial and penal systems, the situation of religious and ethnic minorities, freedom of expression and assembly, discrimination against women and the conduct of this year's Majlis elections. The EU also raised the cases of a number of individuals in Iran. We are deeply disappointed that on many issues of concern there has been little or no progress in recent months.
  342W

  Mr Sandy Mitchell
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Mr. Sandy Mitchell on the exchange of prisoners with the Saudi Arabian Government and the US Administration; and if he will make a statement. [182977]

  Mr. Mullin
  The release of Saudi detainees from Guantanamo is a matter for the US and Saudi Governments. It would not be appropriate for either Ministers or officials to discuss this matter with Mr. Mitchell.

  Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, have spoken to Mr. Mitchell since his return to the UK. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials remain in contact with him. We were relieved that he was released and returned to the UK. This was something we worked very hard for.

  North Korea
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with North Korea in recent months as regards its nuclear programme. [184239]

  Mr. MacShane
  The six-party talks process, the aim of which is the creation of a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons, is continuing. While the United Kingdom is not involved in the talks we do fully support the process, and carefully monitor developments. We welcome the constructive approach that North Korea is taking towards the process.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183855]

  Mr. Mullin
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office costs in relation to 2003–04 are not yet available. The salary costs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of employees working in public relations and publicity came to £1.8 million in 2001–02 and £2.1 million in 2002–03. These figures exclude the salary costs of employees working on public diplomacy (the objective of which is to promote the UK overseas), recruitment advertising, provision of public information such as travel advice, and production of annual reports. They also exclude costs associated with Press and Public Affairs Officers at overseas posts, which could be provided only at disproportionate costs. Figures for previous years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the current situation in Rwanda. [184999]

  Mr. Mullin
  Rwanda has made impressive political and economic progress since the 1994 genocide and is on track to meet the targets outlined in its Poverty Reduction Strategy. But there is now a need to open up political space and build greater democratic
  343W
  accountability. We continue to press the Rwandan Government on the need to improve human rights and democratic openness and we continue to monitor their progress.

  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 12 July 2004,Official Report, columns 1129–39, on the spending review, what the total value is of his Department's assets, broken down by those held (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad. [185005]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The total book value as at 31 March 2004 for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's fixed assets (i.e. non-current assets) is approximately £1,223 million.

  Of this approximately 16 per cent. is UK based with the balance being located abroad:

  £ million

  UK

  195

  Overseas

  1,028

  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 12 July 2004,Official Report, columns 1129–39, on the spending review, whether the £51 million combined increase for the World Service and the British Council is included in the 1.4 per cent. departmental increase. [185006]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: Yes.

  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 12 July 2004,Official Report, columns 1129–39, on the spending review, which assets his Department has identified (a) in the United Kingdom and (i) abroad which will be sold off. [185007]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has no property assets for sale in the United Kingdom.

  Assets to be sold

  Abidjan

  Offices

  Beirut

  House

  Bilbao

  Land

  Bratislava

  House

  Bucharest

  House

  Budapest

  Two flats plus garage

  Buenos Aires

  Two flats

  Canberra

  House

  Caracas

  Office and house

  Copenhagen

  House

  Dublin

  House

  Kuala Lumpur

  House

  Kampala

  Land

  Kiev

  Flat

  Lima

  Offices

  Lusaka

  Office

  Paris

  Flats

  344W

  Assets to be sold

  Port Louis

  House

  Rio de Janeiro

  Flat

  San Salvador

  Office and residence

  Santiago

  House plus flat

  St. Georges (Grenada)

  House

  Tel Aviv

  House

  The Hague

  House

  Tashkent

  House

  Tunis

  Land

  Wellington

  House

  The FCO will continue to keep its estate holdings under review, and will participate in consultations with Sir Michael Lyons in due course.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose to the UN Security Council the invocation of Chapter VII of the charter with regard to Sudan. [178784]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have made clear that UN Security Council action will be needed if the Government of Sudan does not honour the commitments it has given to improve humanitarian access and security. Discussion of a US draft Security Council Resolution, which invokes Chapter VII of the UN Charter, is on-going.

  Turkey
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were raised at the UK/Turkey Human Rights Dialogue meeting on 15th July; and what progress has been made on these issues. [185438]

  Mr. MacShane
  At the fourth UK/Turkey Human Rights Dialogue on 15 July the following issues were raised: Turkey's bid to open accession negotiations with the European Union; fundamental freedoms, including of expression, religion, demonstration, and association; torture and ill treatment; women's rights; functioning of the judiciary and law enforcement agencies; the situation in the Southeast and cultural rights; measures taken within the UK to combat terrorism; implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments; co-operation in international organisations; and bilateral project assistance. In addition, we passed a list of specific cases of concern to the Turkish delegation.

  The UK side congratulated the Turkish side for the enormous progress made by Turkey and encouraged them to maintain the momentum of reform, indicating the areas where we saw a need for further progress. The Turkish delegation undertook to consider the points raised.

  US/UK Entry Bans
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Foreign Office officials are in regular contact with their US counterparts concerning the co-ordination of intelligence on persons banned from entering the United Kingdom and the United States. [183775]
  345W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 14 July 2004]: The US and UK co-ordinate closely on intelligence matters. It is the longstanding practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence and security matters. The security and intelligence agencies are outside the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (paragraph 6, part 1).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Area Child Protection Committees
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when legislation will be introduced to give area child protection committees in Northern Ireland a statutory basis. [183587]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is currently developing a Strategy for Children and Young People in Need which will consider a wide range of child protection matters including placing Area Child Protection Committees on a statutory footing. Decisions on the need for primary legislation will follow on from the completion of the strategy.

  Care Workers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to provide minimum guaranteed hours of employment to home helps and care workers. [184935]

  Angela Smith
  In Northern Ireland, decisions about minimum hours of employment for home helps and analogous staff are a matter for HSS Trusts in the context of presenting need, resources and service priorities.

  The primary objective for HSS Trusts is to deliver effective, efficient and flexible community care services to persons in need. However, HSS Trusts do endeavour to allocate sufficient work to home helps and the other home care staff they employ that give viable work opportunities while seeking to manage the presenting demand for these services.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken in Northern Ireland(a) to make conditions of employment more attractive for and (b) otherwise to reward the dedication and service provided in the community by care workers and home helps. [184936]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is currently negotiating with representatives of local Social Services Staff with the aim of including this group of staff in the new pay system for Health Service staff, Agenda for Change. This is a major initiative being undertaken jointly by all four UK Health Departments in partnership with the main trade unions representing staff to modernise the NHS and HPSS Pay System. The objective of the new pay system is to ensure equal pay for work of equal value and to provide opportunities for staff to develop their knowledge and skills.
  346W
  The new pay system is currently being tested within 12 sites in the NHS in England, and is scheduled to be introduced within the HPSS in Northern Ireland with effect from October 2004.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions for electoral fraud there have been in Northern Ireland in each of the last four years. [184560]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information is not available on the number of arrests nude for electoral fraud. The most recent courts data available is 2002 and in the four years up to then there have been two convictions recorded for election offences in Northern Ireland:In 2001 there was one conviction for "corrupt practice at local election"
  In 2002 there was one conviction for "personation at a Westminster election"

  Fisheries Conservancy Board Vessel
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost of repairs to the new Fisheries Conservancy Board vessel have been since 5 May. [184831]

  Angela Smith
  No repairs have been made to the vessel since 5 May. Regarding the incident that occurred on 7 July 2004 when the vessel hit a submerged object at sea, an estimate of the cost of repairing it is not yet available. An assessor from the Fisheries Conservancy Board's insurance company has inspected the vessel and his report is awaited.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the new Fisheries Conservancy Board vessel has needed repairs since it was launched. [184832]

  Angela Smith
  The vessel sustained damage to its propellers as a result of striking a submerged object while on patrol off the North Coast on 7 July 2004.

  Flags Regulations 2000
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Equality Commission about the effectiveness of the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. [185085]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has been no such recent contact.

  Juvenile Justice Centre
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many juveniles, broken down by gender, have been locked up in the Juvenile Justice Centre for(a) 20 hours, (b) 21 hours, (c) 22 hours, (d) 23 hours and (e) 24 hours in each month of this year. [185086]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Juvenile Justice Centre for Northern Ireland does not collect this information routinely at present. The information is contained in paper records. The cost of obtaining this information would be significant and disproportionate. The Centre has
  347W
  recently amended its recording systems to collect information on single separation and the Centre is planning to store all such information on a database.

  MRSA
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances hospitals in Northern Ireland are required to provide strict isolation for MRSA sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [184775]

  Angela Smith
  The Government recognise that the emergence of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) over the last twenty years represents a serious threat to the prevention, control and successful treatment of infection. It is committed to taking forward a wide range of actions to reduce the emergence and spread of MRSA and its impact on the treatment of infection.

  In Northern Ireland, the Chief Medical Officer has issued guidance to health and social service trusts on MRSA and the management and control of hospital infection, and on resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents, in 1999 and 2000, respectively.

  The guidance requires hospitals to carry out a risk assessment on a patient found to be colonised or infected with MRSA. The result of the assessment determines how the patient is managed and the type of isolation required, if any.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what surveillance has been undertaken by hospitals in Northern Ireland in respect. of MRSA; and if he will make a statement. [184776]

  Angela Smith
  It has been a mandatory requirement for acute trusts to report MRSA bacteraemia rates since 2002 to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Northern Ireland. The Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance Centre (HISC) based at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast since 2001 was formed to assist acute trusts in Northern Ireland to undertake nosocomial infections surveillance at local level. HISC commenced its work on orthopaedic surgical site infections and is developing further modules.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many MRSA eases were recorded by the Northern Ireland equivalent of the Public Health Laboratory Service in each year from 1983; and if he will make a statement. [184778]

  Angela Smith
  Information on MRSA infection in Northern Ireland has only been available from 2001 when a pilot exercise on bacteraemias was undertaken prior to the introduction of the mandatory reporting system in April 2002. The following numbers of patient episodes of such MRSA infection were recorded:

  Number

  2001–02

  228

  2002–03

  218

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what independent inspections are 348W
  undertaken of hospital hygiene management programmes in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [184779]

  Angela Smith
  The responsibility for cleaning and inspection of hospital hygiene lies with each of the Trusts and information relating to independent inspections is not held centrally on behalf of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). However DHSSPS is aware that some Trusts do carry out internal inspections on their hygiene management programmes. Hospital hygiene management programmes in Northern Ireland are not inspected independently on behalf of DHSSPS.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance has been given since 19 March 1997 to the(a) development and (b) use in hospitals in Northern Ireland of new (i) paints and (ii) cleaning products able to kill known microbes; and if he will make a statement. [184780]

  Angela Smith
  The responsibility for refurbishment and cleaning of hospitals in Northern Ireland lies with each of the hospital trusts. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety does not hold information on the use of paints and cleaning products able to kill known microbes centrally.

  New build facilities are however constructed to the standards specified in the NHS Estates, Health Building Notes, which provide for anti-microbial paint finishes in specialist sterile areas such as operating theatres.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken in Northern Ireland to implement the guidelines for combating MRSA set out in the report of the working party headed by Mr. G. Duckworth since its publication in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [184781]

  Angela Smith
  The 1990 guidance, revised in 1998, is followed in Northern Ireland. A combined working party made up of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, the Hospital Infection Society and the Infection Control Nurses Association are currently revising the guidelines.

  On receipt of the revised guidelines, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will take forward the development of appropriately revised local protocols.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to introduce to tackle MRSA in nursing homes in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [184782]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety issued guidelines for residential and nursing home staff for the management of residents with MRSA in 1996. These are in the process of being revised and updated. The Department's Regional Advisory Committee on Communicable Disease Control is currently considering a report commissioned on an infection control nursing strategy for Northern Ireland. It deals with the service to the statutory sector including community and secondary care services, the independent sector including nursing homes, and primary care.
  349W
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which hospitals in Northern Ireland stock antibiotics against strains of MRSA; and if he will make a statement. [184783]

  Angela Smith
  All acute hospitals in Northern Ireland have access to antibiotics effective against strains of MRSA.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which antibiotics are deemed by his Department to be effective against strains of MRSA; and if he will make a statement. [184784]

  Angela Smith
  The majority of MRSA strains are sensitive to the following antibiotics: vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, synercid, rifampicin, fucidin and the tetracyclines.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the percentage change in the incidence of MRSA was in Northern Ireland in each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement. [184785]

  Angela Smith
  Information on the incidence of MRSA bacteraemias in Northern Ireland is available only from 2001. These figures showed a reduction of 10 cases, 4.4 per cent., between 2001–02 and 2002–03. Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance he gives to the Ambulance Service in Northern Ireland on(a) combating MRSA and (b) infection control generally; and what additional resources he plans to make available for this purpose. [184786]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service developed a protocol for the management of MRSA patients during transportation, which was agreed by the relevant local specialists in infection control and local hospitals. The protocol was issued to all staff in 1999.

  Training in general precautions and management of MRSA patients during transportation is provided to all operational staff during their basic training and as appropriate and necessary during their regular post proficiency training. The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service is currently reviewing this training and its compliance with the recently published Controls Assurance Standards for the Control of Infections.

  The funding for this training is provided from within the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service annual training budget.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of deaths in Northern Ireland were caused by MRSA, or had MRSA as a contributing factor, in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by hospital; and if he will make a statement. [184787]

  Angela Smith
  The latest year for which figures are available is 2003. The number and percentage of deaths contributed to by MRSA in Northern Ireland, for this year are given in the following table. Information broken down by hospitals is not provided to prevent the possible disclosure of information on individuals. Work is under way to introduce specific codes for antibiotic 350W
  resistance in conjunction with the World Health Organisation. Active efforts to automate mortality statistics also continue.

  Number of registered deaths where the death certificate mentioned MRSA

  2003 (provisional data)

  All deaths

  14,462

  MRSA

  30

  Percentage of deaths which mention MRSA

  0.21

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the isolation procedures set down by the Department of Health to combat MRSA in England and which were operative as at 19 March 1997 are operative in Northern Ireland; when the procedures were last brought to the attention of hospitals; and if he will make a statement.[184788]

  Angela Smith
  The isolation procedures used to combat MRSA in England are also in use in Northern Ireland. The most recent Departmental guidance (HSS(MD)9/2000), "the Management and Control of Hospital Infection", was issued to the Health and Personal Social Services in Northern Ireland in April 2000.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has instigated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that(a) there is correct and consistent reporting of deaths caused by MRSA, or where it is a contributory factor, in Northern Ireland, and (b) death certificates in Northern Ireland are completed as directed by the Government. [184790]

  Angela Smith
  In the UK, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is used to classify causes of death. ICD does not have a specific code for Methicillin Resistant "Staphylococcus aureus" (MRSA) but statistics on deaths where MRSA was a contributing factor can be obtained. This is done by identifying all deaths with specific ICD codes likely to be linked with MRSA and then manually checking the cause of death written on the death certificate. This is consistent with the approach taken in England and Wales.

  Doctors are required to complete the cause of death medical certificate to the best of their knowledge and belief. Guidelines on completing death certificates are included at the front of every book of certificates. Certificates are not available without these instructions. Medical students receive training in their final year on completion of death certificates.

  Public Housing
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of public housing stock was classified at each level of unfitness in each parliamentary constituency in the most recent year for which figures are available. [185117]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not available in the format requested. The rate of unfitness for all housing at the Northern Ireland level was 4.9 per cent. in 2001. The rate of unfitness in the Housing Executive and housing
  351W
  association sectors was around 1 per cent. While it is not possible to provide a robust and precise figure below the Northern Ireland level because of the sample size, it is unlikely that there is any significant variation across parliamentary constituencies.

  Traffic Calming Measures
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been spent on providing traffic calming measures in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [185116]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Roads Service (Dr. Malcolm McKibbin) has been asked to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question.

  Letter from Dr. Malcolm McKibbin to Mr. Gregory Campbell dated 20 July 2004:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question about how much public money has been spent on providing traffic calming measures in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. I have been asked to reply as the issue raised falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of Roads Service.

  The table as follows indicates the actual expenditure spent on Traffic Calming Measures from 1999/2000 to 2003/04.

  £k

  Expenditure

  1999–2000

  1,208

  2000–01

  1,027

  2001–02

  1,545

  2002–03

  1,859

  2003–04

  2,011

  You may be aware that the Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland, published in Jule 2002, envisages a large increase in the amount of funding available over the next 10 years for road safety related works. It proposes a doubling of funds for traffic calming and a 50 per cent. increase in funding for collision remedial schemes. The actual funding allocated over the RTS period will, of course, depend on the outcome of the normal budgetary processes.

HEALTH

  Drug Treatment Services
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that local partnerships with voluntary sector and drug agencies are not adversely affected under regional
  commissioning; [184893]

  (2) what evidence he has collated on whether regional commissioning of drugs or alcohol services lead to economies of scale. [184892]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national treatment agency (NTA) for substance misuse is developing guidance on models of regional commissioning, to enable implementation of regional systems for the commissioning of residential drug and alcohol misuse specific services (Tier 4). Clear and concise guidance setting out recommended models for regional commissioning of Tier 4 services will be available 352W
  shortly. This will be used by NTA regional teams to implement local commissioning mechanisms by the end of December 2004.

  The regional commissioning implementation is part of the NTA's Tier 4 work programme which has been widely consulted on by key stakeholders in the substance misuse field, including voluntary sector agencies. The consensus in consultation was that regional commissioning would lead to more effective and efficient commissioning of Tier 4 treatment, and would improve client access. Although not directly targeted at alcohol specific services, this work is applicable for all substance misuse services.

  The Tier 4 work programme is advised by an advisory group consisting of a broad range of representatives involved in Tier 4 treatment provision, including voluntary and statutory sector service providers, commissioners and service users.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions were launched for wrong or inadequate food information labelling over the last year, broken down by local authority. [184441]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I am informed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the latest available information is for the calendar year 2001. Local authority data reported to the FSA shows that, during 2001, 137 premises were prosecuted for food labelling and presentation issues in England. The local authorities which took the prosecutions and the number of premises subject to prosecution by each authority are shown in the table.

  Local authorities taking food labelling and presentation prosecutions for the year 2001

  Local authority

  Number of premises prosecuted for food labelling and presentation issues

  Barnet

  1

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  Burnley

  1

  Coventry

  5

  Derby City

  2

  Dorset

  1

  Dudley

  3

  Durham

  1

  Ealing

  1

  East Yorkshire

  4

  Essex

  9

  Forest of Dean

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Hampshire

  4

  Harlow

  3

  Hounslow

  4

  Kent

  7

  Lancashire

  3

  Leeds

  2

  Lincolnshire

  1

  Manchester

  4

  Milton Keynes

  1

  Newbury (West Berkshire)

  2

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4

  Newham

  1

  North East Lincolnshire

  2

  North Yorkshire

  4

  353W

  Local authorities taking food labelling and presentation prosecutions for the year 2001

  Local authority

  Number of premises prosecuted for food labelling and presentation issues

  Northamptonshire

  12

  Nottingham City

  3

  Plymouth City

  1

  Reading

  1

  Salford

  1

  Shropshire

  3

  Somerset

  4

  South Oxfordshire

  1

  Southampton

  1

  St. Helens

  1

  Stockport Stockton-on-Tees

  1

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2

  Surrey

  2

  Tameside

  1

  The Wrekin

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  West Sussex

  3

  West Yorkshire

  14

  Westminster

  1

  Total

  137

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Trading Standards Institute on food information labelling. [184442]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Food labelling as part of the enforcement of food law is the responsibility of local authorities. The Food Standards Agency provides advice, information or assistance relating to enforcement of food law generally and liaises regularly with the Trading Standards Institute and its members on such issues.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on progress being made by the European Union on the implementation of a common system of food information labelling; [184443]

  (2) what discussions the Food Standards Agency had on the issue of food information labelling, with specific regard to the evolution of a common EU approach. [184444]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Food labelling rules are agreed at European Union level. Directive 2000/13/EC and the Nutrition Labelling Directive 90/46/EC provide the legislative framework. The European Commission is currently carrying out a comprehensive review of both these directives. It has said that it expects to adopt a proposal for amendment of 90/46/EC later this year and has asked member states for views on issues to be tackled in the review. The Food Standards Agency is currently consulting stakeholders before responding to this request.

  Lager
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has made of(a) the purity of lager that is sold and (b) additives to lager. [184835]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no specific United Kingdom legislation governing the purity of lager or other beers. Any food must comply with the 354W
  requirements of the Food Safety Act 1990, which makes it an offence to sell food that does not comply with food safety requirements or which is not of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser.

  Only a small number of additives are authorised to be used in lager and these have all been subjected to a rigorous safety assessment. No surveys have been conducted on the use of these additives in lager.

  Allergy Service
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on allergy services in England; [183319]

  (2) what the average length of time is that a patient has to wait to see a NHS allergy specialist. [183319]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The national health service improvement programme, "Putting People at the Heart of Public Services", sets out the commitment that the NHS will build a responsive service tailored to people living with long-term conditions including allergies. There are already substantial initiatives which will help patients with long term diseases, including:The development of standards for better health.
  The expert patient programme.
  The chronic disease management programme.
  Food Standards agency work on food allergy.
  The new general practitioner contract.

  It is the role of primary care trusts, in partnership with local stakeholders, to decide what services to provide to meet the health needs of their populations, including those with allergies. They are best placed to understand local health care needs and commission services to meet them.

  Information on the average length of time a patient waits to see a NHS allergy specialist is not held centrally. This is because a patient with an allergy can be seen by a range of specialists including dermatologists, immunologists and respiratory disease physicians, as well as allergists. We expect that any patient being referred for a first outpatient appointment by their general practitioner should be seen within the national 17 week maximum waiting time.

  Assisted Reproduction
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the Human Fertilisation and Embrylogy Authority inspects clinics outside the United Kingdom involved in egg and sperm collection; and if he will make a statement: [185015]

  (2) how much the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority spent on overseas visits for (a) inspection and (b) public relations purposes in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [185030]

  (3) which overseas fertility clinics the Human Fertilisation and Embrylogy Authority (a) visited in each year since 1997 and (b) plans to visit for inspection purposes; and if he will make a statement. [185031]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) does not inspect treatment or research establishments outside Great
  355W
  Britain and Northern Ireland. Members and senior officers of the HFEA do make overseas visits to learn more about practice in other countries and to attend and speak at international conferences. They have also visited overseas establishments to investigate issues relating to the provision of treatment services within the United Kingdom. These included Cryos International Sperm Bank in Aarhus, Denmark in November 2003 and Global ART in Bucharest, Romania in July 2004.

  The cost to the HFEA of overseas visits since 2003 are shown in the table:

  Costs of overseas visits by HFEA members and staff 2003–04

  Cost (£)

  20031

  5,481

  20041,2

  10,039

  1Includes attendance of a number of HFEA staff at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology annual conference to meet requests for information and provide speakers for the main conference and fringe events.

  2 Figures from 1 January to 19 July 2004.

  Figures from 1997 to 2002 can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the sale of(a) human eggs and (b) human sperm is permitted in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [185016]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The sale of human gametes (sperm and eggs) is prohibited in the United Kingdom. Under section 12 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, no money or other benefits shall be given or received in respect of the supply of gametes unless authorised by directions from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). These directions authorise a maximum payment of £15.00 per donation plus reasonable expenses. The HFEA's code of practice gives guidance to clinics on what claims could be considered as reasonable expenses.

  Biochemical Assay
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions, in each of the last five years, NHS medical staff working within the chemical and laboratory facilities associated with the National Poisons Information Service hive sent biological samples from patients for biochemical assay to agrochemical companies; which companies were used; for what exposures; and whether independent checks were carried out on the results. [184452]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No biological samples have been sent by the National Poisons Information Service associated laboratories for assay by the agrochemical industry. It may be possible that other national health service laboratories have sent such samples, but no central register is held.

  Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who will suffer from cancer in(a) 2005, (b) 2010 and (c) 2020. [185508]
  356W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government has made no long-term estimate of the future numbers of people who will be diagnosed with cancer.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care homes(a) closed and (b) opened in east Devon in each of the past five years. [182048]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of homes opening and closing is not centrally available. The table shows the number of care homes in Devon as at 31 March for the years 1999 to 2001. Data on the number of care homes in east Devon is not centrally available.

  Number of care homes1 in Devon2, 1999 to 2001

  Rounded numbers Number1

  1999

  1,380

  2000

  1,300

  2001

  1,220

  Notes:

  1Nursing data includes general nursing homes, mental nursing homes and private hospitals and clinics.

  2 Residential data refers to Devon council with Social Services Responsibilities, Nursing data refers to north and east Devon and south and west Devon health authorities.

  Source:

  RA and Rh(N) form A.

  The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) is responsible for collecting information on care homes in England from 1 April 2004; and previously the National Care Standards Commission from 1 April 2002. I understand from the chair of the CSCI that for technical reasons CSCI cannot currently provide sub-national data on the numbers of care homes.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes there were for(a) paediatric, (b) adolescent and (c) adult coronary heart disease treatment in (i) England and (ii) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996. [184101]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Delayed Discharges
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges were recorded in the South East in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [185506]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Figures for delayed transfers of care have been supplied for every quarter in 2002–03 and 2003–04, at primary care trust level and are available in the Library, including the latest figures for 2003–04, quarter 4 (March 2004). Nationally, the total number of patients of all ages occupying an acute bed with a delayed transfer, fell from 4,100 in March 2003 to 2,821 in March 2004.
  357W

  Dentistry
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the provision of dental treatment under the national health service in Essex. [184496]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The health economy in Essex has received an additional £1.5 million access funding from the Department, which primary care trusts (PCTs) will use to commission additional national health service dental capacity from existing practices and to provide new dental practices.

  To ensure that more people can see a NHS dentist when and where they need, the equivalent of 1,000 dentists nationally will be recruited by October 2005.

  In addition, NHS dentistry will benefit from unprecedented investment:
  the Government will fund 170 extra undergraduate dental training places in England from October 2005, a 25 per cent., increase. Revenue costs for this will reach £29 million by 2010–11.
  capital investment of £80 million over four years to support this expansion.
  by 2005£06, NHS dentistry will receive extra funding of over £250 million a year, an increase of 19.3 per cent., compared with spending in 2003–04.
  in recognition of the additional work and training dentists and their practice staff will need to prepare for changes, an extra £9 million will be provided to help dental practices prepare.

  Additionally reforms will be introduced to modernise the dentistry profession for the 21st century through:
  a new dentists contract making it possible for them to spend more time with patients and encourage preventative care.
  using the skills of the entire dental team more efficiently with new roles for hygienists and dental nurses.
  local PCTs, including those in Essex, will use the £1.6 billion devolved budget to ensure that local expenditure on dentistry is sustained.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of national health service dental treatment was in(a) the County of Essex in each year from 1974 to 1998 and (b) the County of Essex and the boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in each year from 1998 to 2003. [184497]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The gross and net fees paid to dentists for the provision of general dental services (GDS) represent the main element of primary dental care costs and are the data most readily available by health authority area. Data since 1992–93 are shown in the table. These figures exclude some payments to dentists such as commitment payments, maternity and seniority payments as well as superannuation payments made on their behalf. There is a discontinuity in the figures in the middle of 2002–03 because of the change in health administration areas.

  Community, personal and hospital dental services have not been included in this table; these are directly commissioned by individual health authorities from locally managed resources rather than funded from a central national budget as is the case with the GDS.
  358W

  NHS dental service: Gross and net fees paid by the GDS March ending each year

  £ million

  Health authority/primary care trust

  Gross fees

  Net fees1

  1992–93

  Essex HA

  38.6

  25.9

  1993–94

  Essex HA

  37.2

  24.7

  1994–95

  Essex HA

  39.9

  26.4

  1995–96

  Essex HA

  39.8

  26.4

  1996–97

  Essex HA

  40.6

  26.9

  1997–98

  Essex HA

  41.4

  27.1

  1998–99

  Essex HA

  45.1

  29.1

  1999–2000

  Essex HA

  47.3

  30.6

  2000–01

  Essex HA

  51.0

  32.8

  2001–02

  Essex HA

  51.8

  33.1

  2002–03

  First half

  Essex HA

  36.6

  27.0

  Second half

  Essex SHA

  26.3

  16.9

  Southend-on-Sea PCT

  3.1

  2.1

  Thurrock PCT

  1.7

  1.2

  1Excludes patient charge.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received dental treatment from the national health service in(a) the County of Essex in each year from 1974 to 1998 and (b) the County of Essex and the boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in each year front 1998 to 2003. [184498]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information in the table shows the number of people registered with a general dental service dentist in Essex at 30 September year from 1992 to 2003 and for Thurrock and Southend-on Sea for 2002 and 2003.

  Registration started in October 1990 and the numbers did not stabilise until 1992. Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months and so the registration figures exclude patients who have not been to their dentist within the past 15 months. The figures also exclude patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services including dental access centres and those patients who choose not to register and who seek treatment on an occasional basis.

  General dental service: number of registered patients September each year (thousand)—Essex family health services authority (FHSA), health authority (HA) and strategic health authority (SHA) and primary care trusts (PCTs)

  Number

  FHSA

  1992

  636

  1993

  643

  1994

  642

  1995

  612

  Essex HA

  1996

  829

  1997

  821

  1998

  737

  1999

  764

  2000

  787

  2001

  774

  Essex SHA

  2002

  778

  2003

  767

  359W

  General dental service: number of registered patients September each year (thousand)—Essex family health services authority (FHSA), health authority (HA) and strategic health authority (SHA) and primary care trusts (PCTs)

  Number

  Southend-on-Sea PCT

  2002

  83

  2003

  81

  Thurrock PCT

  2002

  43

  2003

  45

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists undertook national health service treatment in(a) the County of Essex in each year from 1974 to 1998 and (b) the County of Essex and the boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in each year from 1998 to 2003. [184499]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information shown in the table is for the number of general (GDS) and personal dental service (PDS) dentists in Essex in e3c h year from 1974 to 2003 and for Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea Primary Care Trust (PCT) areas for the:gears 2002 and 2003, which covers the period that the two PCTs have been in existence.

  General and personal dental service: number of dentists at September each year

  Essex family practitioner committee (FPC), family health services authority (FHSA), health authority (HA), SHA and primary care trusts (PCTs)

  Number

  FPC

  1974

  284

  1975

  291

  1976

  308

  1977

  320

  1978

  305

  1979

  319

  1980

  339

  1981

  344

  1982

  366

  1983

  384

  1984

  389

  1985

  405

  1986

  405

  1987

  413

  1988

  414

  1989

  430

  FHSA

  1990

  418

  1991

  441

  1992

  438

  1993

  460

  1994

  465

  1995

  472

  HA

  1996

  476

  1997

  497

  1998

  513

  1999

  532

  2000

  560

  2001

  566

  360W

  General and personal dental service: number of dentists at September each year

  Essex family practitioner committee (FPC), family health service authority (HA), SHA and primary care trusts (PCTs)

  Number

  SHA

  2002

  556

  2003

  542

  Southend-on-sea PCT

  2002

  56

  2003

  56

  Thurrock PCT

  2002

  39

  2003

  37

  Note:

  PDS figure covers dentists not already working in the GDS.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board

  Expert Patients Programme
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the Expert Patients Programme for the UK. [184566]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The implications of setting up an expert patients programme in the United Kingdom were assessed by the expert patients taskforce set up in 2000. It concluded that such a programme had the potential to create a cadre of expert patients—people who have the confidence, skills, information and knowledge to play a central role in the management of life with chronic diseases and to minimise the impact of disease on their lives. From the evidence base available it also concluded that the tangible benefits would include:reduced severity of symptoms;
  significant decrease in pain;
  improved life control and activity;
  improved resourcefulness and life satisfaction.

  A copy of the report can be found at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/ PublicationspolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4006801&chk = UQCoh9

  An independent evaluation of the programme is being conducted by the national primary care research and development centre at the University of Manchester and the centre for health economics at the University of York. A copy of their report of a preliminary survey of patients to identify barriers to establishing functional self-management programmes in the National Health Service can be found at: http://www.nperdc.man.ac.uk/ PublicationDetail.cfm?ID = 105

  Fairer Charging Policies
  Mr. John Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he plans to review the impact of the Fairer Charging Guidance; [183776]

  (2) what examples of best practice he has identified in using income from charging for personal care to improve services for (a) people with disabilities and (b) older people; [183777]
  361W
  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of charging for personal care on community care services; [183778]

  (4) what proportion of income derived from charging for personal care services has been spent on services for (a) people with a disability and (b) older persons; [183779]

  (5) what plans he has to monitor the impact of the fairer charging policies for home care and other non-residential social services in England. [183812]
  362W
  Dr. Ladyman
  We plan in due course to monitor and evaluate the impact of the guidance. "Fairer Charging Policies for home Care". Information on council's use of income from charging is not held centrally

  Fairfield Hospital, Bury
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) support staff were employed by Fairfield Hospital, Bury, in each of the last 10 years. [184747]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is only available from 1995 onwards and is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital public health medicine and community health services: Medical and dental and non-medical staff by specified staff group in each specified NHS Trust–30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  Medical and dental staff

  171

  183

  183

  193

  202

  215

  220

  —

  —

  Qualified nurses

  906

  874

  881

  878

  907

  944

  997

  —

  —

  Support to clinical staff—Total

  738

  724

  690

  738

  762

  775

  892

  —

  —

  Support to doctors and nurses

  674

  657

  620

  658

  678

  698

  805

  —

  —

  Support to ST&T

  64

  67

  70

  80

  84

  77

  87

  —

  —

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  348

  333

  316

  311

  313

  333

  340

  —

  —

  Central functions

  119

  119

  112

  117

  114

  135

  145

  —

  —

  Hotel property and estate staff

  208

  192

  186

  175

  180

  178

  175

  —

  —

  Managers and senior managers

  21

  22

  18

  19

  19

  20

  20

  —

  —

  North Manchester Health Care NHS Trust

  Medical and dental staff

  235

  416

  331

  329

  387

  386

  379

  —

  —

  Qualified nurses

  1,068

  1,078

  1,184

  1,195

  1,103

  1,085

  885

  —

  —

  Support to clinical staff—Total

  870

  893

  1,109

  1,152

  1,053

  1,057

  966

  —

  —

  Support to doctors and nurses

  794

  817

  1,035

  1,048

  942

  946

  855

  —

  —

  Support to ST&T

  76

  76

  74

  104

  111

  111

  111

  —

  —

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  617

  595

  497

  449

  448

  455

  494

  —

  —

  Central functions

  264

  257

  250

  225

  226

  244

  282

  —

  —

  Hotel property and estate staff

  309

  295

  208

  184

  190

  178

  173

  —

  —

  Managers and senior managers

  44

  43

  39

  40

  32

  33

  39

  —

  —

  Oldham NHS Trust

  Medical and dental staff

  194

  209

  232

  245

  243

  251

  242

  —

  —

  Qualified nurses

  1,213

  1,229

  1,185

  1,191

  1,203

  1,292

  1,296

  —

  —

  Support to clinical staff—Total

  778

  899

  974

  970

  1,028

  1,115

  1,226

  —

  —

  Support to doctors and nurses

  655

  771

  841

  839

  875

  955

  1,017

  —

  —

  Support to ST&T

  123

  128

  133

  131

  153

  160

  209

  —

  —

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  476

  462

  450

  491

  497

  532

  603

  —

  —

  Central functions

  167

  159

  159

  182

  191

  208

  187

  Hotel property and estate staff

  275

  269

  262

  278

  274

  291

  375

  —

  —

  Managers and senior managers

  34

  34

  29

  31

  32

  33

  41

  —

  —

  Rochdale NHS Trust

  Medical and dental staff

  167

  179

  182

  180

  195

  187

  182

  —

  —

  Qualified nurses

  990

  983

  1,001

  1,040

  859

  1,015

  915

  —

  —

  Support to clinical staff—Total

  868

  952

  908

  936

  1,183

  1,065

  1,300

  Support to doctors and nurses

  788

  859

  811

  836

  1,063

  953

  1,180

  —

  —

  Support to ST&T

  80

  93

  97

  100

  120

  112

  120

  —

  —

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  389

  401

  400

  395

  406

  392

  507

  —

  —

  Central functions

  168

  171

  170

  176

  189

  176

  150

  —

  —

  Hotel property and estate staff

  218

  217

  217

  206

  196

  197

  309

  —

  —

  Managers and senior managers

  3

  13

  13

  13

  21

  19

  48

  —

  —

  Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  Medical and dental staff

  79

  76

  90

  97

  89

  86

  40

  —

  —

  Qualified nurses

  802

  905

  911

  928

  892

  903

  664

  —

  —

  Support to clinical staff—Total

  387

  458

  490

  465

  438

  495

  337

  —

  —

  Support to doctors and nurses

  344

  416

  449

  423

  378

  429

  271

  —

  —

  Support to ST&T

  43

  42

  41

  42

  60

  66

  66

  —

  —

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  156

  191

  201

  196

  258

  262

  246

  —

  —

  Central functions

  105

  118

  120

  114

  114

  111

  114

  —

  —

  Hotel property and estate staff

  49

  70

  72

  74

  132

  127

  108

  —

  —

  Managers and senior managers

  2

  3

  9

  8

  12

  24

  24

  —

  —

  363W

  NHS hospital public health medicine and community health services: Medical and dental and non-medical staff by specified staff group in each specified NHS Trust—30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  >2003

  Bury PCT

  Medical and dental staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  21

  Qualified nurses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  243

  Support to clinical staff–Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  181

  184

  Support to doctors and nurses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  164

  163

  Support to ST&T

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  21

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  152

  179

  Central functions

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  119

  139

  Hotel property and estate staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  11

  Managers and senior managers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  20

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  963

  746

  Medical and dental staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  963

  746

  Qualified nurses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,922

  3,221

  Support to clinical staff—Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,162

  3,430

  Support to doctors and nurses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,724

  2,974

  Support to ST&T

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  438

  456

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,856

  1,707

  Central functions

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  714

  610

  Hotel property and estate staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  987

  959

  Managers and senior managers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  155

  138

  Pennine Care NHS Trust

  Medical and dental staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  93

  Qualified nurses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  637

  797

  Support to clinical staff—Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  714

  1,031

  Support to doctors and nurses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  674

  989

  Support to ST&T

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  42

  NHS infrastructure support—Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  187

  221

  Central functions

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67

  91

  Hotel property and estate staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  92

  95

  Managers and senior managers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  35

  Notes:

  1. The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust was formed in 2002 following the merger of Rochdale NHS Trust and the Oldham NHS Trust.

  2. The Pennine Care NHS Trust was formed in 2002 following a merger of North Manchester Health Care Trust and Bury Health Care NHS Trust.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Health Food Supplements
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secret, try of State for Health what plans he has to meet members of the health food supplements industry; what recent progress has been made with European Union directives which affect this industry; and if he will make a statement. [184297]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I met with representatives of the health food supplements industry on 20 and 21 July.

  European Directive 2002/46/EC came into force on 12 July 2002. It has been implemented by The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 and similar legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which come into force on 1 August 2005.

  HIB Vaccine
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a booster dose of HIB vaccine for young children; and if he will make a statement. [184986]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following the recent "Haemophilus influenzae" (Hib) booster campaign, the rate of Hib disease in children aged one to four has fallen by 87 per cent.
  364W
  Before we can consider whether a booster dose of Hib should be offered routinely as part of the routine immunisation programme, an evaluation of the impact of the recent Hib campaign will need to be assessed and advice sought from the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts provide intermediate care facilities. [185003]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Manchester, Central
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been spent on health in Manchester, Central in each of the last seven years. [184171]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Central Manchester, has increased from £582.33 in 1997–98 to £992.61 in 2002–03 (the latest year
  365W
  available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head, as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Mental Health
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial position of the Manchester Mental Health Trust. [184738]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested on the financial situation of the Manchester Mental Health Care Trust is not available in-year.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the total number of NHS in-patients is comprised of mental health in-patients who have been in hospital for more than a year. [185558]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 July]: There were 7,4401 inpatients under the care of a mental illness consultant with a length of stay of a year or longer on 31 March 2003. On the same day, the estimated number of unfinished episodes in National Health Service hospitals for all specialties was 117,5501,2.

  Therefore, the estimated percentage of the total number of all national health service inpatients on 31 March 2003 comprised of by mental health inpatients who had been in hospital for more than a year is 6.3 per cent.
  1The information is from Hospital Episode Statistics.
  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
  2 Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients have been in NHS hospitals under the care of mental health consultants for more than a year, excluding those with(a) dementia and (b) learning difficulties. [185559]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]:
  This information is not available, as centrally held data on unfinished hospital episodes cannot be broken down by diagnosis.

  Myasthenia Gravis
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on myasthenia gravis; and what support is available for sufferers of the disease in Blackpool north and Fleetwood constituency. [184115]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Myasthenia gravis is a neurological condition characterised by fluctuating levels of muscle weakness. There is no cure but treatment includes medication, surgery and palliation.

  The national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions. While the NSF will not cover myasthenia gravis specifically, it will recommend improvements in standards, care and support that will benefit everyone with a neurological condition. We are committed to publishing the NSF as soon as possible.

  Primary care trusts, in partnership with other local stakeholders, determine how best to use their funds to provide health services for their populations, including those with myasthenia gravis.
  366W

  Neuro Disability Centre (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the business case for a new neuro disability centre in Newcastle upon Tyne has been approved; and when he expects Hunters Moor hospital to close. [185560]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An outline business case for a new neuro disability centre in Newcastle upon Tyne was agreed by Northumberland Tyne & Wear Strategic Health Authority in September 2003. Work is now taking place on the full business case. This is expected to be completed in the autumn of this year.

  It is expected that Hunters Moor hospital will close in late 2006.

  Personal Care Charges
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list examples he has collated of best practice in councils income front charging for personal care to improve services for(a) disabled people and (b) older people. [183820]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We plan in due course to monitor and evaluate the impact of the guidance, Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care. Information on councils' use of income from charging is not held centrally.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for which Pesticides Safety Directorate and Health and Safety Executive approved pesticides and biocides there are no assays for biological samples in human poisoning cases held by the NHS. [184451]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) does hold analysis methods for many of the active ingredients contained in the products licensed by them as pesticides.

  There are currently no biocides approved by the Health and Safety Executive under the biocidal products directive.

  Pesticide assays for biological samples are not offered routinely by most national health service laboratories. Assays for paraquat are available from a selected group of NHS laboratories. In exceptional circumstances, NHS laboratories are able to test for other compounds.

  Schizophrenia
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of(a) research linking the regular consumption of cannabis with schizophrenia and (b) the effects of cannabis use on schizophrenia sufferers; and if he will make a statement; [184428]

  (2) if his Department will commission further research into (a) the possible link between the regular smoking of cannabis with schizophrenia and (b) the effects of cannabis on schizophrenia sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [184429]
  367W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A number of recent Department funded policy research projects have been completed that have contributed to informing the Department's assessment on the scale and impact of the use of cannabis in those with mental health problems.

  The Department has kept under review the national and international epidemiological and other research on these topics and has obtained expert advice on interpreting the research base.

  The Department has no plans at present to commission further research into the possible link between the regular smoking of cannabis with schizophrenia. The Department has recently commissioned, jointly with the Medical Research Council, a multi-site, randomised controlled trial, "Evaluating a Psychological Intervention for clients with Schizophrenia and Co-morbid Substance Abuse". The Department is also currently considering commissioning additional work in this area.

  The Department also monitors national and international research and has a range of expert advisers to inform policy.

  Sleep Apnoea
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes there were for(a) paediatric and (b) adolescent obesity-related sleep apnoea treatment in (i) England and (ii) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996. [184100]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require further warnings on aerosol cans of the dangers of solvent abuse. [184586]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has no immediate plans on placing further warnings on aerosol cans advising of the dangers of solvent abuse. Although voluntary, the British Aerosol Manufacturing Association estimates that approximately 90 per cent. of all cans carry warnings.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met(a) Solv-It and (b) Re-Solv to discuss solvent abuse. [184588]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Yvette Cooper) met with ReSolv in November 2001 to discuss volatile solvent abuse. Departmental officials have continued to meet with Re-Solv.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the health effects of solvent abuse. [184589]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Adverse effects vary greatly with the specific substance and mode of administration.

  There is a wide range of immediate physical health effects reported including: flushed face and neck; cold sweats; loss of balance, unsteadiness, lack of coordination; fainting; headache; nausea and vomiting;
  368W
  confusion, dizziness, disorientation; tachycardia, palpitations; drowsiness, sedation, unconsciousness and risk of accidental injury while intoxicated.

  There is a range of potential immediate psychological adverse effects reported including: confusional states, disorientation; distorted perceptions, delusions, hallucinations, pseudo-hallucinations, and aggression, agitation or fear.

  A number of immediate socially significant adverse effects have been reported including: accidents (road traffic accidents, swimming accidents, fires, falls); disinhibition, possibly leading to engagement in high risk behaviour (dangerous driving, unsafe sexual practices), or the risk of becoming a victim of crime; acute intoxication that may possibly result in aggressive and violent behaviour, or disorderly conduct; relationship problems and impairment of educational achievements in adolescents.

  Adverse effects of longer-term use that have been reported include: peripheral neurological damage and brain damage; renal failure; hepatotoxicity; severe gastrointestinal upset; muscle damage, and in the very long term, for example, 10 years or so, lasting impairment of brain function—affecting especially control of movement. Some of these effects may be reversible on stopping use.

  Fatal toxicity varies greatly with the specific substance, and the causes of death can be unclear. A number of causes of death through solvent abuse have been described including: most commonly, cardiac arrhythmia or accident; loss of consciousness and death through choking on vomit; suffocation, for example, if a plastic bag is placed over the head to inhale and asphyxiation from blocked airways, (due to intense cooling in mouth) and laryngeal spasm caused by squirting lighter fuel down throat.

  Combining use with alcohol and other central nervous system depressants will bring increased risk of asphyxiation and death.

  Solitary use in potentially dangerous settings may increase risk of injury.

  Tuberculosis (Asylum Seekers)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of UK induction centres offer asylum seekers screening for tuberculosis. [184846]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are two induction centres operating in the United Kingdom: one in East Kent and the other in Yorkshire and Humberside. Both offer screening for tuberculosis.

  Ungraded Eggs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by the Food Standards Agency of the possible risks to human health of allowing ungraded eggs to be sold unmarked. [184196]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The microbiological status of eggs does not affect whether they are graded and marked.
  369W
  The sale of ungraded eggs, whether marked or not, is subject to the same food safety rules that apply to graded eggs, and in the circumstances, no particular assessment has been made of the possible risks to public health of allowing ungraded eggs to be sold unmarked.

  Women's Health
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS locations perform(a) hydro thermo ablation, (b) microwave ablation, (c) balloon ablation and (d) uterine fibroid embolisation for the treatment of menorrhagia or uterine fibroids; [181139]

  (2) how many people in the last year suffering from menorrhagia or uterine fibroids were treated by (a) hydro thermo ablation, (b) microwave ablation, (c) balloon ablation and (d) uterine fibroid embolisation. [181140]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information in the form requested is not available. Data from hospital episode statistics (HES) giving counts of admissions to national health service hospitals is shown in the table.

  Primary diagnosis (ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes D25, N92,-, N95.0). Selected combinations of main operations and secondary
  operations.

  Count of finished admission episodes. NHS Hospital, England, 2002–03

  Operation

  Total episodes

  Endoscopic, theraputic and ther operations on uterus

  9,923

  b) Microwave ablation

  1,116

  c) Balloon ablation

  1,317

  d) Uterine fibroid embolisation

  286

  Notes:

  1. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one.

  2. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  3. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  4. The main operation is the first recorded operation in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  5. Diagnosis Codes

  The ICD10 codes for menorrhagia and uterine fibroids are:

  Primary Diagnosis

  N92.- Excessive, frequent and irregular menstruation.

  N95.0—Postmenopausal bleeding.

  D25.-Leiomyoma of uterus.

  Procedure Codes.

  a) Hydro thermal ablation

  No specific OPCS4 code but would be in either Q16.-or Q17.-(data above provided as background).

  b) Microwave ablation

  Main Operation

  Q16.8 Other specified, other vaginal operations on uterus. Or

  Q17.4 Endoscopic destruction of lesion of uterus nec.

  Secondary operation

  Y11.4 Radiofrequency controlled thermal destruction of organ noc.

  c)Balloon ablation

  Main Operation

  Q16.8 Other specified, other vaginal operations on uterus.

  Secondary operation

  Y11.8 Other specified, other destruction of organ.

  d)Uterine fibroid embolisation

  Main Operation
  370W
  L71.3 Percutaneous Transluminal embolisation of artery nec.

  Secondary operation

  Z38.8 Specified terminal branch of aorta nec.

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics, Department of Health.

  Information relating specifically to hydro thermal ablation is not available. However, this would be included in the count under the heading "Endoscopic, therapeutic and other operations on uterus".

  117 trusts performed hydro thermo ablation, microwave ablation, balloon ablation or uterine fibroid embolisation for the treatment of menorrhagia or uterine fibroids, Information on which trusts performed hydro thermo ablation for the treatment of menorrhagia or uterine fibroids is not available.

  Yellow Card Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the validity of criticisms of the Yellow Card scheme published in the "International Journal of Risk and Safety of Medicine" (2003, 16, 3–17); what account he has taken of the view of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on the matter; and what steps he has taken(a) to ensure that there has been no significant miscoding and misinterpretation of Yellow Card adverse drug reaction reports for paroxetine and (b) to ensure that there has been effective follow-up of reports relating to suspected paroxetine-induced suicidal behaviour. [178431]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency criticisms of the Yellow Card scheme published in the "International Journal of Risk and Safety of Medicine" (2003, 16, 3–17); and what assessment he has made of(a) the adequacy of the coding and interpretation of Yellow Card adverse drug reaction reports for paroxetine and (b) the effectiveness of the follow-up of reports relating to suspected paroxetine-induced suicidal behaviour.[178696]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Yellow Card scheme was recently subject to an independent review led by Dr. Jeremy Metters and the recommendations of the review are out to consultation, apart from the recommendation to introduce direct patient reporting, which has been accepted in principle.

  The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has carefully reviewed the criticisms made in the article by Medawar and Herxheimer in relation to follow up and coding of reports of suspected adverse reactions associated with paroxetine (Seroxat) received through the yellow card scheme. Professor Herxheimer and Mr. Medawar contributed to the Metters review.

  Yellow cards submitted by health care professionals are held as scanned images and coded data are transposed onto the adverse drug reactions online information tracking (ADROIT) system. This is a relational database of around 500,000 reports, which enables complex analyses to be performed to detect new or changing drug safety hazards. Data from the yellow

  371W
  card scheme cannot be used to quantify the risk of an adverse reaction. Standard operating procedures are in place which ensure quality control of data.

  Errors in transposition onto the database occur at a low rate and are kept to a minimum by quality checks. These transposition errors do not impact on signal detection and risk evaluation.

  The standardised terms used for coding were based on what has become the internationally adopted standard in drug regulation, MedDRA—the medical dictionary for regulatory activities. The ADROIT classification procedure reflects as closely as possible the words used by the reporter rather than introducing further interpretation of the reporter's words. The image of the original yellow card is available alongside the electronic record. This enables the MHRA to assess the totality of the yellow card data, which are routinely examined when risk assessment is undertaken, along with other data sources.

  The MHRA will respond directly to the authors of the article and a copy of that reply will be placed in the Library.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how many legal aid funded clinical negligence cases were successful in each year since 1997; [185043]

  (2) in how many clinical negligence claims legal costs exceeded damages paid to patients in each year since 1997; [185044]

  (3) if he will list the (a) legal costs and (b) damages awarded for clinical negligence cases in each year since 1997. [185045]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission is unable to provide the information necessary to answer the questions immediately. I will write to the hon. Member once the information becomes available.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what areas of activity are covered by the Community Legal Service. [185151]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Community Legal Service (CLS) provides access to legal advice and representation across a number of common categories of law: family, housing, welfare benefits, debt, immigration and nationality, employment, mental health, consumer and general contract, clinical negligence, personal injury, actions against the police, education, community care, and public law.

  These categories relate to all in the community but particularly focus on the problems that face some of the most vulnerable members of society.
  372W
  Support is provided for a range of services within these categories including legal help, help at court, legal representation, family mediation, help with mediation and general family help.

  Community Legal Services
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how the new Community Legal Services Directory line will be monitored for(a) quality of advice, (b) access to advice and (c) capacity. [185262]

  Mr. Lammy
  The new Community Legal Service (CLS) Direct telephone has been designed to produce management information that will enable all key aspects of service to be monitored closely.

  Advice delivered through the telephone service is subject to the same CLS specialist quality mark assurance that applies to CLS-funded face to face advice. There is also an additional set of quality requirements that apply solely to telephone advice, and telephone contractors are audited against these criteria. A sample of the advice given by the telephone contractors will also be subject to peer review by recognised experts, to ensure that it is of high standard.

  The statistics generated relating to CLS Direct will give the Legal Service (LSC) an excellent new method of surveying where and how advice is accessed, the areas where demand for advice is greatest, and how this compares with supply. Telephone advice offers an easy means of accessing advice for people with disabilities, people in remote areas and people who have caring responsibilities. The LSC uses client feedback surveys to monitor whether telephone advice is effectively reaching these groups.

  The number of calls received and cases opened will be monitored to establish trends. The telephone service can be easily scaled up to keep pace with demand. Advice providers within CLS Direct are contracted to deliver an agreed volume of advice hours per year, and one of the criteria the LSC used to select contractors was their ability to expand their number of advice hours if required.

  Housing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs for how many empty houses his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [182151]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no empty houses on the departmental estate.

  Individual Case Contracts
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what savings have been made since the introduction of individual case contracts for very high cost criminal cases. [185037]

  Mr. Lammy
  From September 2003 the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has been bringing all new eligible cases under contract. Research prior to the introduction of VHCCC contracts suggested that savings of about 30 per cent. might be achieved. The LSC is conducting
  373W
  a survey of non-contracted VHCCC cases in order to establish a benchmark to compare with contracted VHCCC cases. However VHCCC cases are by their nature, long and complex and their attributes vary greatly from case to case. It will therefore be some time before a sufficient number of contracted cases have been completed before sensible comparisons can be made between contract and non-contract cases and before a reliable estimate of the savings can be made. However, the LSC calculates that during 2003–04 savings of around £26.5 million were achieved.

  Prior to 2003–04 a pilot scheme was operated. While relatively few contracts were managed during this period the LSC estimates that savings of around £7 million were realised.

  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whom the Judicial Appointments Commission will consist of. [185022]

  Mr. Leslie
  Schedule 12 of the Constitutional Reform Bill provides that the Commission will consist of a lay chairman, five judicial members, two professional members (a barrister and a solicitor), five lay members, a tribunal (or similar) member and a lay justice.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the planned costs are of the proposed Judicial Appointments Commission. [185040]

  Mr. Leslie
  Our estimate for the annual running cost of the Judicial Appointments Commission is –8.5 million per year, reducing to £8 million, from 2008–09 due to its planned partial relocation out of London and the south-east.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the Judicial Appointments Commission will be set up. [185041]

  Mr. Leslie
  The timetable for the setting up of the Commission is dependent on the passage of the Constitutional Reform Bill through Parliament. If the Bill receives Royal Assent by spring 2005, we would aim to launch the Commission in spring 2006.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission. [185042]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Constitutional Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, will establish a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales. The Commission will be responsible for selecting candidates for judicial appointment. The manner in which the Commission does so will be for it to determine, subject to the overriding criterion that selection must be on merit, and subject to any guidance which the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs may issue, for example, in requiring the Commission to seek to expand the pool of candidates from which a selection may be made.
  374W

  Legal Adviser Costs
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much the Government has paid to(a) profit-making and (b) not-for-profit legal advisers for legal aid cases in each year since 1997. [185035]

  Mr. Lammy
  Payments made in each year since 1997 to(a) profit-making and (b) not-for-profit legal suppliers for legal aid work were as follows:

  £ million

  Payment to profit-making agencies1

  Payments to not-for-profit-making agencies1

  1997–98

  1,948.6

  12.9

  1998–99

  2,039.8

  17.3

  1999–2000

  1,950.6

  18.5

  2000–01

  2,035.4

  29.2

  2001–02

  2,065.2

  47.5

  2002–03

  2,189.0

  56.9

  2003–04

  2,316.0

  58.1

  1 All payments are gross of contributions paid by funded clients and costs and damages paid by other parties.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the cost of post-charge legal aid has been in each year since 1997. [185033]

  £ million

  1997–98

  609.1

  1998–99

  651.0

  1999–2000

  640.7

  2000&3x2013;01

  705.3

  2001–02

  810.7

  2002–03

  907.8

  2003–04

  985.4

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what reforms are planned for post-charge legal aid. [185036]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department published the Draft Criminal Defence Service Bill together with a consultation paper on 17 May 2004, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The proposals set out in the Bill fall into two parts. Firstly, the transfer of the reponsibility for grant of criminal legal aid from the courts to the Legal Services Commission, and secondly the re-introduction of the means test.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs for what categories of charge the Government plans to abolish post-charge legal aid. [185928]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government is not planning to abolish post-charge legal aid for any category of charge.
  375W
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the cost was of providing legal aid in immigration cases in each year since 1997. [185047]

  Mr. Lammy
  The overall costs for immigration and asylum advice, assistance and representation since 1997 in England and Wales were as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  35

  1998–99

  53

  1999–2000

  61

  2000–01

  81

  2001–02

  129

  2002–03

  176

  2003–04

  200

  The Legal Services Commission cannot separate the cost of immigration and nationality cases from asylum cases, but the vast majority are thought to relate to asylum. The substantial increase in legal aid expenditure has been due, in large part, to the introduction of legal aid for representation at appeal, efforts to reduce the backlog of asylum cases and increases in asylum seeker numbers. Cash figures are expected to remain high in 2004–05 as work continues to clear immigration and asylum backlogs.

  We expect that costs will fall in subsequent years as a result of the current lower intake of asylum seekers and measures to control spending.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) not for profit organisations and (b) private practice firms are undertaking legal aid work; and what fields of work are covered by the former organisations. [185038]

  Mr. Lammy
  414 Not for Profit (NfP) agencies and 5,033 solicitors' offices had a contract with the Legal Services Commission at 31 March 2004. Some solicitors' offices hold contracts in both civil and criminal work.

  The total number of offices with General Civil Contracts at 31 March 2004 was 4,715. Of this figure, 4,301 were solicitors' firms and 414 were NfP agencies.

  2,669 solicitors' offices were operating under Criminal Defence Services (CDS) contracts on 31 March 2004. As at 1 July 2004, on the introduction of the new General Criminal Contract, 2,525 firms had signed the contract.

  NfP agencies undertake civil legal aid work in a range of categories within the civil category of law. In 2004 NfPs agencies held contracts in the following categories: family, community care, consumer, debt, education, employment, housing, immigration, mental health, public law and welfare benefits.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many firms have stopped doing legal aid work in each year since 1997. [185039]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission is able to provide figures for the number of solicitors' offices in England and Wales that have had civil contracts withdrawn each financial year since 2000, as follows:
  376W

  Number

  April 2000 to March 2001

  700

  April 2001 to March 2002

  539

  April 2002 to March 2003

  408

  April 2003 to March 2004

  633

  The figures above do not distinguish between firms withdrawing from the legal aid scheme and those that have had their contracts terminated, as the Commission's systems do not make this distinction.

  Contracting for criminal legal aid began in April 2001 with 2,931 suppliers. During 2001–02, 146 contracts were terminated and 151 were terminated in 2002–03. Between April 2003 and March 2004, 317 suppliers had criminal contracts terminated.

  Figures prior to the introduction of contracting in 2000 are not available, as under the previous advice and assistance scheme there was no method of calculating how many firms stopped legal aid work.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans there are to charge interest on sums owed to the Legal Services Commission. [185032]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission already attaches interest to the majority of debts attributable to it. Cases relating to the statutory charge have since 1988 attached interest. The rate of interest is linked to the Bank of England base rate and currently stands at 5 per cent. simple interest. £50 million of the gross debt due to the Commission relates to interest.

  Of other debts due to the Commission interest is not sought as they are normally payable immediately. Where it is necessary to pursue them through the issue of court proceedings interest at the standard debt rate (8 per cent.) is claimed.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will break down by type of debt the money owed to the Legal Services Commission. [185950]

  Mr. Lammy
  The break down by type of debt of the money owed to the Legal Services in 2003–04 is as follows:

  £

  Amount

  Contribution due from funded clients

  29,509

  Costs to be recovered

  25,431

  Statutory charge

  263,896

  Damages

  12,904

  Amounts due from suppliers

  31,718

  Recovery of defence costs orders

  1,722

  Accrued income European social fund

  82

  Prepayments and other accrued income

  404

  Total

  365,666

  Legal Services Direct
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many
  377W
  telephone advisers will provide advisory services for Community Legal Services Direct (a) in total and (b) at any one time. [185150]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Community Legal Service (CLS) Direct helpline has 50 'full time equivalent' advisers. 41.5 advisers offer advice in three categories of law (debt, welfare benefits and education) in England and Wales and 8.5 advisers are contracted to offer advice in housing and employment law in particular targeted areas. There are also non-qualified call centre agents, providing services within the CLS Direct telephone system in relation to the CLS Directory and leaflets. Four more advisers, focusing on debt, benefits and housing advice in Wales, are planned to come on stream in late summer.

  There is no fixed number of advisers present at any given time. The national helpline service has been designed to be able to react to demand and the Legal Services Commission monitors the distribution of calls throughout the day working with its contractors to ensure that the number of advisers available is proportionate to demand.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much the Government grant to Legal Services Direct is for the next financial year. [185218]

  Mr. Lammy
  No separate allocation for Community Legal Service Direct has been allowed in the total funding for the Legal Services Commission for 2005–06.
  378W
  The overall cost of Community Legal Service Direct in 2004–05 is expected to be £6.5 million.

  This is made up of the cost of the national telephone service, the website (formerly JustAsk!), CLS Directory and CLS information leaflets.

  It includes all payments made to technical contractors, contracted telephone advisors, all staffing and management costs within the Community Legal Service Direct team, and associated promotional costs.

  Solicitors
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans the Government has for reducing unproductive time spent by defence solicitors in(a) courts and (b) police stations. [185034]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government are anxious to ensure that solicitors' time is spent productively at court and at police stations. Last year we consulted on proposals to focus both the court duty solicitor scheme and the police station duty solicitor scheme on those cases where an individual's liberty was at real risk or where an individual's interests could be properly advanced. These changes were introduced in regulations and in the General Criminal Contract on 17 May 2004. The Fundamental Legal Aid Review (FLAR) is looking at the efficiencies of the processes for defence solicitors in police stations, as is the Effective Trial Management Programme (ETMP) for the courts.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)
  I have today published two consultation documents. The first of these covers our proposals for amending the building regulations energy efficiency provisions (part L) and implementing the energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD). The second describes our proposals for amending the guidance in approved document F that supports part F—ventilation of the building regulations. Both consultation documents contain draft regulatory impact assessments.

  Driving up the energy efficiency of our buildings is critical to our success in achieving the carbon emission reduction targets in the Energy White Paper and our energy efficiency action plan and will also contribute to our goals for developing more sustainable communities.

  Raising performance standards and introducing requirements for efficiency in the use of boilers and air conditioning systems will not only make a difference in the drive to tackle climate change, they will also help to create warmer, healthier homes and more comfortable and productive workplaces.

  The proposals for building energy performance certification requirements will enable prospective purchasers and tenants to be more aware of energy performance whenever buildings are constructed, sold or rented out.

  Energy used in buildings is responsible for roughly half the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. Wasting energy costs money whereas measures such as loft insulation, boiler replacements and more effective controls often pay for themselves within a few years.

  One of the cornerstones of saving energy is to make building structures more airtight to minimise heating or cooling energy losses due to air leaking through gaps in the structure. This is addressed in the amendments to part L. However, it is also essential to ensure there is sufficient controlled ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality to protect the health of the building occupants. This is one of the roles of part F, and is why approved document F has been revised in conjunction with part L.

  The guidance on ventilation systems has been expanded to cover more options, and also changed from a prescriptive to a performance-based approach that should encourage innovation.

  A new section in the proposed guidance deals with the design of smoking rooms in workplaces. The new edition of the approved document will also take into account the commitments made in the public health White Paper to be published later this year.
  30WS
  The consultation documents will be sent to several hundred organisations that have an interest in the energy efficiency of buildings and/or ventilation. Paper copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the text can be downloaded from the ODPM website.

  The consultation period for both sets of proposals closes on Friday 22 October 2004. Following this my officials will work with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider how the proposals might need to be modified to take account of the opinions expressed in the consultations, and (for part F) the commitments that may be made in the public health White Paper. I am aiming, however, to lay the legislation needed to implement the directive and amend the building regulations and approved documents by July next year, and to achieve our goal of bringing them into effect by the end of December 2005.

  Local Government Finance Settlement 2005–06
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Together with representatives of local government and other Government Departments, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has reviewed the prospect for incorporating 2001 census data in the formula calculations used to distribute formula grant to local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has concluded that we should postpone the introduction of 2001 census data in the calculation of the local government finance settlement until the formula freeze is lifted, in 2006–07 at the earliest.

  The 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", (CM5237), announced that the funding formula would be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. Our aim is to provide local government with predictable and stable funding, so that they can plan their finances and their service provision from year to year.

  It is clear that using 2001 census data to calculate the local government finance settlement will require formula changes, and will cause some large changes to the distribution of formula spending shares.

  In deciding not to update the census data used in the funding formulae in 2005–06, we have balanced our aim of using the most up to date data to calculate local government grants against our commitment to the formula freeze and to stability and predictability in local government funding.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work with local government to produce options to include the 2001 census data in the funding formula once the present formula freeze is lifted.

  Revaluation, Transitional Rates Relief and Small Business Rates Relief
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  This statement provides initial information about the impact of the business rates
  31WS
  revaluation that will take effect from 1 April 2005, gives details of the proposed transitional relief scheme and sets out the Government's proposals for the small business rate relief scheme which also takes effect from 1 April 2005.

  Table 1 below shows the overall effect of revaluation as a percentage change in rateable values and on rate bills.

  Table 1: Overall effect of Revaluation for England and by Region including Central List—2005

  Economic Region

  Average % change in RV from the 2000 rating lists to the 2005 rating lists

  Average % change in liability as a result of revaluation before reliefs are applied

  East

  20.5

  1.1

  East Midlands

  15.9

  –2.8

  London

  17.1

  –0.8

  North East

  15.0

  –3.4

  North West

  14.9

  –3.5

  South East

  20.2

  0.7

  South West

  19.9

  0.4

  West Midlands

  13.6

  –4.5

  Table 2: Movement in Rateable Values—By Region and Property Types

  Table 2: Movement in Rateable Values—By Region and Property Types

  Main Property Types

  Offices

  Shops

  Warehouses

  Factories

  Region

  RV Change

  Liability Average

  RV Change

  Liability Average

  RV Change

  Liability Average

  RV Change

  Liability Average

  East

  16%

  –2.6%

  27%

  7.3%

  23%

  3.3%

  19%

  0.4%

  East Midlands

  18%

  –1.4%

  23%

  3.6%

  15%

  –3.2%

  12%

  –6.0%

  London

  11%

  –5.4%

  26%

  7.1%

  23%

  2.8%

  22%

  3.0%

  North East

  24%

  2.2%

  24%

  4.8%

  13%

  –4.8%

  13%

  –5.6%

  North West

  18%

  –0.5%

  22%

  3.0%

  11%

  –6.4%

  10%

  –7.3%

  South East

  8%

  –9.0%

  29%

  8.4%

  29%

  8.8%

  23%

  3.4%

  South West

  21%

  1.6%

  27%

  6.3%

  16%

  –2.3%

  14%

  –4.8%

  West Midlands

  15%

  –3.8%

  20%

  0.7%

  11%

  –6.6%

  6%

  –11%

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14%

  –3.9%

  26%

  6.0%

  12%

  –5.7%

  9%

  –8.3%

  England

  13%

  –4.7%

  25%

  5.7%

  18%

  –0.5%

  14%

  –4.2%

  Notes:

  1. "RV change" reflect the average percentage increase in rateable value from the 2000 rating lists to the 2005 rating lists.

  2. "Liability average" is the average change in liability as a result of revaluation before reliefs are applied.

  Although the tables show an overall national increase in rateable values, this does not mean an increase in the overall tax take, or that rate bills will necessarily rise by the same amount. The purpose of revaluations is to distribute tax in a more equitable way by updating the valuation of property, thereby making the tax base more current and relevant. The tables therefore also show the likely effect of revaluation on rates bills.

  This information provides important indicators of national trends. However, it is not necessarily a good predictor of changes in an individual's rates bill since these will be affected by more local differences and by factors that are specific to the individual property. Nevertheless, in England as a whole, nearly 60 per cent. of properties will see a fall in their rateable values and therefore a fall in their rate liability.

  The Valuation Office Agency is finalising the preparation of the draft rating lists that will be published on 1 October. These are being published three months earlier than usual and will contain more comprehensive information than ever before. This will enable ratepayers to plan ahead with much greater certainty and should also reduce the number of appeals.
  32WS

  Table 1: Overall effect of Revaluation for England and by Region including Central List—2005

  Economic Region

  Average % change in RV from the 2000 rating lists to the 2005 rating lists

  Average % change in liability as a result of revaluation before reliefs are applied

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13.1

  –5.3

  Central list

  32.9

  10.5

  Total

  17.9

  —

  Notes:

  1. The regional figures are based on the data in local lists of properties for each relevant billing authority. The Central List includes various utilities and networks that are not specific to a billing authority area. Central List properties pay their rates direct to the Secretary of State and the revenue is added to the NNDR revenue pool.

  2. The third column simply deals with the effect of revaluation. In addition to this the final liability will be uprated to take account of the annual inflation increase.

  Table 2 shows the movement in rateable values as a result of the 2005 revaluation by economic region and key property types—offices, shops, warehouses and factories.

  The Local Government Act 2003 provides that the 2005 revaluation must be accompanied by a transition scheme to lessen the effects of sudden and significant rises in rates bills. The legislation provides that the scheme must be self-financing, so that the costs do not fall on other taxpayers. For revaluation 2005, we are proposing a four-year self-financing transitional scheme. The costs of phasing in increases will be met by phasing down the reductions in liability for others.

  The scheme seeks to provide an appropriate balance between protecting those who experience larger increases in rates bills and allowing those who enjoy a fall in bills to experience the full benefit as quickly as possible. As a result we propose the caps for properties experiencing increases will be 12.5 per cent., 17.5 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. for the four years and for small properties 5 per cent., 7.5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.

  For large properties experiencing reductions in rate bills, these would be capped at the rates of 7 per cent., 10 per cent., 17.5 per cent. and 20 per cent. For small properties, the rates proposed are 17.5 per cent., 25 per cent, 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. These downward caps

  33WS
  are significantly more generous than in any previous transitional scheme and mean that those liable to decreases in their rates bills will benefit more quickly than under earlier schemes. Also, the effect of the separate capping levels means that small businesses will only be required to make a very small contribution to the scheme.

  Further details of the transitional scheme will be included in a consultation paper to be published shortly. The consultation will continue until October, by which time businesses will know their proposed rateable value from the valuation office agency draft rating lists. This will enable ratepayers to consider the effect of the proposed scheme alongside their proposed new rateable values before responding to the consultation.

  I am also announcing our proposals for the new small business rate relief scheme. Government recognise that the current system of business rates places a disproportionate burden on small businesses. The small business rate relief scheme will address that.

  Plans for a small business rate relief scheme were first announced in 2001 in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". The White Paper proposed that rate relief should be available at 50 per cent. for properties with a rateable value up to £3,000 with relief declining in percentage terms on a sliding scale until at £8,000 there would be no entitlement to relief. However, we undertook to review these thresholds before the scheme was implemented. The scheme that we will be consulting on next month is significantly more generous than the one originally envisaged, and proposes that the thresholds should be set at £5,000 and £10,000. We are also introducing a buffer zone so that business properties with rateable values between £10,000 and £15,000 will not have to contribute towards the relief.

  The scheme will be funded through a supplement on the rates bills of larger businesses, in line with the requirement in the Local Government Act 2003, although we have made a commitment that this should not add more than 2.5 per cent. to bills. The proposed scheme would increase the overall supplement to no more than 0.67p. This equates to a 1.6 per cent. increase in rates bills.

  We estimate that more than 400,000 small businesses stand to benefit from the proposed scheme.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities
  The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge)
  This statement is being made on a joint basis, together with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women and Equality.

  I am pleased to report that consultation document "Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities" (Cm 6273) is today being presented to Parliament.

  Parental separation affects many children and their families. When handled well the adverse impact on their children can be minimised. When things go badly the
  34WS
  effects can be very damaging for children, both in the short and longer terms. These risks can be reduced if parents can resolve parenting issues in an amicable fashion. Because of social changes, more children experience parental relationship breakdown than a generation ago: 150,000 to 200,000 parental couples separate each year. In addition, fathers are, in general, more actively involved in caring for and helping to raise their children.

  Currently, only 10 per cent. of separating couples with children have had their contact arrangements ordered by the courts, though the number of court applications for contact is rising each year, with the courts in England and Wales making 67,000 contact orders last year. The majority of applications are made by fathers, reflecting the fact that most children live with their mothers following separation.

  I am clear that there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which the family justice system, together with its associated services, deal with contact disputes. This view is widely shared among judges, legal practitioners and voluntary organisations. Some fathers' groups assert that the courts and the law are biased against them. I do not accept this view. However, what I do accept is that major changes are needed, in order to ensure that court and other interventions into family life become much more effective in helping to secure effective resolutions which are in the interests of the child. I strongly believe that in most cases it is very much in the interests of the child to have an on-going relationship with both parents. By improving the system, the Government can make their proper contribution to enabling more non-resident parents to enjoy meaningful ongoing relationships with their children.

  Following the most careful consideration across Government, we have determined that it would not be helpful, in any practical sense, to revise the principles that currently underpin the central piece of legislation—the Children Act 1989, in particular, the paramountcy principle, which makes the child's welfare the court's first consideration. This primary legislation, as interpreted and defined by the case law, already makes clear that both parents are equal and that both should continue to have a meaningful relationship with their children after parental separation, so long as it is safe. We fully accept that we need to make changes to the current system, and to support parents in settling their disputes, by providing more effective help for them to do so.

  This consultation document puts forward proposals which are intended to help those undergoing parental separation to resolve their disputes more effectively so that children's needs are better met. They are based on the recognition that the primary responsibility for caring for children rests with parents rather than with the state. Their aims are threefold. Firstly, they aim to minimise conflict and support good outcomes, both for children and their parents, preferably without recourse to the courts. Secondly, they aim to improve parental access to those services which can enable them to reach agreements. Thirdly, they aim to improve legal processes and service delivery for those who do go to court. While most of our proposals are focused on the

  35WS
  10 per cent. of parents who turn to the courts, a number of them are intended to be relevant to all parents who separate.

  In developing these proposals, we have listened carefully to what parents and children have said. The consumer Strategy work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs involved drawing together evidence from research and conducting workshops and focus groups with parents. The key message from the parents was that they wanted help and support to navigate the emotional and practical issues they faced during the breakdown of their relationship.

  We have also consulted widely with the key stakeholders, including parents' groups, academics, voluntary organisations and service providers, including the judiciary, legal professionals and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is this approach that will ensure rapid improvements at local level. Alongside the publication of this consultation document, the president of the Family Division and the chief executives of the court service and of CAFCASS are today writing to all judges, court service staff and CAFCASS officers to begin the process of change.

  The consultation period, which begins today, will run until 1 November 2004. Comments and discussions about the proposals will be welcome. The Government plan to implement many of these proposals quickly and robustly and to pursue the legislation that is needed as soon as possible.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  "I Will Write" Replies
  The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain)
  The Speaker has raised with me his concern, and that of other Members, about the number of "I will write" replies to parliamentary questions, and the inaccessibility of the subsequent responses. The matter was also raised by the Public Administration Committee in its report on "Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions" [Third Report, HC355, paragraph 29].

  Following discussion with ministerial colleagues, and in consultation with Mr. Speaker and the House authorities, I have agreed the following arrangements, which will take effect from September.
  Government Departments will continue to make every effort to provide a substantive answer to every parliamentary question within the customary timescale.
  Departments will give "I will write" answers only rarely, when there is particular reason for delay.
  At the end of each session, Departments will make every effort to answer questions substantively before prorogation; but, if this is not possible, Ministers will—instead of issuing an "I will write" reply, as in the past—answer the question with the following form of words: "It has not proved possible to respond to the [Right] hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation". It will then be open to the Member concerned to re-table the question in the new session if he or she wishes.
  On those occasions where an "I will write" answer is necessary, a copy of the subsequent substantive response will be sent to Hansard and to the Library, and will be printed with the written answers in the next edition of Hansard.
  36WS
  If the subsequent response is longer than Hansard would normally publish, notification will be printed that the response is available in the Library of the House. The response will be available to Members in the Library and to the public on application to the House of Commons information office.
  If Ministers wish to provide, in response to a question, personal or confidential information that would not be appropriate for publication, this will be made clear in the answer. The "I will write" formula will not be used and copies will not be sent to Hansard or the Library.

  I believe that these new arrangements will substantially reduce the number of "I will write" replies, and make the subsequent responses much more accessible both to other Members and to the public.

  Public Bills: Exchanges Between the Houses
  The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain)
  During the final stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in May, a procedural difficulty arose in the House of Lords. Contrary to the intention of this House, it appeared to the House of Lords that a message from the Commons amounted to a "double insistence" in respect of one Lords amendment. In such circumstances, a Bill is normally lost. However, as this was clearly not the wish of either House, the House of Lords agreed to vary the normal practice in that House, to allow the Bill to continue in play.

  The Leader of the House of Lords invited the Clerks of both Houses and parliamentary counsel to consider jointly the lessons learnt from this episode and how best to avoid such a situation in the future. In particular, they were asked to look at the practice of considering amendments in the other House in groups or packages and the procedural consequences which can follow.

  Following consideration by a working group of Clerks and parliamentary counsel, the Clerks of both Houses have agreed the following statement of position:
  "Before a bill can become an Act of Parliament, the two Houses have to agree on the text. The procedure for reaching agreement appears simple in concept, but can become extremely complicated in practice because of the political context. It may involve, for example, one House having to back away from an entrenched position.
  Following Third Reading and passing of the bill in the second House, a list of amendments made by that House is compiled and sent back to the first House for their consideration. If the first House agrees to all of the amendments made in the second House, the bill is ready for Royal Assent. If it does not, it returns the bill to the second House, with reasons for disagreeing to the amendments, and/or with further amendments. The second House then considers the reasons and amendments offered by the first House. The exchanges between the two Houses continue until:

  (a) agreement is reached, or

  (b) the Session is brought to an end, without agreement having been reached, or

  (c) 'double insistence' is reached, which normally results in the bill being lost.

  The term double insistence is used to describe a situation where one House insists on an amendment to which the other has disagreed, and the other House insists on its disagreement. If this point is reached, and neither House has offered alternatives, the bill is lost. This doctrine is set out in Erskine May 23 edition, page 639, which, however, goes on to say 'there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save

  37WS
  the bill, some variation in the proceedings may be devised in order to effect this object.'
  In the case of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, two amendments (Lords amendments 1 and 3) were still under discussion in the final exchanges between the two Houses. In the Commons, the two amendments were treated as forming a package, and a single amendment (1C) was considered by the Commons to be an amendment in lieu of both Lords amendments. But the reason given for disagreeing to Lords amendment 3 made no mention of the link between amendment 1 and amendment 3. Accordingly, the Lords Clerks advised that double insistence had been reached on amendment 3, and they advised the Government that it would be necessary to move a motion to vary the normal practice of the House, and thus allow further consideration of the bill. A motion was agreed to on 11 May.
  We have been asked to consider the lessons which can be learnt from these exchanges.
  By way of background, we note that the speed and complexity of exchanges between the two Houses has increased markedly in recent years. This is due partly to political circumstances, and partly to technical advances in text handling, which have made possible extremely rapid turn-around of bills. Increased speed inevitably carries the risk of misunderstanding or error, and reduces the time available for consideration of the possible consequences of each House's decisions.
  Particularly in the Commons, the practice has developed of packaging and grouping amendments during these final stages.1 Packaging and grouping are useful ways of signalling perceived connections between amendments. But these are techniques for organising debate within each House; neither House can be expected either to discover, or to feel bound to follow, arrangements made by the other for the consideration of amendments. Messages between the two Houses, and reasons for disagreement, are ways of communicating perceived connections between amendments, but these in turn depend upon the terms of the motions in each House. We consider that the wording of motions could be improved, in order to make clearer the links between the different elements of a 'package' of amendments. We also think that the wording should be improved, in order to make the action of one House clearer to the other and, where necessary, to identify any package.
  As an example, in a case where one House insists on disagreement to more than one amendment and offers an alternative only to one, intending that single alternative to encourage the other House to reconsider all the relevant amendments, the most certain way of avoiding the need in future for a motion disapplying the double insistence rule will be to ensure that a single motion to disagree is laid before the House along the lines of 'that this House insists on its disagreement to amendments 1, 2 and 3 but proposes the following amendment in lieu of amendment 1'. The other House will then be able to identify the group of amendments as a package.
  We are in agreement that in such a case the resultant message to the other House would not amount to a double insistence, whether or not the House receiving it chose to 'unpackage' the amendments for the purposes of debate.
  1In this note, 'grouping' refers to the practice (in both Houses) whereby related amendments are debated together, but the fate of individual amendments in the group is decided separately. 'Packaging' refers to the practice (currently only used in the House of Commons), in the final stages of a bill's passage, where a number of related amendments may be grouped together for the purposes of both debate and decision. So, for example, a motion on a "package" might invite the House to agree to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to a Bill, in lieu of Lords amendments 42 to 44 and 61.
  38WS
  From a practical point of view, we consider that the packaging of amendments has advantages, and that there could be benefits from bringing the practices of the two Houses more closely together in this respect. With this in mind, the Clerk of the Parliaments will invite the Lords Procedure Committee to consider changes to the practice of the House, to allow more flexibility in dealing with Commons amendments which have been packaged.
  Although, in many cases, it is likely that the two Houses will be prepared to consider as a whole a package of amendments which has been received from the other House, there will be other cases when either House may wish to consider the elements of a package separately for political reasons. It is not the purpose of procedure to provide political solutions, but rather to facilitate the consideration of options. Each House remains the master of its own procedures, and where there is disagreement about packaging, it will be possible, as at present, for the other House to consider amendments separately to the extent desired."

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has signed a written agreement with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to allow them to perform the functions of an approved prosecutor under Section 1 (3) (e) of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000. This Act supplements the Protection of Animals Act 1911, by allowing a magistrates court to make an order relating to the temporary care or for the disposal, sale or slaughter of animals kept for commercial purposes that are the subject of a prosecution brought under the 1911 Act by a prosecutor. The agreement with the RSPCA will take effect from 1 September 2004 and will apply to England only. Copies of the model agreement have been deposited in the Libraries. The model agreement and associated guidance notes can also be found on Defra's website at:www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/on-farm/.htm.

  Future of Nirex
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  In my statement of 16 July 2003, I announced that Government was looking at the best way of making Nirex "independent of industry and under greater Government control". I would now like to make a further statement, concerning the means of moving forward with this, that I have agreed with my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Government, through DEFRA and DTI, intend to establish a new company limited by guarantee (CLG) to hold the shares in Nirex, and oversee its business operations. The transfer of Nirex shares to the new CLG will be covered by an appropriate commercial transaction with existing Nirex shareholders. The CLG will, effectively, provide a means of placing Nirex assets and intellectual property into trust, whilst enabling it to continue with its important work that includes setting standards for the conditioning and packaging of radioactive waste, until the Government can take their decision on policy for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive waste, and the means

  39WS
  of its delivery, in light of recommendations from the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). The funding will be by contract, primarily through the NDA. Nirex will be separate from, and independent of, the NDA.

  The new arrangements will achieve both the objectives stated in my previous announcement, to make Nirex independent of industry and bring the company under greater Government control. The aim is to agree the detail of them by about October/November of this year for them to come fully into operation from 1 April 2005.

  Successful implementation is subject to a significant amount of more detailed work currently being undertaken by DEFRA and the DTI in conjunction with Nirex and its present shareholders, including an ongoing programme of due diligence work. All parties are committed to achieving a successful outcome to this process.

  Home Energy Conservation Act Data
  The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  Data reported by energy conservation authorities in England under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2003 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These data have also been published on the Department for Food and Rural Affairs' website, at address http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/heca95/index.htm.

  Authorities have reported an overall improvement in domestic energy efficiency of approximately 12 per cent. as measured against a 1996 baseline.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Gender Equality Strategy Consultation
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I wish to advise the House that on 14 August 2004, I will announce a public consultation exercise in respect of a proposed gender equality strategy, the government's high level policy for tackling gender inequalities in Northern Ireland.

  This consultation follows our fulfilment of a commitment given bu the rpevious Northern Ireland executive, in its programme for Government (2001–04) to bringing forward and implementing a cross-departmental strategy to tackle gender inequalities.

  Copies of the Consultation Paper "Gender Matters—Towards a Cross Departmental Strategic Framework to Promote Gender Equality For Women and Men 2005–15" have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Insolvency Service Annual Report and Account (Year Ending 31 March 2003)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner)
  In accordance with Articles 372 and 358(4) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 copies of the Insolvency Service Annual Report and Account for year ending 31 March 2003 have been placed in both Libraries of the House today.

  Invest Northern Ireland (Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner)
  The annual report and accounts of Invest Northern Ireland for the financial year ending 31 March 2003 were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Youth Council
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The 2001–02 accounts of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 21 July 2004.

  Ordnance Survey (Corporate Plan 2004–07 and Business Plan 2004–05)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  I have today arranged for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland corporate plan 2004–07 and business plan 2004–05 document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This document will also be made available on the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland website at:www.osni.gov.uk.

  North/South Implementation Bodies— Tourism Ireland Ltd
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I have today placed in the Library papers relating to decisions that have been taken during the period 1 October 2003 to 5 July 2004 which relate to the North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd under the terms of the exchange of notes of 19 November 2002 (Cmnd 5708).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Visually Recorded Pre-trial Cross-examination
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) contained, among other provisions, eight special measures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. They are essentially different ways of giving evidence in criminal trials that were designed either to improve the quality of evidence given by witnesses through reducing their levels of stress or to make it possible for witnesses who find difficulty in giving their evidence to have access to justice.

  This Government have already implemented, or is piloting, seven of the eight measures. The eighth measure—visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination—was always going to be the most complicated of the measures to implement. It was also always likely to be applied to the smallest number of cases.

  A number of stakeholders have expressed their concerns to us about the detail of its implementation. We therefore commissioned Professor Diane Birch, a leading academic in the field, to review and provide advice on the workability of visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination. A copy of Professor Birch's report has been laid in the Library today.
  41WS
  The report concludes that one of the two main reasons for undertaking visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination—that of capturing all the witness's evidence early in the pre-trial process—is no longer valid. That is because of new rules on disclosure that effectively mean that by the time both counsel are in a position to undertake visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination, they will be ready to go ahead with the trial itself.

  The second reason—keeping the witness out of court altogether—is still valid. However, the report concludes that rather than introduce the cumbersome mechanism of visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination many months after having visually recorded evidence-in-chief, it would be far more sensible to return to the original recommendation in the report of the advisory group on video evidence (1989) chaired by his Honour Judge Thomas Pigot QC. This was that the child should appear at an informal hearing, at which both the child's evidence-in-chief (supplemented, where there was one, by an earlier video recorded interview) and the cross-examination would be recorded on video for subsequent transmission to the court.

  The report recommends that section 28 of the 1999 Act that provides for visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination should be revisited. It recommends also that the operation of section 21 of the same Act should be reviewed. Section 21 provides that under-17 year olds who are witnesses in cases of sex or violence are given no choice in having certain special measures—such as visually recorded evidence-in-chief or live TV links—applied to them, whether they wish for them or not. So a 16½ year old who has witnessed any sort of violent crime, even where he was not himself involved, would be forced to give evidence in this way.

  The Government are disappointed not to be implementing one of the eight special measures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses that we provided for in good faith five years ago. But we believe it is better to take the advice of one of the leading experts in the field and many senior practitioners, and revisit this complex issue. Our aim is to achieve genuine improvements to the way in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses give their evidence, and this will not be achieved by ploughing on doggedly with implementation of provisions which informed advice suggests will not be practicable or yield the benefits originally envisaged.

  We have therefore decided that in the autumn we shall embark upon a wider review of how child evidence is taken and presented in the criminal courts, particularly in cases involving sex or violence, with the aim of delivering the greater flexibility recommended in Professor Birch's report. This will assist in our aim of enabling measures to be more tailored to the individual witness's needs.

  We are also ensuring that everything that can be done to improve the experience of those witnesses who might have benefited from the implementation of section 28 is being done. The "No Witness No Justice" project will ensure that children's needs are assessed and met, so that, for example, pre-trial court visits are arranged; access to a range of emotional support and guidance through appropriate groups is offered; where possible
  42WS
  home visits take place; and parents are provided with a single point of contact to access information and advice throughout the case. We will continue to improve court buildings so that encounters between the defendant and the child witness are minimised, for example through providing more TV live links. We will also continue to work with the judiciary and the bar to ensure that children's needs and wishes are recognised by the courts.

  Public and Contracted Prisons
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  In my written statement on 15 July announcing publication of the Prison Service and national probation service annual reports for 2003–04, I stated that a full breakdown of the performance of both public and contracted prison establishments in relation to the applicable key performance indicators (KPIs) would be provided at a later date.

  The information on all applicable KPIs is presented in the table that has been placed in the Library. No category A prisoners escaped from any prison and so performance on this KPI is not included in the table. Information is not available at establishment level on the resettlement KPI (which is calculated on the basis of a national resettlement survey), and on the two KPIs on contracted escorts (escapes and timely arrival at court) which are not managed at establishment level. The contracted prisons do not have targets on staff sickness levels or minority ethnic representation. Due to data collection problems there are no figures available for doubling in contracted prisons.

  Forensic Science Service Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service's (FSS) annual report and accounts for 2003—04.

  Performance against agency targets 2003–04:
  The FSS met 20 of its 22 targets and put in a robust financial performance. Of the two targets not achieved, one was missed narrowly and the other became unachievable through circumstances outside of the agency's control. Details are contained in the annual report.

  The Forensic Science Service agency targets for 2004—05 are as follows:

  Finance:

  Target 1
  Three year rolling average of 15 per cent. minimum return on capital employed.

  Target 2
  75 per cent. reduction in charges versus the average earnings index.

  Target 3
  Increase investment in development by a minimum of 12 per cent. of turnover.

  Target 4
  Secure £1.25 million of external funding for research and development.

  Non-Finance:

  Target 1
  Embed the internal FSS end to end process.
  43WS
  Target 2
  Implement the new definitions of timeliness (NDoT) based on investigative and evidential contributions of forensic science for 100 per cent. of forces.

  Target 3
  Make available to 100 per cent. of forces the process of end to end case ownership.

  Target 4
  Sign up 100 per cent. of customers (police and CPS) at force level to service agreements (timelines and charging) in context of national protocol.

  Target 5
  Allocation of 100 per cent. of cases to a dedicated FSS case officer.

  Target 6
  Roll out training packages for police and CPS to support new ways of working.

  Target 7
  Design and develop a link between NDNAD and NAFIS (carried forward from last year).

  Target 8
  Maintain a capacity to deliver fast track processing of DNA samples within 48 hours.

  Target 9
  Deliver 15 per cent. of DNA samples (subject to demand) within 48 hours (fast track processing).

  Target 10
  Average time of seven days to analyse and inform customers of DNA crime scene stain results (normal track).

  Target 11
  95 per cent. of DNA crime scene stain results (see above) will have a turn round time of 12 days.

  Target 12
  Average time of five days to analyse and inform customers of DNA suspect sample results on database (normal track cases).

  Target 13
  95 per cent of DNA suspect sample results (see above) will have a turn round time of eight days.

  Target 14
  Increase forensic effectiveness by fully implementing the index and benchmark system.

  Target 15
  95 per cent of jobs (excluding road traffic accidents and alcohols) will have a turn round time of 35 days.

  Target 16
  Maintain ISO Accreditation.

  Target 17
  Maintain Investors in People accreditation.

  Target 18
  Maintain diversity programme.

  Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigratibn (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  On the evening of 19 July there was a serious disturbance at Harmondsworth immigration removal centre.

  At about 8 pm staff found a detainee hanging in a shower-room at the centre. At about 11 pm a number of detainees became disruptive and started to set a number
  44WS
  of fires in the communal areas. These fires were put out by the newly installed fire protection system. The police and fire services were called to the scene.

  The disturbance continued and became more serious. Staff from UKDS, the company managing the centre under contract from the Home Office, withdrew from the association areas. Standing arrangements in the Prison Service for dealing with serious incidents were activated, and by midnight the Gold Command Suite at Prison Service headquarters was in operation. By 4 am on 20 July the Prison Service Operation Tornado teams went into the centre. By 8 am three of the four house blocks were under Prison Service control. The fourth came under control a little later in the morning, and by 2 pm all parts of the centre were calm.

  The Centre is, for the time being, unsuitable for use. The 441 detainees who were there at the time of the disturbance are being removed to other accommodation, and we are in the final stages of dispersing them across a range of sites, including the IND removal estate and prison establishments while a small number have been taken into police custody. No detainees have been released. An assessment of the damage is being made with UKDS, and the centre will be reopened as quickly as possible. In the meantime, alternative arrangements are being made for the handling in particular of those detainees whose asylum claims were being dealt with under the fast track.

  This was a serious disturbance, and I pay tribute to all those who responded quickly and succeeded in restoring order. It is important to note that the disturbance did not lead to loss of life or serious injury. No detainees escaped, and the measures which had been taken to prevent a recurrence of the fire at Yarl's Wood Centre proved successful. We are determined that the centre be restored to full use as soon as possible.

  The tragic death of the detainee earlier in the evening of 19 July will be the subject of a full investigation by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman. The police are conducting a criminal investigation into the events themselves. There are also likely to be managerial lessons to be learned and I have instigated an immediate investigation, the terms of reference of which will be: to establish the facts of the events at Harmondsworth on the evening of 19 July and the morning of 20 July; to consider the factors which may have given rise to the disturbance and the effectiveness of the measures which were taken to deal with it; and to make recommendations.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Court Services
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The MCSI inspection of courts services annual report for 2003—04 has been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the MCSI's performance for that year. Copies of the report have been place in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Project ISOLUS
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  On 4 February 2004 I informed the House of Commons that Ministry of Defence owned coastal sites were being considered for their suitability to store radioactive material from nuclear-powered submarines under Project ISOLUS. That exercise is now complete and one site, the royal armaments depot (RNAD) at Coulport in Dumbartonshire, has been found suitable in principle. One of the industry bidders, Serco Assurance, in partnership with Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. and RWE Nukem Ltd., is seeking to use a MOD site in their proposal and they will now be asked if they wish to incorporate Coulport into their bid, as will the other bidders.

  I want to make it clear that this does not mean that Coulport has been selected as the storage location—there is still much work to be done before a final decision is made. Nor does it mean that industry has to incorporate the site in any bid. It does, however, mean that those other coastal sites included in the review, some of which have been the subject of considerable speculation, have been assessed as unsuitable and are not storage options.

  Coulport has, of course, previously been named in an industry bid, and is one of the sites on which we consulted the public last year. I do not envisage setting in train further consultation at this stage. If, however, any of the proposals from industry change in substance as a result of the inclusion of Coulport we will instigate a further public consultation exercise. As at all stages of the ISOLUS process, safety, in terms of the general public, the workforce and the environment, will be a key factor in all of our decisions. The concerns expressed by the public during the events at the various sites named in each of the industry bids have been captured by the 50 recommendations contained in the Lancaster University report on the consultation exercise. These recommendations are currently being considered and, following consultation with other government departments and devolved administrations, a Government response will be published later this year.

  The exercise to identify potential MOD sites has concentrated on those by the coast in view of the current preferred option of land storage of cut out intact reactor compartments. The 118 sites were assessed against the following criteria: sufficient spare capacity to accommodate a storage facility; long term security of tenure; development of a storage facility that is feasible and cost effective, would not breach existing agreements with MOD, NATO or other countries, and would not inhibit the site's current principal operational function; access from the sea, capable of accepting heavy loads; and no safety hazard, such as flooding, coastal erosion and whether the site is used for handling and storing explosives, or where unexploded ordnance has been identified, for which there is no cost effective engineering solution.

  In parallel with the detailed consideration of the outcome of the public consultation, and informed by the recommendations flowing from it, evaluation of the various industry outline proposals will be completed.
  46WS
  We expect to be able to announce early next year how the project will be taken forward. Moreover, the Government remains committed to a further round of public consultation before any final decisions are taken.

  Military Low Flying Annual Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK low flying system (UKLFS) during the training year April 2003 to March 2004 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. The number of low flying training hours booked in the UKLFS (excluding the rotary wing dedicated user areas, where different booking arrangements apply) decreased by 1,996 hours, in comparison with the previous training year.

  We are committed to ensuring that low flying training across the UK is spread as widely as is practically possible across the UK so that no single area is too burdened. However, due to a variety of reasons, population distribution and geographical and climate restrictions, it is unavoidable that some areas of the country may experience more activity than others.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a report giving a detailed account of the low flying training that has taken place in the UK low flying system for the training year April 2003 to March 2004.

  The report is also available on the MOD web site: www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying.

  Quick Reaction Alert
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  On 23 April 2004,Official Report, columns 30–31WS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that Typhoon aircraft would be based at RAF Coningsby, RAF Leeming and RAF Leuchars. I have now decided that RAF Leuchars will be the second Typhoon base after RAF Coningsby. This is in order to meet the requirement for quick reaction alert (interceptor) aircraft cover for the UK. RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars are already established as bases for this purpose, which will continue after Typhoon is introduced.

  Woolwich Station
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  A review has been undertaken of the defence requirement for the retention of Woolwich station. The review took account of our future ground based air defence requirements, of the strategy for the rationalisation of the Defence Estate and of the recommendations of the Lyons review. It has concluded that the Ministry of Defence should re-locate units currently based in Woolwich to sites yet to be decided. This will allow the Woolwich site to be made available for non-defence use. Further work is now needed on implementing this decision. All personnel affected have today been advised of our intention and they and their union representatives will be consulted fully as our plans develop.

  Defence Housing Overseas
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Last year, the Ministry of Defence carried out a business process review of the management and delivery of defence housing. The review recommended merger between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive, the agency responsible for the management and delivery of defence family housing in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland or abroad. As Phase 2 of the study, following the above merger, a further review is being undertaken of the management and delivery of family housing for UK forces overseas and in Northern Ireland.

  The aim of the review is to examine the function, role, operation, funding and organisation of defence housing in Northern Ireland and overseas. It will seek to identify the most efficient and effective process to support the management and delivery of defence housing in those areas.

  The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including single-service customers, trade unions, other Government Departments and other relevant bodies. The Ministry of Defence is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contribution by 31 August 2004 to:

  Review team for the management and delivery of defence housing overseas:

  Ministry of Defence

  Directorate of Management and Consultancy Services

  Main building

  Whitehall

  SW1A 2HB

  Or by email: pat.rodger614@mod.uk.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Duke of York's Royal Military School for Financial Year 2004–05:To achieve an average GCSE points score per 15 year old pupil of 61.
  To achieve 90 per cent. of 15 year old pupils gaining five or more passes graded A* to C at GCSE.
  To achieve 30 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* or A.
  To achieve an average GCE points score per candidate of 268.
  To achieve 35 per cent. of GCE passes at grades A or B.
  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,545.
  To generate income of at least £800,000.
  To achieve at least 310 applications for September 2004 intake.

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  I am pleased to announce that I have reappointed Dr Anne Wright as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a second three-year term, commencing March 2005. This appointment has been 48WS
  conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments guidance on appointments to public bodies.

HEALTH

  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  We have received the annual report and accounts of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency for 2003–04 which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The 2003–04 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not take place for another six to nine weeks, pending preparation of a version in the Welsh language, as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993.

  Health and Social Care Standards
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  I am publishing today "National Standards, Local Action: Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework 2005–06—2007–08", incorporating "Standards for Better Health". This will support the national health service and social care in taking forward the agenda set out in the NHS improvement plan, setting out a framework for continuing quality improvement.

  Much progress has already been made across the NHS. Waiting times are falling, mortality rates for the major diseases are down and there are more NHS staff treating NHS patients. The development of clinical governance, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the publication of National Service Frameworks and the establishment of independent inspectorates for health and for social care have set a framework for safe, high quality care. This is underpinned by "The NHS Improvement Plan" that sets out a programme for further progress and clear improvements in health outcomes and patient care.

  "Standards for Better Health" and "National Standards, Local Action" together set out a new approach that will deliver this agenda, with reduced national targets underpinned by robust standards to drive up quality and safety. NHS patients are entitled to care that is safe and effective and "Standards for Better Health" sets out the standards all providers and commissioners of NHS care are expected to meet to deliver safe and effective care.
  49WS
  The standards-driven approach set out in these two documents establishes an integrated framework for performance improvement, setting the parameters for
  local plans and targets;
  independent inspection by the Healthcare Commission and CSCI;
  performance assessment and ratings.

  "Standards for Better Health" is published by the Secretary of State for Health under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. "Standards for Better Health" follows a formal consultation on draft proposals in the spring and defines standards covering the full spectrum of health care from public health through to acute care, which have been developed with two principal objectives. First, they include a set of core standards which provide a common set of requirements applying across all health care organisations to ensure that the health services that are provided are both safe and of an acceptable quality.

  Secondly, there is a set of developmental standards providing a framework for continuous improvement in the overall quality of care people receive. Setting developmental standards in this way ensures that the extra resources being directed to the NHS are used to help raise the level of performance measurably year on year.

  "Standards for Better Health" will apply with immediate effect to all health care organisations in England, including NHS foundation trusts. All those providing or commissioning NHS health care in England will have to take them into account when planning or commissioning health care services.

  The Healthcare Commission will measure performance against the standards and progress against national and local targets developed in line with "National Standards, Local Action" into account in its annual reviews and assessments of health care by (and for) each NHS body in England, including NHS Foundation Trusts. By delivering on targets that relate directly to health care standards, NHS bodies will be able to demonstrate to the commission that they are performing well against those standards.

  In "Standards for Better Health", for the first time the Government are setting out a comprehensive statement of the standards NHS bodies and providers of NHS care are expected to meet. "Standards for Better Health" will act as a key driver for quality improvement throughout the NHS, but one aim has been to clarify and to reduce the large number of requirements and standards that have (in the past) been set centrally, either directly from the Department itself or by its arms length bodies. Some of the Department's own standards and requirements are currently under review and the review of arms length bodies will provide an opportunity to change some of the requirements that they currently impose.

  The development of the new high-level standards represents the first step toward simplifying and rationalising the expectations on the service. Taken alongside the reduced requirements in "National Standards, Local Action" this will give organisations greater flexibility for local innovation, underpinned by a strong focus on safe, effective health care and
  50WS
  improvements in the outcomes that matter most for patients and service users driving forward the programme set out in the "NHS Improvement Plan".

  Copies of "National Standards, Local Action" have been placed in the Library.

  Health Service Bodies
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  For the health service bodies listed as follows, their annual accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General reports have today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to section 98(1 C) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Copies have been placed in the Library:

  Dental Practice Board

  Dental Vocational Training Authority

  Family Health Services Appeal Authority

  Health Development Agency

  Health Protection Agency

  National Blood Authority

  National Clinical Assessment Authority

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence

  National Patient Safety Agency

  National Treatment Agency

  NHS Appointments Commission

  NHS Information Authority

  NHS Litigation Authority

  NHS Logistics Authority

  NHSU

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  Retained Organs Commission

  UK Transplant

  National Health Service Pensions Agency
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I have approved the national health service pensions agency annual report and accounts for 2003–04, which have today been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Medicines Commission and Medicines Act Advisory Bodies
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  We have received the annual report of the Medicines Commission and Medicines Act advisory bodies for 2003, which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 2003 reports of the Medicines Commission, the committee on Safety of Medicines, the advisory board on the registration of homoeopathic products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the independent review panel on advertising, the independent panel for borderline products and the veterinary products committee.
  51WS
  We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  The annual report for 2003 is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The report covers research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any Government Department in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well being of disabled people.

  The current report places such research in the context of the national health service improvement plan, and outlines the role of assistive technology in making independent living easier for older people and people with disabilities. The report describes the wide range of Government funded projects supporting the development, introduction and evaluation of assistive technology.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  The NHS purchasing and supply agency's annual report and accounts has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for housing benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  In 2002–03, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council administered some £70.8 million in housing benefits, about 19.3 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.

  BFI inspected Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.

  The report finds that since 2000 the council had been implementing an ambitious programme of activity that included: implementation of the Verification
  52WS
  Framework; implementing new IT systems; a reorganisation of its Revenues and Benefits division; and the establishment of one stop shops and a customer contact centre. Many of the earlier changes were responsible for a considerable backlog of housing benefit claims, attributed to poor management and pointing to a lack of effective planning and organisation.

  The council's benefits service had improved from a "poor" classification in December 2002 to a "fair" classification in December 2003 as part of the comprehensive performance assessment programme. The benefits service had a committed workforce and the report acknowledges the considerable efforts made by Members, senior officers and staff over a sustained period of time.

  The report finds that the council had not documented its approach to benefits administration, had not put in place essential strategic policies, and had insufficient procedural staff guidance which resulted in staff making inconsistent decisions when processing claims. The report notes serious concerns about the lack of management assurance and public accountability provided by the benefits service.

  The council had received "Beacon Council" recognition for its accessible services, providing public access at several one stop shops and handling all incoming telephone calls at its customer contact centre. It had not however reviewed its service against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and was also not complying with the Race Relations Amendment Act 1976. Physical access issues for customers with disabilities had been considered but their access to services including information needs had not been assessed neither had the needs of customers whose first language was not English. The council's benefit claim form was clear and simple.

  The council had made an impressive effort to clear a backlog of new claims resulting in the council's average number of days to process new claims to housing benefits as being approximately 44 days, compared with the standard of 36 days. However, the council was not consistently applying the standards required for gathering and confirming supporting evidence. Claims processing had taken priority over other work, resulting in a backlog of over 20,000 items of post that was not being managed, contributing to high levels of avoidable overpayments. Sampling showed the average time taken to process changes of circumstances was 58.2 days, compared with the standard of nine days.

  The council was making positive efforts to raise the profile of counter-fraud activity but it needs to improve publicity of its prosecution policy both internally and externally to demonstrate that it takes fraud seriously. The report notes extreme concerns that the prosecution process used by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council allowed customers to remain under caution for excessive periods of time. Also that the council's prosecution referral process and scoring system that determined appropriate action to be taken and sanction to be applied, undermined the prosecution policy.

  The council's benefit overpayment policies and procedures were of a good standard and fraud overpayments were pursued rigorously and promptly recovered. However, sampling showed that 70 per cent.

  53WS
  of benefit overpayments were as a result of the council not promptly processing notified changes of circumstances.

  The on-site phase of the inspection took place in October and November 2003, and the report was cleared on 16 April 2004. The 17-week timeline was not met due to key officers in the council not being available for the clearance of the report.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Bristol City Council
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Bristol City Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for Housing Benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  In 2002–03, Bristol City Council administered some £78.7 million in housing benefits, about 9.7 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.

  BFI inspected Bristol City Council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.

  The report finds a high level of commitment by the council to improve its benefit service. During the inspection, the council implemented a number of changes to address issues that were highlighted by BFI.

  In April 2001, having acknowledged that there were problems with the speed and quality of the service it was providing, the council began a programme of fundamental changes in the way it administered housing benefits. Changes included the centralisation and reorganisation of its benefits processing work, and an upgrade to the benefits IT system.

  Despite the changes, delays in processing benefit claims and a significant backlog of work were still evident at the time of the inspection. Customers had to wait an average 74 days to have their new benefit claims processed compared to the standard of 36 days. Verification of supporting evidence for benefit claims was generally conducted to a good standard. However, insufficient and ineffective management checking meant
  54WS
  that the council did not have sufficient assurance that the benefits system was secure or that benefit was being paid correctly. Accuracy rates in 2002–03 were reported as 86 per cent., placing the council in the bottom three of all councils.

  Customers experienced problems with the council's benefits service, with almost a third of all calls being abandoned unanswered, and customers being asked to supply evidence to support a claim more than once.

  The report finds that the quality of the council's counter-fraud investigation work was very effective and it was applying the full range of sanctions in line with its policies. All benefit fraud investigations staff were trained to professional standards.

  The council was committed to the recovery of benefit overpayments and had a recovery team within the benefits service. However, many overpayments were caused by the council not processing reported changes of circumstances promptly, and delays in the adjudication of fraud overpayments. The lack of procedural guidance and management checking meant the council had no assurance to the accuracy of overpayments and recovery work.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFF's findings and recommendations.

  Disability Rights Commission
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The Disability Rights Commission's annual report and accounts 2003–04 have been published today and laid before Parliament. The DRC's annual report of its activities in 2003–04 details considerable success in its work to eliminate discrimination against disabled people; promote equal opportunities; encourage good practice and keep the working of the Disability Discrimination Act and the DRC Act under review.

  Remploy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)
  Remploy's achievement against its targets set by Government for 2003–04 is in the table.

  Target

  Achievement

  Gross margin—the Company will achieve gross margin of £55 million.

  £55million

  £54.4 million

  Progressions from Remploy factories and interwork to
  open employment

  1,650

  1,408

  Average cost of a supported employee

  £10,400

  £11,095

  Employee development time

  5 per cent.

  7.8 per cent.

  55WS
  Remploy will publish its annual report and accounts in the autumn giving further detail of its performance throughout 2003–04. Copies of the annual report and accounts will be placed in the Library.

  Agency Annual Reports and Accounts
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am pleased to announce that the Department for Work and Pensions has today published the 2003–04 annual reports and accounts for three of its executive agencies: Jobcentre Plus (HC 909), The Pension Service (HC 722) and Appeals Service (HC785). Copies have been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Following my announcement on the setting up of the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems,Official Report, 9 February 2004, Column 1150–51, I can now announce the members of the commission. These are as follows:

  Professor Sir John Arbuthnott

  Chairman of the Greater Glasgow NHS Board and Former Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of Strathclyde

  Mr. Adam Bruce

  Director, McGrigors Public Policy, Edinburgh

  Professor Mike Donnelly

  Professor of Management, University of Paisley

  Mr. Donal Dowds

  Divisional Managing Director, BAA Scotland and USA

  Mr. John Keggie

  Self-employed businessman. Former Deputy General Secretary, CWU Postal

  Mr. John Lawrie, OBE

  Former investment manager. Former Chairman, Scottish Liberal Party

  Councillor Alison Magee

  Convenor, Highland Council

  Mr. John Mc Cormick

  Former Controller, BBC Scotland

  Dr. Nicola Mc Ewen

  Lecturer in politics, University of Edinburgh

  Ms Mary Pitcaithly

  Chief Executive and Returning Officer, Falkirk Council

  Mr. Mike Russell

  Freelance journalist and broadcaster. Former MSP for South Scotland

  The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments was fully involved in the process of appointment.

  The commission will start its work very shortly and is expected to report to me and the First Minister in about 18 months.

TRANSPORT

  Night Flying Restrictions
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I announced on 15 January 2004,Official Report, columns 44–46WS that, following consultation last year, we had decided to continue the present night restrictions regime at
  56WS
  Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted until the end of the summer season 2005 (30 October 2005). This was to allow us time to consider comments received in response to the question about the appropriate review cycle in the consultation paper "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East", and the wider policy context, before we consult on a new night restrictions regime for those airports, to take effect from 30 October 2005.

  We intend to carry out the consultation on the new regime in two stages: we are publishing the consultation paper on stage one today. The consultation paper is rather different from previous consultations on night restrictions for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The paper sets out the general background to the whole of the consultation and our intention that the next regime should apply for six years, to the end of the summer season 2011. By that time the 5th Terminal at Heathrow will have been in operation for about three years and the opening date for a 2nd runway at Stansted (if planning permission is granted) should be known.

  The consultation paper also includes:
  a statement of our broad aims for the night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and an invitation to suggest environmental objectives and specific noise abatement objectives for each of those airports;
  detailed proposals relating to the classification of aircraft, the main focus of this first stage of the consultation,
  further background information and extended preliminary consultation on some other aspects of the night restrictions regime; and
  an explanation of how and when we shall carry out assessments to comply with Directive 2002/30 of the European Parliament and of the Council (implemented into UK law by The Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003—SI No.1742 of 2003) and also a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

  The issues relating to the way aircraft are classified for night restrictions purposes need to be resolved in stage one so that the effects of different options for the length of the night quota period, the size of the noise quotas and movement limits and the ratios between them, can each be assessed properly in stage two.

  At present, aircraft are classified according to the Quota Count (QC) system that was specially designed for the night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and introduced in 1993. The QC classification system is based on aircraft noise certification data (determined in accordance with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), and we propose to retain it.

  The consultation paper on the one year extension to present restrictions referred to the findings of a technical review' which used data collected in normal operating circumstances to verify the QC classification of aircraft types. The results show that most aircraft currently operating at night at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted have operational noise levels that accord with their present classification. To the extent that the study highlights differences between observed operational noise and ICAO standards, the differences have been brought to the attention of the international technical
  1Quota Count Validation Study: Noise Measurement and Analysis: ERCD Report 0205.

  57WS
  experts currently examining ICAO noise certification requirements. We believe in and support the international system of noise certification. We are pressing for the certification requirements to be updated, to reflect modern operating procedures and conditions, and to be made more rigorous.

  Article 4(4) of Directive 2002–30 and Regulation 5(3) of SI No. 1742 preclude the use of any system of noise classification other than that based on ICAO noise certification data. It follows that, although the UK (and other Member States) may choose how to use ICAO data in imposing operating restrictions, it has no discretion to substitute measurements of operational noise as an alternative to the noise certification data. That would have the effect of decoupling the classification of the aircraft concerned from their noise certification data. We are, therefore, not consulting on this issue.

  If we retain the QC system it is still possible to modify or extend it provided the classification remains based on noise certification data. Changes arising from earlier commitments and technical studies that we are considering taking forward are:
  whether to remove the weight limit on jet aircraft able to qualify as exempt but, at the same time, to introduce a new QC/0.25 band;
  whether to retain the minus 9 EPNdB adjustment for arrivals which takes account of the difference between the noise impacts of arrivals and departures;
  whether to prohibit QC/4 aircraft from being scheduled or from operating in the present night quota period.

  These are the key issues for this first stage of the consultation. They are explained in more detail in section 7 of the consultation paper.

  The consultation paper also contains information to meet the new regulatory requirements established by Directive 2002/30/EC and SI 2003 No 1742, including data that will be used in stage two as the basis against which to compare the effects of proposed changes to the night restrictions regime. The data will also feed into the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment that we shall provide at stage two. All consultees are invited to include in their responses to this first stage of the consultation any data that they wish to have taken into account when we produce those draft assessments for stage two.
  58WS
  The consultation will close on 29 October. Copies of the consultation paper are available in the House Library. All responses will be taken into account and reflected as appropriate in the stage 2 consultation paper and related assessments.

TREASURY

  National Statistics
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The National Statistics annual report has been published today. A number of copies of the report have been placed in both Libraries of the House. The report can also be obtained free of charge on the National Statistics website at:www.statistics.gov.uk/about/national_statistics/documentation.asp.

  Office for National Statistics
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Office for National Statistics annual report and accounts for 2003–04 are being laid before Parliament today. They contain an assessment of how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2003–04. Electronic copies are freely available on the National Statistics website and a number of copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Spending Review (Regional Priorities)
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  "2004 Spending Review: Meeting Regional Priorities", is being published today and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  This document meets the Treasury's commitment to set out how the 2004 Spending Review, announced to Parliament on 12 July 2004, responds to the issues and priorities identified in the regional emphasis documents jointly prepared by the Government office, regional development agency and regional chamber in each English region.

  The document reaffirms the Government's commitment to improving regional economic performance. It summarises the next steps the Government is taking to ensure that the evidence base supports the Government's regional policy agenda, and sets out the SR04 response to input from the regions as well as plans for devolving further resources and responsibilities in every region.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
Jane Bonham Carter, having been created Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, of Yarnbury in the County of Wiltshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Steel of Aikwood and the Lord Dholakia.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
The Reverend Leslie John Griffiths, having been created Baron Griffiths of Burry Port, of Pembrey and Burry Port in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Lord Habgood.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking ministerial visits to Belfast and Manchester on Tuesday 7 and Friday 10 September? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

HIV/AIDS
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their strategy to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday launched Taking Action: The UK's strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world. The strategy signals major new investment in AIDS—over £1.5 billion over the next three years. It also gives a special focus to tackling the impact of HIV/AIDS on women and young people, including orphans and children made vulnerable by AIDS.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate her on the Government's response so far to this overwhelming and exceptional crisis. Does she agree with the All-Party Group on Africa's recommendations in its recent report on AIDS that DfID should marshal the capacity of all
214
other government departments to assist—for instance, the Department of Trade and Industry in stimulating UK companies which work in Africa to develop proper AIDS programmes for employees and migrant labour; and the Department for Education and Skills to train replacement capacity in the public services?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, this is indeed an integrated strategy. My noble friend may be aware that the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council launched a joint HIV/AIDS employment policy early in 2002 for all employees and their long-term partners in developing countries. We encourage responsible businesses to have in place a similarly effective workplace policy.
My noble friend is quite right about the human resource capacity crisis in Africa, which is now impacting significantly on the region's governments' ability to deliver vital public services. We will of course encourage other departments working in the area to work with those governments to ensure that the skills gap, which now stands at 1 million qualified professionals, is narrowed.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, the extra resources are welcome indeed, although I hope that the Leader of the House recognises that much more needs to be done, not just by this country but by the West generally, to reduce the appalling toll of death from AIDS, especially in African and other developing countries. She will have read yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which reported that several thousand trained nurses, desperately needed in many African countries, are being recruited to work here in Britain. How does she believe that that helps the fight against AIDS in Africa? How can that policy be defended?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is quite right: more needs to be done. He is also right to say that we need to create the conditions in developing countries that mean that their skilled professionals stay in those countries. One of the most appalling facts is that investment in developing countries by their own citizens, which is encouraged by foreign direct investment, does not stay—there is capital flight. So a big part of our strategy is to create the right conditions in-country.
On the specific point about nurses, the noble Lord will know that we have a code of practice for the health service, which is working quite well. What is not working as effectively is the voluntary code that applies to the private health sector, which does go in to countries to poach professionals. That remains a cause of concern.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, is it not horrific to contemplate the catastrophic effects of HIV/AIDS across Africa? In Botswana, where life expectancy was 60 10 years ago, it is now 40 and predicted to fall to 27 by 2010. That is why I particularly welcomed

215
the announcement by the International Development Secretary last week, following the spending review, that he would be trebling the UK's contribution to the UN AIDS programme. Does my noble friend therefore share my concern at the comments made by the shadow Chancellor to the effect that, in the unlikely event of a future Tory government, £800 million would be cut from the DOD budget, which would seriously weaken this country's ability to contribute to the worldwide campaign against HIV/AIDS?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: the figures for life expectancy in developing countries where there is a serious HIV/AIDS pandemic are falling. My noble friend is also right to say that there is likely to be a cut in the DfID budget if the Opposition's spending plans go through. However, I must say that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who speaks on these subjects in this House, constantly commends the department's work. I hope that she would fight hard with her colleagues to ensure that that did not happen.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, that statement is welcome, especially in its renewed focus on children, which was missing from previous statements on AIDS. However, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that the current estimate is that by 2010 there will be 25 million AIDS orphans? What action are the Government taking to assist those children and, in particular, to assist their carers, who may within families be looking after 18, 20 or 25 children? The pressing issue may be simply how to feed them.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is quite right: the number is set to increase substantially, although the figure that I have is 20 million, rather than 25 million, by 2010. That is still a significant rise. On the work that we are doing with carers, I must say that a number of the carers are children themselves. That is why a key part of the strategy is to work with developing countries to ensure that they prioritise their work on HIV/AIDS on work with orphans and vulnerable children. Not only feeding but educating those children is a key part of the strategy.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although many of the carers of the millions of orphans are young, many of the others are grandparents who are trying to bring up children with none of the help, support or resources that we take for granted in the industrialised world? A whole generation of those children's families has been decimated by that terrible scourge. I declare an interest as a board member of HelpAid International.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: we must consider not only children in those caring roles but grandparents.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also speak on international development for my party in this House.
216
No final decision has been taken by my party on international development spending. In the light of the launch of Taking Action, are Her Majesty's Government confident that the UN target for reducing the number of young people infected by HIV/AIDS by 25 per cent by 2005 is achievable?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we are concerned that a number of the targets will not be met. That is why we have launched our action plan; that is why we have made it absolutely clear what role we will play. Part of that is to give political leadership, which is why that will be a key plank of our G8 and EU presidencies next year. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also speaks on international development. Of course he does, and I hope that his views and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, prevail.

Cannabis: Reclassification
2.57 p.m.
Lord Cobbold Lord Cobbold asked Her Majesty's Government:
What have been the main developments following the first six months of cannabis reclassification.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are working with police forces to monitor the policing of drug offences since cannabis was reclassified. Initial feedback from police forces is highly encouraging. Police time can be redeployed to tackling class A drug dealing offences. Young people have learnt of the legal change through government radio and newspaper advertising—93 per cent of under-18s now understand that cannabis is illegal. We have also started a health messages campaign to highlight the particular harms of cannabis.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging response. It is important that there has not been the wild increase in cannabis use as a result of the reclassification that many people feared. Do the Government now fully accept the merits of separating the use of cannabis from the hard drug culture? If so, will the Government now favourably consider further moves towards the decriminalisation of cannabis or, at the least, to the full implementation of the recommendations on cannabis contained in the Runciman report on drugs and the law?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord that there has not been an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, the slight decrease that we have seen since 1998 has continued. Of course, this is an important change. I cannot say that the Government intend to move further on the matter until we see the results confirmed that we are heading in the right direction.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although we on these Benches supported the reclassification of cannabis, we also pressed that government attention should be applied to dealers, money launderers and others up the criminal chain. Does the Minister have any evidence yet of increased prosecutions in those areas?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are monitoring those figures. The signs are very encouraging. The release of police time from policing the cannabis issue has enabled us to concentrate on class A drugs and other matters. We hope to come forward relatively quickly with figures that I hope will give the noble Lord considerable pleasure.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, we on these Benches are very pleased with the Government's approach to antisocial behaviour and their attempt to address the yob culture phenomenon. Is the Minister confident that the reclassification of cannabis will help those important steps?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as a result of anti-social behaviour legislation we were able to take very aggressive action in closing down crack houses. The powers have proved successful. They have been used on more than 100 occasions nationally, making a particularly effective impact in areas such as Hackney in London, as well as Bristol, Nottingham and Middlesbrough; so they have been very successful indeed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is depression one of the dangers of taking cannabis?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there are a number of dangers in taking any illicit drugs. I would not like to identify depression alone. We clearly maintain that cannabis is an illicit and dangerous drug. That is why we have kept the classification as it is.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of her noble friends were very unhappy with the way in which cannabis was reclassified? For example, there was a lack of notice and it was brought to this House without proper explanation of the benefits of the experiment taking place in Lambeth. Will the Minister now undertake to ensure that when all the statistics to which she has referred have been collected that evidence can be very clearly given to the House so that we can see whether there is a causal link between reclassification and the effect of consumption on class A drugs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand the importance of collecting those data. We have made it clear that we wish to collate those data and identify whether, thematically, there are things that we need to do. I can assure my noble friend that we are very anxious for those data to be shared.

British Summer Time
3.2 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can identify road safety benefits which would follow the introduction of Single/Double British Summer Time.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, a government-commissioned report by the Transport Research Laboratory published in October 1998 concluded that if the UK adopted Single/Double British Summer Time—that is, GMT plus one hour in the winter and GMT plus two hours in the summer—thereby making the evenings lighter, there could be a saving of 400 fewer people being killed or seriously injured per year in Great Britain.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extraordinarily helpful and informative reply, which prompts me to ask the question, why on earth do the Government not get on and do it? They should bear in mind that it is a change which would be widely supported not only by road safety and motoring organisations but also by the tourist industry, including the National Trust, VisitBritain, Age Concern and many other organisations?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend appreciated the initial response. Perhaps I may just indicate that there are wider issues than just road safety, although road safety is obviously very important. Of course, it is the wider issues that need to be taken into account. Currently, there is a Bill before the other place: the Government are monitoring its progress carefully.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, when we talk about the wider issues to which the Minister has just referred, they are primarily agricultural concerns and about daylight in the north, particularly in Scotland. Since the report on transport and road safety, agricultural practice has changed markedly. Cows are not milked on family farms to anything like the same extent that they were. Can some work be done to show the trade-off in the disbenefits to farming and the saving of child casualties, which would definitely follow from a change to British Summer Time?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's strength of argument. Agriculture has always been a very important consideration with regard to the extension of summer time. But not just agriculture has to be considered: there are other industries and interests that are worried about darker mornings or mornings that remain darker for longer.

219
The noble Lord will recognise that that is certainly true with regard to certain parts of northern England and, of course, Scotland.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, the Minister is correct. There are considerations other than road safety. Does the Minister recognise that UK industry and commerce suffer, at best, great inconvenience and, at worst, loss of trade at the start and the end of each working day by not being in the same time zone as our European customers and competitors?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is no doubt that there would be an added convenience if we were in the same time zone as other major European countries. But nevertheless I think that the noble Lord will recognise that there is a balance of interests to be struck. Perhaps I may make the obvious point: when British Summer Time was introduced on an extended period between 1968 and 1971, it led eventually to the other place voting against its continuation because of these other interests.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there is a Bill going before the other place. I think that the Second Reading of the Lighter Evenings Bill is in October. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that proper parliamentary time will be given to that Bill if it ever comes to this House? There have been Bills before on which nothing has ever happened; yet we have given a great deal of parliamentary time to the welfare of foxes, children and adults. The implication of the Bill is that, if passed, we shall have not only lighter evenings but also the deaths of a great many adults, children and, indeed, foxes would be saved straightaway.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, at this stage, I am not in a position to indicate the amount of time that could be allocated in this place to such a Bill. However, obviously, to coin a phrase, the Lighter Evenings Bill is being introduced rather late in the day in the other place. There is a problem of it clearing the other place before arriving here. As noble Lords will recognise, we have fairly limited time at our disposal in this parliamentary Session.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there would be a huge opportunity for the tourism, leisure and hospitality industries in Great Britain, including Scotland?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a strong argument. There is no doubt that the tourism industry would see benefits from the extension of summer time. But my noble friend will also recognise that the Bill in the other place proposes that Scotland should take its own decision on this issue. Therefore, that would leave the decision for England and Wales quite separate from Scottish considerations.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that there would be a huge disadvantage to Scotland if it had a different time from that south of the Border? Does he ever use his imagination to think about what it would be like in Scotland if in the winter the sun rose at 10 o'clock and set at 5 o'clock? How would that affect accidents and the working world?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, having enjoyed a superb holiday at Whitsun in Glencoe, I do not need to use an excess of imagination to recognise the point being made by the noble Baroness. Her words represent one of the factors which makes progress in this area something that must be approached with due care.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, how would the costs of implementing a further trial compare with the savings suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and what is the cost in economic and social terms of the 400 killed and seriously injured?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not have figures on the costs of those killed and seriously injured, but obviously they would be enormous. However, I think we measure such costs more in terms of human suffering than in terms of financial consideration. Not all these matters can be effected on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. We conduct our politics in this country on the proper representation of interests rather than simply on calculations of cost and benefit.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend just mentioned human suffering. Does he agree that some of us will find it very hard to accept that the saving of 400 lives can be set against these other interests that are somewhat difficult to define? Can he think of any other situation in which 400 lives saved would not be the first thing the Government would tackle?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my response to my noble friend repeats that which I indicated earlier. He will recognise that over the length and breadth of the United Kingdom many interests must be respected. In 1971 we did carry out an experiment. I should point out that the other place was the same in composition in 1971 as it is today; namely, English MPs were in a substantial majority, while the addition of Welsh MPs only increased that majority. But they reached the decision that, despite all other considerations, the experiment should be concluded and we should not continue with extended summer time. However, times change and we shall wait to see the response to the Bill now before the other place.
Lord Rosser: My Lords, as this Question also relates to road safety, does my noble friend believe there would be any road safety benefits as a result of raising the speed limit on motorways to 80 miles per hour?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that that is probably a long way from the Question before the House.

British National Party: BBC Documentary
3.12 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action against Mr Nick Griffin and other British National Party members in respect of their behaviour and comments as filmed in the BBC documentary "The Secret Agent".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government take very seriously all forms of racism and hate crime. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been working closely together in response to the material published in the BBC documentary. Five people were arrested yesterday. The case is still being investigated and so the Home Office is not able to comment further.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Will she join me in congratulating the BBC on its documentary, especially its brave reporter, Jason Gwynne? Will she also congratulate Barclays Bank which today has frozen the accounts of the British National Party? Does she agree that the British National Party is a nasty Nazi party whose policies bring back the smell of Hitler's Nazism, which some of us can remember and some of us fought against? Will she now ensure that the Government probe, monitor and investigate the activities of this evil party and of its leaders, and do everything possible to promote the decent good will with our minority groups in this good country which the Nazi British National Party has been trying to destroy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join my noble friend in saying that the BBC programme was indeed a startling and shocking revelation of the true face of what appears to be happening within the British National Party, certainly at the meetings that were filmed. Of course I have to accept that the British National Party is a political party in this country. No one in this House will be surprised if I say that its policies are abhorrent both to me and to my party. However, we must accept that the British National Party is a legitimate, democratic political party in this country. A huge amount of work must be undertaken by all those who disagree with its policies to make sure that it does not thrive.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted that, among those of the British National Party who were arrested, not included among them was Mr Nick Griffin? However, had he made remarks about Jews and Judaism like those that he made about Muslims and Islam, he would have been liable to prosecution under public order legislation. Does that not mean, as has been pointed out by the Muslim Council of Britain, that it is important that we get on with the legislation to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred in order to parallel that which is already on the statute book against incitement to racial hatred?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be quite wrong for me to say anything about the first matter mentioned by the noble Lord. Noble Lords know that both the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are continuing their investigations. Given that, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand if I do not respond to the first part of his question.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been anxious about these issues and our need to address them. He has made it absolutely clear that he will seek to address this matter in the short rather than the medium term.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Janner for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has to some extent pre-empted my question, does my noble friend the Minister feel that the Muslim community is a specific target of the BNP, and that of late it has directed all its efforts against Muslims? Does she also consider that the legislation proposed by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary, which would bring the issue forward in terror legislation, will not go far enough to ensure proper protection of the Muslim community from acts of the kind being suggested by the BNP?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should say to my noble friend that, regrettably, I do not believe that the Muslim community is the only group in the sights of those who want to spread hatred, dissension and division among us. The tragedy is that they have us all in their sights. That is why I can reassure my noble friend that the work we are doing in the publication of the consultation paper Strength in Diversity and the speech of the Home Secretary to the Institute for Public Policy Research is so important. I say that because we are absolutely determined to ensure that evil will not prevail.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is very specific, with all that that involves. Do not the Government agree that the concerns which lie behind it could be addressed by better teaching on racial and religious awareness in the early years; namely, starting in our schools?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, teaching is very important, as is building better communities in our society, as well as sharing and being together. Anything we can do to enhance the good will that exists between people of good will is a task that we should all set ourselves. Teaching is one such task.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, did the Minister notice the discrepancy between the percentage of votes secured by the BNP in the European elections and those it secured at the local government elections, suggesting that people find it easier to vote for a party than for the people representing that party? Will she bear that in mind when the Government contemplate any extension of the list method of voting?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although that point is somewhat wide of the Question, I can certainly say to the noble Lord that all of these matters are extremely important. However, I would say to political parties of all complexions, other than the BNP, that this puts a huge burden on all of us to ensure that that party is given no room to breathe.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that challenging and exposing extreme racists and fascists is better than ignoring them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree. I therefore say again that that is why our Strength in Diversity work is so important. I hope that I can say on behalf of everyone in the House that we are fighting extremism in all its forms.
Lord Winston: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the British National Party as "democratic". On reflection, does she feel perhaps that that is a word wrongly used in this context?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I did not mean to say that its members are democratic. The party is a part of the democratic process, which I have to acknowledge. As I said earlier, noble Lords will not be surprised when I say that I find what it stands for entirely abhorrent, not only politically but also personally.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the criterion for restricting free speech is not that it causes offence, however gross, but that it tends to provoke a breach of the peace? Does she further agree that the question of whether Mr Griffin passes that test is open enough for us to wish to hear the verdict of a court upon it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may first warmly welcome the noble Earl back to his seat. Those of us who enjoy his contributions have missed him greatly.
Those judgments will have to be made by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service working together. However, I am sure that the views of the House are absolutely clear.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, however shocking and vile were the comments, we would hear them in many pubs and work places up and down the country. It is no good not recognising that fact. Does my noble friend agree that, in an attempt to draw attention to these fascists, neo-fascists and anti-Semites, we should give help to organisations that want to expel from their memberships those who hold a brief for the BNP? I refer specifically to trade unions that want to divest themselves of these evil people.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree that we should do everything we can to ensure that they find no place to rest in any of our institutions or organisations.

Scrap Metal Industry: Disposal of Cars
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they plan to take in the light of comments by the director general of the British Metals Recycling Association that the scrap metal industry will no longer accept the 45,000 cars which it deals with each week.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, on Monday, my colleague, Elliot Morley, Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment, held a constructive meeting with representatives of the metal shredding and car dismantling industries to discuss their concerns over the disposal of end-of-life vehicles. Also present were representatives from the Environmental Services Association, the Environment Agency and the DTI. The meeting agreed a two-point plan that has resulted in the market for scrap cars resuming its normal pattern. That plan will be worked up to form a protocol that will form the basis of a working relationship between the car dismantlers, the metal shredders, the waste management industry and the Environment Agency for the foreseeable future.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It at least means that we will not have 45,000 defunct cars arriving on the streets of Britain every week with nowhere to go. Does he share my disquiet that there was so little planning on the part of both the Government and the Environment Agency that the landfill directive and the end-of-life vehicle directive were not co-ordinated? As a result, the guidance was unclear, the industry did not know what to do and nor did landfill operators. What is the Minister's department doing to put in place clear guidance for an industry that is doing its best to dispose of our waste?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the guidance is clear enough; it is a matter of practicality for the metal shredding and car disposal industries, which are required to separate out the hazardous waste so that the rest of the waste can go to landfill, which no longer provides for hazardous waste. I think the practicalities have now been largely sorted out in the protocol agreed by my honourable friend earlier this week.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this issue goes very much wider than the disposal of cars? The Aluminium Federation and the non-ferrous industries consider that they may be brought almost to a standstill by the new regulations, as nearly all waste, no matter how small, from aluminium manufacturing is now classified and will not be accepted at any of the former sites.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think that that is the problem. The issue is not one of capacity for dealing

225
with hazardous waste; in this case, it is to do with the practicality of separating out waste. A number of problems will have to be ironed out in that respect but the allegation, which I have seen in the media, that it is a capacity problem is not right. It is a practicality problem and, to some extent, an economic problem.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister's initial response is welcome. It is pleasing to know that there is at last a satisfactory outcome, but the problem was very well signalled and has been known about for months. Can the Minister explain to the House how it came about that we had to get right to the wire before there was a meeting between his department, the industry and the Environment Agency, agreement between which was necessary to reach a conclusion? The matter was taken beyond the eleventh hour of the eleventh day.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are not dealing with a sudden imposition of new regulations; they have both been in place for about two years, and the practicalities have been sorted out in most respects. In this case, there may have been a somewhat precipitate reaction on the part of the metal disposing industries. With the good will of all parties, that has now been sorted out.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, will the Minister consider giving advice to customers that in future when they buy their cars they will be able to choose one which can be recycled most effectively? That is one of the most important elements of an environmentally friendly car.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would be highly desirable if customers chose the most recyclable products of all kinds, including motor cars. It will take time before that situation exists. In the mean time, of course, a producer liability law is being introduced which will require producers to take responsibility for disposal. That law is not yet in place—I think it will be introduced in 2007—but it will resolve in part the issue of disposing of non-recyclable materials.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I thought that the Government had undertaken to introduce a car labelling scheme to give consumers that kind of information. What has happened to that scheme?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are a number of labelling schemes that are not legally required but have been discussed with motoring manufacturers and the industries that produce electronic and electrical goods covered by the parallel agreement—normally known as the WEEE directive—which also affects the situation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a case of reclassification of the waste? Aluminium waste, which in the past was acceptable for landfill, is no longer acceptable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not so much a reclassification of the waste than an ending of the
226
co-location of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. For landfills that previously could take both, separation was not a problem. It has now become a problem.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the past three months the price of scrap metal has more than doubled from about £40 a ton to more than £100 a ton? Does that not indicate that the arrangements described by my noble friend are beginning to work?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I bow to my noble friend's knowledge of scrap metal prices. It is certainly true that the industry has gone through a relatively profitable time. That is why, to some extent, the complaint that this was a large economic cost on the industry needs to be seen proportionately and in context. We have now reached an accommodation with all elements of the industry that will enable us, at least for the immediate period, to deal with this rather difficult issue.

Civil Contingencies Bill
3.29 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Civil Contingencies Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 18,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 19 to 32,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 33 to 36.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before the two Statements, perhaps I may make a brief procedural point, which follows various representations that I have had from different parts of the House and a recent meeting that we had with Leaders and Whips. My point relates to the procedure during Statements. I simply remind everyone of the Companion, which says:
"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
The emphasis is on the word "brief". My arithmetic tells me that the briefer the comments, the more contributions we shall hear.

Security: Future Capabilities
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the need to transform our Armed Forces to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Before doing so, however, I know that the House would want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery, professionalism and dedication of the men and women who serve their country in the Armed Forces, as well as those who support them in the Ministry of Defence and British industry. Their reputation is second to none. The transformation that I am setting out today will help to ensure that our Armed Forces can continue to respond effectively to the global challenges that they are likely to face.
"This Government are absolutely committed to Britain's defence, and to our Armed Forces. That was made abundantly clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor's announcement last week of the budget settlement for defence. The 2002 spending review provided the largest sustained growth in defence spending plans for 20 years. This year it has been possible to make even more resources available to defence, providing the longest period of sustained growth for over 20 years—a defence budget rising by £3.7 billion. It is this sustained investment that makes possible the transformation to which the Government and the Armed Forces are committed.
"In the 1998 Strategic Defence Review we set out plans to develop defence capability to match the needs of the post-Cold War world. We built on this with the SDR new chapter, published after the appalling events of 11 September 2001, and we confirmed this direction in the defence White Paper of December 2003.
"That White Paper makes it clear that the threats to Britain's interests in the 21st century are far more complex than was foreseen following the disintegration of the Soviet empire. That is why the defence White Paper signalled that we should continue to modernise the structure of our Armed Forces; to embrace new technology; and to focus on the means by which our Armed Forces can work together with other government agencies to meet the threat of international terrorism and the forces of instability in the modern world.
"Our Armed Forces have enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation. It will see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people—the inputs which characterised defence planning in the past—to a new emphasis on effects and outcomes, and on the exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies and Network Enabled Capability. We measured numbers of people and platforms in the Cold War because we were preparing
228
for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces. That kind of campaign has fortunately passed into history as technology has moved on.
"The capability of our Armed Forces is growing year by year as intelligence is combined with target acquisition, modern communications and precision weaponry to produce results which have changed the nature of modern warfare. These new capabilities involve the rapid communication of actionable intelligence to the commander in the field to deliver a range of combined effects, involving all three services and our allies acting efficiently and effectively together.
"We are also able to respond more rapidly to crises through the improved deployability of our forces. We saw this in 2003 when forces were moved to the Gulf in less than half the time that it took 12 years before. With better target acquisition and precision weaponry, our Air Force was able to hit its targets with less ordnance—and hence fewer aircraft—than in the first Gulf War. The same tasks can now be completed in much less time, with far greater accuracy and correspondingly lower risk to our forces.
"The defence White Paper makes it clear that this shift in investment towards greater deployability, better targeted action and swifter outcomes would involve a reduction in the numbers of tanks, aircraft and ships. Drawing on our experience of operations since the Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces have been identifying which parts of the Armed Forces are most in demand, and which are less well utilised. As a result, we have developed new plans to ensure that our Armed Forces can retain maximum effectiveness. I have set out these plans in detail in the Command Paper on future capabilities, published today.
"The majority of reductions will effect not the front line but support operations. We will exploit greater efficiencies in the delivery of logistic support and the modernisation of infrastructure. We plan to accelerate this process over the years ahead. Efficiency savings of £2.8 billion are included in our plans. All of this money will be recycled to enhanced our front-line capabilities and other modernisation initiatives.
"Of course, we are investing more new money in defence. This investment will, for the Army, enable us to fund its transformation into a force which is structured and equipped to meet the demands of multiple, concurrent operations across the full spectrum of tasks. This involves a shift from the current structure which is strong at the heavy and light ends of the spectrum but thinner in medium forces, to one which is better balanced, right across the capability spectrum.
"The balanced land force of the future will consist of two heavy armoured brigades, three medium weight brigades, based around the Future Rapid Effects System family of medium weight vehicles—FRES—and a light brigade, in addition to the Air Assault and Commando brigades. We launched the

229
assessment phase of the FRES project in April this year and we expect to sign a contract for technology demonstration work to start later this year.
"The shift in emphasis to more agile, deployable forces means that we will establish an additional three light armoured squadrons, re-role a Challenger 2 regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment and re-role an AS90 regiment into a light gun regiment. Later, we will equip three artillery regiments with the new Light Mobile Artillery Weapon System. At the same time we will seek to improve our ability to engage land targets with precision and at range. The first Apache attack helicopter will go operational later this year, an important first step down this path.
"It will be followed by improvements in our missile inventory, through the progressive introduction of the Brimstone air-to-ground missile, a new infantry anti-tank guided weapon—Javelin—and improved artillery rounds to allow precision indirect fire over the second half of the decade. Collectively, these improvements will be balanced by a reduction of seven Challenger 2 armoured squadrons and six AS90 heavy artillery batteries by early 2007.
"Critical as these new weapons systems are, at least as important are the changes that we are making to enhance the Army's Network Enabled Capability. Digitised communications systems provide the network links. The entry into service of Bowman at the tactical level, and the Cormorant and Falcon systems at the operational and strategic levels, will represent a step change in our capability to pass data between commanders and the front line. We are continuing to invest in improved electronic warfare capabilities such as Soothsayer and in developing stand-off sensors, such as the Watchkeeper Unmanned Air Vehicle. I was able to announce yesterday that the preferred bidder for Watchkeeper is Thales Defence Limited. This will provide battlefield commanders with high quality, timely and accurate information. The new joint surveillance aircraft, Astor, recently made its first test flight successfully.
"Our battlefield and maritime helicopter forces, arguably the most capable in Europe, have demonstrated their versatility supporting the full spectrum of recent operations. Over the next 10 years, we plan to invest some £3 billion in helicopter platforms to replace and enhance our existing capability. This substantial investment within a relatively short timeframe will make it possible to produce a future helicopter fleet focused on the key capability areas of lift, reconnaissance and attack, central to future expeditionary operations.
"The dominance in the air by alliance and coalition air forces shown in recent conflicts, together with our judgment about the likely threat on deployed operations and our continued investment in Typhoon and its advanced air-to-air weapons means that we can plan to reduce our overall investment in ground-based air defence. We will meet our requirement in future from 24 Rapier
230
fire units and 84 high velocity missile launchers. Rapier will be deployed by the Army with the RAF Regiment relinquishing that role. Ground-based air defence will be commanded by a new joint HQ within the RAF command structure.
"We are reviewing the implications of these force structure changes for our future equipment plans. In the mean time, I can announce the procurement of additional missiles worth around £180 million for the high velocity missile system.
"I now turn to the infantry. We currently provide operational and geographical variety for the infantry by moving battalions between locations and roles every few years. This is known as the infantry arms plot. This process inevitably takes battalions out of the order of battle while they are moving and training for new roles. It also adds to turbulence. We need to ensure greater capability from the infantry and improved continuity with better careers for infantrymen and more stability for their families. The infantry arms plot will therefore be phased out.
"In addition, as a result of the improving security situation in Northern Ireland, we announced last month a reduction in the number of battalions committed to the Province by two. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the GOC have now conducted a further review of security requirements. As a result, I can today announce another reduction of two battalions, which will take place in the autumn. This in turn will reduce the overall requirement for infantry battalions from 40 to 36. This reduction will comprise one battalion recruited from Scotland and three recruited from England.
"These changes necessitate a new infantry structure. This must preserve the best aspects of the regimental system but must produce an organisation capable of adapting for the future. The new structure will be based on regiments of two or more battalions in largely fixed locations, allowing individuals to move easily between these battalions. Details of the new organisation will be worked out by the Army and announced by the end of the year.
"The Army Board wants to establish an infantry organisation that will last for the foreseeable future. The manpower released by the reduction of four battalions will be redistributed across the Army to strengthen existing infantry units, but will also be used elsewhere among the most heavily committed specialists, such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence. The overall size of the Army will be around 102,000.
"Our plans for the Royal Navy involve the further development of a versatile and expeditionary force that is capable of operating at distance from the United Kingdom and is focused on delivering effect on to land at a time and place of our choosing. Two new large aircraft carriers deploying the joint combat aircraft will provide the heart of our future ability to project military power from the sea. I announced on Monday the extension of the

231
assessment phase to take forward further design work on the new carrier in the run-up to our main investment decision. I also announced that the principles of an alliancing approach have been agreed with our industrial partners. We are investing heavily in our amphibious capability. HMS "Albion" and HMS "Bulwark", which were delivered to the Royal Navy last week, will provide a step change improvement in our ability to launch the Commando Brigade and other forces ashore.
"By ensuring that our major warships are effectively networked and supported, we can deliver more capability from fewer platforms. Developments in network enabled capability—linking sensors and weapon systems—mean that we can meet future area air defence and command and control requirements from a force of eight Type 45 destroyers. With these hugely capable ships currently under construction, we plan to pay off our oldest Type 42 destroyers—HMS "Cardiff", HMS "Newcastle" and HMS "Glasgow"—by the end of 2005. We are still in the early stages of an ambitious procurement programme. We are working with industry to define a timetable that best matches our capability requirements and the need for steady work in both the shipbuilding and repair industries.
"The potential submarine threat to most future UK operations is likely to be very low. But where a threat does exist, we will still need the full range of advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities to deal with it. We have therefore decided to reduce our overall number of platforms optimised for antisubmarine warfare, while continuing to maintain our technological edge over potential opponents, including through the introduction of the new low frequency active sonar 2087. We will pay off three Type 23 frigates—HMS "Norfolk", HMS "Marlborough" and HMS "Grafton"—by March 2006.
"This shift of emphasis also allows us to meet our maritime reconnaissance needs with 16 Nimrod MR2 aircraft. The requirement could in future be met by a fleet of around 12 more capable Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, subject to industry demonstrating satisfactory performance at acceptable prices.
"We require a total of eight nuclear attack submarines. The introduction of the new Astute class boats will hugely enhance the SSN contribution across the spectrum of operations. There has been solid progress on the first of the class, following the restructuring of the project. Work continues on boats 2 and 3 as well as on long-lead items for boat 4 but there is still more to be done before finalising production orders. We are also investing in the latest generation of Tomahawk land attack missiles and improvements to submarine communications to give our current and future submarines an improved land attack capability. Our mine countermeasure vessels have made a valuable contribution to recent operations.
232
"Against the changing threat, we need to retain a balanced force of eight Hunt class and eight Sandown class vessels. We plan to pay off HMS "Inverness", HMS "Bridport" and HMS "Sandown" by April 2005. The improved security situation in Northern Ireland also makes it possible to pay off the Northern Ireland patrol vessels HMS "Brecon", HMS "Dulverton" and HMS "Cottesmore" by April 2007.
"As a consequence of these changes, the manpower of the naval service will reduce to 36,000 over the next four years.
"Air power is critical to the prosecution of modern warfare. Over the next 10 to 15 years, an accelerating transformation of our air power will enable quicker, more precise and decisive operations at range, delivered by multi-role Typhoon and joint combat aircraft equipped with highly capable weapons. The Typhoon programme is now moving forward towards initial operating capability, with indications that the aircraft is demonstrating excellent performance and good reliability. We expect to sign a contract for the second tranche of Typhoon aircraft as soon as we complete satisfactory negotiations over price and capability.
"The investment in our air forces is already producing substantial improvements in existing aircraft. The Tornado GR4 is now one of the most potent offensive aircraft systems in the world, fully capable of day and night operations in all weathers. The Harrier GR9 development programme is on course to deliver a significantly more capable platform with much wider versatility, including for carrier-borne operations. The tactical information exchange capability project will examine how the effectiveness of the GR4 and GR9 can be further enhanced by improving their networked capability. The Tornado F3 aircraft is now equipped with AMRAAM and the world-leading ASRAAM air-to-air missiles and is fully networked through the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System. The new Storm Shadow long-range air-to-surface missile proved itself as a world-beater during the recent Gulf War. New precision-guided Paveway IV bombs will further enhance our overall capability in the short term.
"With these significant advances in capability, we now judge that we need to reduce the types and overall numbers of the RAF fast jet force, providing a firm baseline for the transition to the multi-role era. We will reduce the number of our air defence Tornado F3 squadrons by one, and bring forward the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron to be disbanded in 2007. These changes in the force structure and the achievement of planned organisational efficiencies will lead to a reduced RAF manpower requirement of around 41,000 by 2008. This will allow us to close RAF Coltishall airfield by December 2006. We will also be undertaking an extensive review of our future requirement for airfields. Following an extended period of consultations we have decided to rationalise the basing requirements of a number of RAF logistic support and communication units. My

233
right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is writing today to those honourable Members whose constituencies may be affected.
"The RAF also plays an essential enabling role in support of expeditionary operations through its strategic and tactical airlift capability. The core of this capability remains the fleet of C-130 aircraft and, from 2011, the A400M. To accommodate larger items we have already announced that we were considering the options for retention of C-17s after A400M enters service. I am pleased to announce that we intend to buy the current fleet of four at the conclusion of the current lease arrangement and to purchase one additional aircraft bringing our C-17 fleet up to five aircraft.
"Amidst these structural and major equipment changes, we must never neglect the more immediate needs of our Armed Forces in the field and in particular their personal equipment. We already have a major programme under way in the light of experience from Operation TELIC. I am now able to announce some further enhancements. This year we will be procuring additional light machine guns for the infantry, together with night vision and target acquisition systems for forces in land, sea and air environments, as well as further enhancements to our Special Forces capabilities. We will also make major enhancements to our asset tracking capability to ensure the right materiel is in the right place at the right time. We have learnt the lessons from recent operations in Iraq.
"Alongside the modernisation of our conventional forces, as set out in last year's White Paper, the Government remain committed to maintaining the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent including making the necessary investment at AWE Aldermaston, and to keeping open the options for a successor to Trident until a decision is required, probably in the next Parliament.
"In addition to the reductions in numbers of Armed Forces manpower we envisage reductions of around 10,000 in the number of civilian jobs. These flow from efficiencies as a consequence of the department's change programme and other initiatives. The reductions in Armed Forces and civilian manpower will be achieved as far as practicable through natural turnover. We will also retrain and redeploy personnel wherever possible. We have a commitment to enabling our people to develop their skills and abilities so that those who leave are well equipped for life outside defence and those who stay are properly trained for their roles. But inevitably there will be redundancies. We will use the normal consultation processes to achieve them.
"The White Paper makes clear that our Reserve Forces have evolved to become an integral part of the UK's military capability. We learnt many lessons from operations in Iraq about how we mobilise our reserves and how we need to strengthen the relationship between the services, reservists, their families and their employers. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement
234
tomorrow about our plans to consult on proposals to update financial assistance to reservists when they are called into service and to compensate employers who incur additional costs as a result of their staff being called up.
"There will be those who will claim that the defence budget is under such pressure that it is impossible to sustain the department's forward equipment programme. In fact, the spend with industry will continue at the level of recent years. It is of the utmost importance that industry takes the maximum advantage of this substantial investment to produce what the Armed Forces need at a price that we can afford. We will take forward our defence industrial policy, implementing these changes, in conjunction with industry, to ensure a healthy and competitive defence industry that continues to play the leading role in our economy that it enjoys today. I am confident that it will respond to this challenge.
"For the third successive spending review, this Government have been able to announce real growth in the defence budget. This is without precedent since the mid-1980s. Even with these additional funds it is necessary to secure maximum benefit from efficiencies and make choices to ensure that our force structure matches the requirements of today's security environment. The plans that I have announced today show this Government's determination to make the choices necessary to ensure that the real growth in defence expenditure is targeted at what the Armed Forces require in the 21st century rather than what they have inherited from the 20th. They will ensure that the Armed Forces are equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future those tasks which they have so admirably undertaken in recent years".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches join the Minister in paying tribute to the dedicated members of our Armed Forces. We remember the 61 servicemen killed in Iraq and are thinking of their families.
This Statement is an important one, as are all Statements on the defence of the realm. But like so many Statements that this Government have made, it is as important for what it fails to tell the House as for what it tells us.
We welcome the announcement on Watchkeeper and the C-17s. We welcome some of the steps to be taken to rebalance our Armed Forces for the threats of today and tomorrow. However, the announcement is about cuts. Members of the House and the Armed Forces should prepare themselves for continuing cuts in the months to come. The Government must not think that, by announcing cuts the day before the long recess, they will be able to draw a line under this. No, this is an issue that deserves respect and consideration. Accordingly, I ask the Minister to convey our request that there should be a full defence debate at the earliest opportunity.

235
We were told last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the resources to be allocated to defence over the next few years. We are now looking to the Minister and his colleagues to explain how that money will be rationed out, for it will have to be spread pretty thinly. We are short of hard figures, numbers and dates. We need to know the truth, without spin, about numbers being recruited into the Armed Forces; how the trained strength is developing; and how retention figures compare with those for premature voluntary retirement.
We need to know how the Army is to be reorganised. It is the regimental system that gives the British Army its character and makes it much more formidable and efficient, man for man, than even the high-tech American army. We need to know about numbers of warships and aircraft. We need to know about new equipment, planned and coming into service. We look for assurances that the equipment programme is fully funded on the basis of realistic through-life costs.
We need to be assured that current equipment will not be taken out of service until the new equipment is in place, up and running. We admire the Minister's confidence that the new carriers will be deploying the JCA. We hope that there is no gap between the commissioning of the first carrier and the JCA entering service. May I ask the Minister about the position regarding the Defence Communication Services Agency, which has such a critical role in network-enabling our defence capabilities across the board? Can the Minister indicate a specific timetable for the thorough reorganisation of the Defence Logistics Organisation as a whole? Can he also confirm that there will be adequate and specific provision for the costs of large-scale joint exercises—activities of the greatest importance?
It seems to us that, in pursuance of their policies, the Government are prepared to make the fullest use of the Armed Forces, including the under-equipped reserves. However, they continue to begrudge providing them the resources that they need to do their job. The result is, as an Army officer told me yesterday, that they are working at a pace that is not sustainable.
We cannot predict where our Armed Forces will be fighting in 10 years' time, but we can predict that they will be fighting for us somewhere and that we will be counting on them to win. We must ensure that they are not only properly and fully equipped, but well trained and available in the numbers required to fight the wars that we cannot predict today. We shall, of course, be told that the service chiefs will say that we have the best for which we could hope in the circumstances; they are bound to say that. It is the grudging attitude of the Government towards the necessities of strong defence that makes the circumstances wrong.
In conclusion, I commend to the Minister and to the House the express views of my right honourable friends Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin, who have said:
"We guarantee to maintain the fighting capability of our forces. We shall ensure that they are provided with the necessary funds and equipment to carry out the tasks and commitments required of them. If that requires increases in defence spending, we will spend it".
4.1 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for that 3,500-word Statement. It is certainly the longest Statement that I have heard read out in this House; the Minister did well to do it without even a glass of water. I shall start by taking a sideswipe at my Opposition Front-Bench colleague. He almost asked for it with his last comment, saying that the Leader of the Opposition would spend more on defence without further taxation. That will be an interesting trick, and I would very much like to look at those figures.
It is welcome that the Government have committed to more spending on defence. However, their commitments to defence recently mean that the excess spending will be swallowed up quite easily. On wading through the Statement, I finally found the figure of 102,000, which is the number of men in the Army. That is the important figure that we have been trying to winkle out of the Minister with a number of questions in the past few weeks. It has been our suspicion that the Government were to reduce the number in the Armed Forces to 102,000, and that has finally been confirmed.
We are looking at a number of debates and questions in future about the disappearance of regiments. It is obviously very sad that a number will be lost. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there has to be a change to the infantry system. We would welcome something that led to a more rational and modern system to address some of the problems faced by infantry personnel. They have to move every three years on rotation, which has caused so many problems of overstretch, as has been raised in many debates in this House.
An area of the Statement that will have to be looked at again is where the Government talk about making savings away from the front line. That goes back to a policy introduced by the Conservatives called Front Line First. It could be quite a dangerous policy. Under Front Line First, money was pumped into front-line services, at the expense of support services. We very much hope that the Minister will take on board the lessons learnt through the almost annihilation of the Royal Army Medical Corps, which caused so many problems, especially as logistics was one area particularly highlighted in the NAO report on the last Gulf War.
The reduction in naval capability seems extremely stringent. It is not possible to look at those cuts without a careful eye. However, it is good that the Government are looking at not cancelling the carriers as yet. At this point, after the reviews, has the Minister worked out how large the carriers will be? That seems an issue of some concern, especially in the area of timing and cost. Has any progress been made with the Americans about technology transfer over the main armament of the carriers, which will be the Joint Combat Aircraft? On that basis, we welcome very much the introduction of Watchkeeper, and the fact that we will go with Thales. It seems ridiculous that we would go with an American company as, under the present legislation, some of the technology involved in those aircraft systems would not be revealed to us even though we were buying the system.

237
We support the A400M and the target date set out in the White Paper of 2011. I very much hope that the Minister can confirm that that time scale will not shift too much in future, although that may be difficult for him. We also support his words about the reservists and looking at financial issues that have arisen through their serving in the Gulf. On these Benches, we recognise the service given not only by regular servicemen in the Gulf, but by reservists. In that review, will the Ministry of Defence also look at the training of reservists? Although it is possible to talk about remuneration—that is an issue at the moment—it seems ridiculous and extremely unfortunate that the man-training days and the period in which reservists have been trained have been continually under threat for the past few years.
I welcome the Statement but, considering its size and detail—we have had only a brief time to scan it—I hope that the Minister will look as an urgent priority at introducing a debate on the White Paper.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for what they have had to say. Their mild and good manners, and the way in which they put forward their cases, are very much in the tradition of this House. However, their approach in thinking about the Statement covered one or two gaps as to what their respective parties—both ambitious for power, we are led to believe—would do if they found themselves in that position.
We will take away the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on reserve training and come back on it. So far as a debate is concerned, both noble Lords know exactly what I am going to say—that it is a matter for the usual channels. We will see where that goes. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about defence logistics and the transformation programme. We believe that it will revolutionise the delivery of support to all three services, improving the operational effectiveness and flexibility of such support and saving about £1 billion per year by 2008. I hope that that is some sort of answer for him.
I was asked about the size of the aircraft carriers, which will be the largest warships that this country has ever built. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that they had not been cancelled as yet. Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue; we have no intention whatever of cancelling them. I would like very much to hear what his party and that of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, have to say about that. No doubt in due course we will hear whether they will commit themselves, as we are committing ourselves, to those amazing ships.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, quoted his leader and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer making a pronouncement that is very different—certainly in the shadow Chancellor's case—from what was said a few months ago. At that point, he made it clear that the only two departments to have their expenditure ring-fenced would be health and education. Indeed, I believe he said that there would be zero per cent growth for the first two years for other departments
238
which, as the noble Lord heard me say before the announcement of the spending review, implied a cut of £1.5 billion. Now that figure is £2.6 billion. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Astor, to quote what his leader and the shadow Chancellor may have said. But what does that actually mean?
We were delighted to hear the noble Lord say this afternoon that aid expenditure would be ring-fenced. This morning the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said that defence spending would be ring-fenced and we are also delighted to hear that. It is beginning to look as if everything will be ring-fenced. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a word of warning. The experience of this side of the House was that we used to go into elections saying that everything would be ring-fenced, we would not cut anything and we would spend more on everything; but look where that got us. My warning is that we will be asking him and his colleagues over many months—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: My Lords, that was up until 10 years ago to the day when the Prime Minister became leader of the Labour Party. Then we began to tell the public what we would do realistically. That is why we are on this side of the Chamber and the noble Lord and his colleagues are, for the moment, on the other side. Please, let us have some realism from the party opposite. What does it intend to do regarding defence? We have absolutely no idea what its policy is. It is about time that we were told.
Regarding the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid that I have absolutely no idea what their defence policies are and what they stand for because we hear completely different versions of their policy depending on whether they sit in this House or whether they are engaged in by-elections. There was not much Liberal Democrat support for the Armed Forces at the time of the recent by-elections.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, with the utmost respect, will the Minister recognise that we have a very short time to ask questions on an important issue and we do not, as a House, wish to hear a series of party statements? We are concerned about defence. I should be grateful if the Minister would refrain from discussing various party issues and let us get on with defence.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's intervention. I always listen carefully to her comments. But the time that I take in responding to what I believe were party points from both the other Front Benches—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Bach: My Lords, they were. That time will not influence at all the time that the Back-Benches in this House will have to ask questions in a few minutes' time. The time that I take will not eat into the valuable Back-Bench time.

239
I wished to make the point that on the streets of the cities where the by-elections were held we heard nothing at all about praise for the British Armed Forces either in this country or in Iraq. We heard crude anti-Americanism and, "Get the British troops out of Iraq as soon as possible" At least the political party Respect does not speak with two tongues.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister said that our policy was to get the British troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. After the handover of power, I thought that that was the Government's policy, too.
Lord Bach: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been on the streets to which I referred, he would have heard his people say that we should get out of Iraq now rather than at some time in the future. It would be helpful if the Liberal Democrats could speak with one voice rather than many, depending upon where they happen to be. We would listen to what they have to say on this important matter if they were slightly more consistent with what they said elsewhere.
In summary, I detect from the attitudes of the two noble Lords to my comments that they require a longer time to examine the contents of the Statement and then to come to their judgments. They are entitled to that. But I do not think that they disagree that we need to modernise our Armed Forces, that we need to spend within the resources allowed for them and that sometimes that means that hard choices have to be made. That was the case when the party of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, was in government; it is the case now that we are in government; and, I am afraid, it will be the case for evermore. This document goes a long way towards modernising our Armed Forces. It follows what we have said before and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. These are major changes. A Statement with brief questions does not give the House any opportunity to consider them in depth. So, I, too, strongly support the request for an early debate on defence and security.
The Statement reveals some welcome new capabilities that lie in the future. Meanwhile, are we not taking a major strategic risk by cutting back and withdrawing capabilities long before the new systems are operational? Is there not a basic contradiction in the Government's position? If we are to operate alongside the US, they will rightly expect from us not only technical synergy but also a reasonable contribution to the joint effort. Have these proposed cuts been explained to the United States?
Has any allowance been factored in for losses? We have been fortunate in recent conflicts, but the lessons of the Falklands with the loss of eight highly capable naval platforms and all but one large helicopter inflicted by a far from world-class air force must not be
240
forgotten. So I deplore the major reductions proposed in naval and air platforms before new capabilities are available.
Finally, what chance is there that these changes will see an end to year-by-year snap savings in recruitment, training and exercising, which are hurriedly adopted to stay within cash limits but enormously inefficient and wasteful of defence effort?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I respect the noble and gallant Lord's concerns in this field. I can say only that we are confident, as are the Chiefs of Staff, that the balance of today's proposals will not have the adverse effect that the noble and gallant Lord fears. We cannot wait until all-new equipment is on stream before beginning to reduce some of the assets that need to be reduced. That has to happen at the same time. We do not believe that his fears will be realised and I want him to believe that careful judgment has been taken over a long period to establish exactly where the balance lies. I should emphasise to the House that these Government proposals have the absolute backing of the Chiefs of Staff.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps before asking my question I should mention that I lived through the World War 1 and served in the territorials throughout World War 2. I am conscious that however good our regular Army is—and it is splendid—we always have to have big enough reserves and a big enough Territorial Army. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Territorial Army is not only big enough, but also well enough trained and equipped?
Lord Bach: My Lords, regarding reserves, the lengthy Statement talked about the vital role that reservists are playing within the Army. It is arguable that they have never had to play such an important operational role as they are playing now. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about training for reserves and I promised him that I would take that back and ensure that the position is reviewed.
I made it clear that my colleague Ivor Caplin will make a Statement on future reserves tomorrow and that the role they play now is enormously important in the fighting force that the UK Armed Forces provide. We are determined that they will not have a more difficult time in their capacity as reservists—in other words, we are determined that their employers will be satisfied by the terms that they are offered when their people are taken away. We shall continue to ensure that reservists, who are often of great importance in the enabling roles where there are sometimes shortages in the Regular Army, are employed in a proper and full way. The future for the reserves is extremely promising.
Lord Truscott: My Lords—
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords—
Lord Inge: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have heard a point from the Cross Benches. It is now the turn of this side to ask a question. We shall then no doubt hear from the Liberal Democrats and I am sure that there will then be an opportunity for a question from the Cross Benches.
Lord Truscott: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in the Kosovo conflict the European members of NATO struggled to provide 40,000 combat-ready troops for peacekeeping duties, even though that was one-fiftieth of their total Armed Forces? Does he agree that what this country needs is a modernised and readily deployable 21st century military based on precision weapons and network capabilities able to fight the battles of the future rather than the past? Does he concur that the Government's seven years of real-terms increases in defence spending contrast starkly with the Tories' planned real-terms cuts, despite the U-turn announced today? Does he agree that those cuts would decimate the armed services and threaten the country's security?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I basically agree with what he says. I do not understand why there are groans around the Chamber. In our turn, when in opposition, we were attacked all the time by parties opposite for not having a credible defence policy. From this side, we are simply saying mildly that neither of the parties opposite has a credible defence policy, and this White Paper makes it clear that we do. I agree very much with what my noble friend said.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us in this House who do not have military experience were none the less very impressed a few weeks ago by the words of someone who does have much military experience; namely, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall? He said that the one thing we should not cut at a time of modernisation and uncertainty regarding future threat is the number of people. That seems to run counter to the Government's Statement. Does the Minister also accept—I speak as someone who represented the Scottish Borders for many years—that on the ground the importance of family pride in a particular regiment is a significant factor in recruitment and that, in cutting numbers, the Government should be careful that they do not throw away important parts of our heritage?
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, notwithstanding—
Lord Bach: My Lords, if the noble and gallant Lord will forgive me, I believe that his question may be somewhat similar. I do not know why I say that but I think that it may be. Of course, I listened carefully to what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said some weeks ago and he certainly made an important point. I want to try to explain why we believe that the numbers that we have decided on are appropriate—in particular, so far as concerns the Army.
242
With regard to the organisational changes in the Army, we believe that we can move from a manpower requirement of 108,000 to one of 102,000. At present, I should tell the noble Lord that the figure is 103,500. We believe that we can make that move because organisational change, the introduction of the new capabilities and equipment and the revised timing assumptions, which are made on the basis of the strategic environment as we now see it, have allowed us to reduce the Army's manpower requirements to that limited extent.
However, the strength of the Army will remain broadly as it is today until full normalisation is achieved in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord will have heard me say that four battalions are being taken from Northern Ireland, and the reduction referred to in the Statement is predicated on full normalisation there. For those reasons, in the balance that we have to make here—the noble Lord will accept that all these decisions are ones of balance—we feel that what we are suggesting is a very minor decrease.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, first, notwithstanding the Minister's remarks about real growth, defence is facing cuts and those cannot be disguised as anything else, however hard Ministers try. But growth is not sufficient. What is the reason for the cuts? Is it purely financial? If it is, I think that that is surprising, considering that the Government continue to express great confidence in the economy.
Secondly, in view of the very many commitments that the Armed Forces have today and are likely to have over the coming years, no government of late that I can think of have used the Armed Forces more often and in more different places. I am delighted that the Chiefs of Staff, like the noble and gallant Lords who were also once Chiefs of Staff, are loyal to the Government. But I have talked to a large number of people who are not Chiefs of Staff and I get a very different picture. They believe that, if the forces are to be used, they should be funded properly.
Lord Bach: My Lords, anything that the noble and gallant Lord says is well worth listening to. But I reject his suggestion that defence spending is not rising. It is rising each year. As he knows, the Chancellor has allocated an extra £3.7 billion to defence up to the year 2007–08, and that represents average annual real growth. Of course, every department would like more money than it receives. But we are content that this is a generous settlement and we realise that we have to work within its confines.
The noble and gallant Lord described the attitude of the present Chiefs of Staff as "loyal". I think that it is a matter of rather more than loyalty. With regard to some fields—for example, the future Army as it is envisaged—that attitude is very much in line with the view taken by the Army Board in terms of the infantry. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will accept that these decisions are not only politically led; they are taken, as they were in his time, jointly by the politicians, the military and the Ministry of Defence.

243
I accept that for many of our people the changes may be unsettling. These are difficult times. But I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will accept that, within the resources allowed to us—as I said, there is real improvement in that respect—we have done our very best to get the balance right between what we need to do to ensure that our Armed Forces can meet the needs of the 21st century and, at the same time, ensure that taxpayers' money is properly spent.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked the Minister the size of the two aircraft carriers. He did not receive a reply. In the original Statement, we were told that it was 65,000 tonnes. Since then, rumours and statements have been circulating widely that it is 55,000 tonnes. The difference in capacity and capability between those two sizes is fundamental. Can the noble Lord say which it is?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot say which it is because no final decision has yet been taken. The noble Lord will know that in the very important assessment phase of a project such as this the key design parameters are established. Those include the size as well other aspects of the aircraft carriers. But the noble Lord and others can rest assured that these will be the largest warships that this country has ever built. They will be extremely large. I cannot give the noble Lord the tonnage or the size at present, but it would be surprising if I could. We are still working out the requirement and how we can best meet that important requirement. However, I can say that the two new aircraft carriers will form the basis of our future naval defence policy.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on at least one thing; that is, his recognition of the fact that investment in what I believe is now called C4I is an absolute and total priority, and it is that which is forcing us to make some of these very unwelcome cuts in the numbers of platforms.
My noble friend said that in some cases more capability could be delivered from fewer platforms. That is certainly not the case with strategic air transport. I therefore welcome what he said about the C17, although he did not go nearly as far as I would have liked. Can he confirm, as it was not quite clear from what he said, first, when or if this mythical A400M will appear—I am prepared to take a substantial wager with my noble friend that that will not be when the Liberals think it will be—that there will be no question of getting rid of our C17 fleet at that time? Secondly—I do not expect my noble friend to have this answer at his fingertips, but I should be grateful if he could inform the House—how many Typhoons will we have to give up in order to get another five C17s?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as concerns the first question, I hope that I made clear when reading the Statement—if I did not, I am sure that it was my
244
fault—that the aim is to have those C17s working alongside a fleet of C130s and A400Ms. I hope that that gives some satisfaction. As to my noble friend's second, rather hypothetical question, he is quite right: I am unable to answer.
Lord Inge: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, I hope that he will have recognised from the debate we have had so far and from some of the detail we have gone into, the need for debate in this Chamber on defence issues, which are so important, not only to the Armed Forces but to the nation as a whole. Such debate is to be greatly encouraged.
I hope the Minister also agrees that although some restructuring has taken place, it will not be welcomed by all elements of the Armed Forces. The question of morale in those areas will need careful handling, as it will have a knock-on effect.
I welcome much of what was said by the Minister about the importance of network-centric warfare and the need to improve our operational, expeditionary warfare capability. The problem is that much of what is promised is "jam tomorrow" in terms of the Future Rapid Effect System for the Army. That vehicle has not even been designed, let alone being ready to come into service. So, much that has been promised is a long way down the track.
I recognise also the rebalancing that is needed for command and control and operational logistics. Equally, I believe that cutting Army manpower is part of the real problem. Taking it down from 103,500 to 101,000 creates part of the problem. What I really do not understand—I am not talking about the reorganisation of the infantry—is the need to cut four infantry battalions out of the order of battle, given that they are the workhorse of the Army. They may not be needed for network-centric warfare, but they will be needed to help keep the peace in places such as Africa, the Balkans and elsewhere. I stress that I am not talking about the reorganisation of the infantry—my own regiment is very vulnerable—but about a skill that the British Army has that no one else has. We are in danger of taking four very important major units out of the order of battle. I should like to hear the Minister's reaction.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who always talks with huge experience on these matters. I understand that the feeling that there is a need for debate is high all round the House. I shall pass that on, but it will be a matter for the usual channels.
We are all aware in the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces that morale is very important when a Statement such as this is made. The noble and gallant Lord will understand that the Chief of the General Staff is very aware of that fact and is no doubt acting on it as we speak.
Many of the plans that we have will emerge only in some years' time. The noble and gallant Lord knows better than most how long it takes for equipment to come into force, particularly sophisticated, modern,

245
complex defence equipment. However, we have to start and to continue with the projects that we have in mind. I can only repeat that the proposed reductions in the Army are very small. They are predicated on full normalisation in Northern Ireland. The balanced view is taken that, as things are in the Province at present, it is sensible to remove four battalions, and as things are elsewhere, it is also a sensible thing to do for the total Army.
Lord Garden: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is the fourth major rebalancing of the Armed Forces in the past 13 years, all of which have affected and reduced platforms and personnel? Can he explain what is special about his proposals that overcome the defence inflationary effect; that is, the fact that costs of defence rise faster than normal inflation? Can we expect yet another rebalancing exercise in the next four years?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not know that this was the fourth such exercise in that time. He, no doubt, took part in a different role in the first three. I cannot promise for a moment that this is the last, but it is one of the most important. We have reached a point where, as has been said in the Chamber today, quite rightly, our Armed Forces have been asked to do a great deal in the past few years, and we have learnt a number of lessons which perhaps took a long time to learn after the Cold War; that is, what sort of warfare or peacekeeping we would need in the years ahead. That is the basis for the changes that we suggest today.
We accept that when full structure changes are made, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, these issues are of great concern to those who serve us so well in the Armed Forces. However, it is important that the Armed Forces in this country evolve. They have evolved from time immemorial. That is the only way they have retained their skill and high reputation. I do not apologise if this is the fourth such exercise in 13 years. We have to ensure that we have the right structure for the difficult years ahead.

Rural Strategy 2004
4.37 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I am pleased to present to the House today the Government's Rural Strategy 2004. As in the rural White Paper 2000, our vision for rural communities is based on delivering genuinely sustainable development, with economic and social strategies consistent with our aim of protecting and enhancing our natural heritage for future generations. So Rural Strategy 2004 presents an ambitious set of policy priorities for rural communities and the countryside, coupled with radical reforms to the delivery of those policies.
"Fresh evidence we commissioned confirms that there is relative prosperity in rural areas. For example, measured in terms of average household income, 55 per cent of households in rural areas are above the median.
"But the evidence also confirms that this picture is by no means uniform across rural England. Rural society is changing in ways that are blurring the distinction between urban and rural. Farming remains at the heart of rural society, an important focus of rural policy. But employees in rural businesses are now more likely to be employed in manufacturing, tourism or retailing. And within the overall picture of relative prosperity, there are pockets of economic and social disadvantage.
"This evidence shapes our approach to delivering sustainable communities and so puts a premium on policies and on delivery mechanisms that focus on that deprivation. My reform agenda sees the devolution of decisions and delivery to get help to the areas and people that need it most. And to ensure that they are able to access this help, I will ruthlessly streamline the funding support we provide. The present 100 rural, agricultural and environmental funding schemes will be reduced to three major funding programmes linked to strategic priorities, allowing us to both sweep away unnecessary rules and simplify application processes.
"Our policy has three main planks: first, while supporting prosperity across the board, taking action to help the minority of rural areas that are lagging economically. I want rural businesses to have the support they need. This year I will put an extra £2 million into the Business Link network, to improve support and assistance to businesses, especially in lagging rural areas. I want all rural businessmen and women to know that they can turn to a service that understands their needs, including agricultural businesses and businesses diversifying from agriculture, and a service to help them through the existing maze of services and grants available.
"I will devolve decision-making and funding for economic regeneration to the regional development agencies, to allow decisions better to reflect the needs and pressures in each region. I am increasing the funding Defra provides to the RDAs' single pot from £45 million to £72 million next year. To ensure it is spent in the most effective way, each region is to put in place arrangements to facilitate rural prioritisation within a strong partnership structure. I shall not impose a single structural form—I want to encourage maximum simplification and streamlining, so that regional delivery partners are set free to focus on doing, not talking.
"Local authorities have a vital role as community leaders in joining up and delivering quality services. I therefore intend to look at innovative mechanisms for devolving delivery even closer to rural communities. Over the course of this year we will set up a pathfinder in each region, to explore practical ways of providing more joined up and flexible approaches at local level in rural areas, including to join up services and funding at the point of delivery.
"The second plank of our policy is to tackle rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and achieve fair access to services. Access to transport, affordable housing and to broadband help to underpin both economic prosperity and social justice for rural dwellers. Last week the Government announced more money for sustainable housing. My department will act as guardian, to ensure that this money helps to address social disadvantage in rural areas.
"I will devolve money for building capacity in the voluntary and community sector to each region, to be managed through the government offices. It is this sector that can truly understand local need and provide innovative solutions.
"But I want to be sure we get an independent assessment of results. I see the need for a rural advocate as being as strong as ever. So I will create a small and well-focused new countryside agency by next April, initially within the legal framework of the existing body, to act as expert watchdog and advocate on behalf of rural communities. Its priority will be rural disadvantage, and it will act as a think tank and futures body, drawing on its monitoring of progress and best practice to suggest innovative solutions to government.
"The third plank of our policy is to protect and enhance the natural environment in rural areas—and our green spaces in towns and cities—and that of our seas, coasts and rivers. A healthy and attractive countryside not only brings social benefits such as tranquillity, but also economic benefits—over 300,000 jobs depend directly on it and rural tourism brings around £13.8 billion to the rural economy each year.
"Rural England is also a treasure trove of diverse and wonderful landscapes and wildlife. Its natural beauty is an asset to be cherished and enhanced. The countryside provides us with the essentials of life: improving its health is the most valuable inheritance we can leave.
"Our woodlands, for example, help mitigate the effects of climate change—one of the most serious environmental problems the world faces. Visiting the countryside does much to improve our quality of life, provides recreation, better health, and a source of education and learning.
"Much of the quality of our landscape and its biodiversity depends on how it is managed by farmers and others. The changes we are introducing as a result of CAP reform will enhance the positive and reduce the negative impact of farming methods and land management on the environment.
"And, as recommended by Lord Haskins, we will establish an integrated agency to deliver our policy objective of a healthy countryside valued and used in a sustainable way. The new agency will be a powerful, independent statutory NDPB, building on the world-class strengths of English Nature, the Countryside Agency, and the Rural Development Service. Its remit will be the integrated management
248
of our natural heritage that the challenges and environmental threats of the 21st century demand. That will include biodiversity, landscape and sustainable use of the countryside, including recreation and access. It will have a remit to carry out its functions within a sustainable development context. It will work closely with the RDAs—and elected regional assemblies, if established—to ensure that the natural environment is taken into account in regional policy-making and activity.
"Formal establishment of the integrated agency will require primary legislation. I intend to bring forward legislation next year and to publish a draft Bill as an early step. In the mean time, while each of the three bodies will remain responsible for their own statutory duties, they will come together into a confederation of partners by April next year. To help that partnership work, I will move the Rural Development Service out of the policy core of Defra and give it the autonomy that befits a major delivery body.
"This package of policy and delivery reform is aimed at delivering services in a more streamlined and customer-friendly way, through radical devolution to regional and sub-regional partners, as well as to our own delivery agents. And the significant streamlining of our funding should make things easier and simpler for our customers.
"These arrangements are aimed at improving effectiveness in the delivery of our three policy priorities within an enduring framework of sustainable development. They will also deliver efficiencies, exploiting operational synergies and removing duplication. They have been developed in an inclusive and transparent way. They will build on the excellent work being done across the country by those working for Defra and its family, and beyond Defra. They will provide greater freedom to staff, to get on with delivering what our customers need from government. I am confident our people will rise to the challenge.
"I want these reforms to be workable, but sufficiently flexible to meet future challenges and changes. I commend the approach and its implementation to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating a Statement made in another place earlier this afternoon. We too are pleased with many of the aspirations set out in the Statement, and that the Government recognise there are areas of deprivation within our rural communities—a matter on which it has taken a little while to persuade them.
However, we do not agree with the Government that these matters and hopes are best resolved by working through local regional government development agencies. We believe that such decisions should go through elected county councillors, district councils and parish councils. In that context, the Statement refers clearly to wanting to get decisions made locally.

249
We as a party do not believe that regional development agencies are local enough and we fear that some of those decisions will not be taken with the best regard to the needs of very rural areas.
We agree with many of the recommendations in Haskins. The Statement deals only very briefly with it. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I raise four points with him because we will not have the advantage of a Statement and questions tomorrow on the broader aspects of Haskins. So, if I may, I should like to turn to that.
I think that we would all agree with the Haskins report that at the moment Defra is "overblown and inefficient"—I use the words of the report, not mine—and therefore there are great opportunities to make savings and better use of money, both in manpower and time, to improve services for everybody.
We accept that rural policy must be driven by government Ministers and therefore formulated in Whitehall, but we view Defra as being overblown and inefficient. It has 12 in-house delivery agents, 15 inspectorates, six executive agencies, 20 executive non-departmental bodies, 20 non-executive non-departmental public bodies, two public corporations and representation in eight out of the nine government offices. There is definitely room for doing something about that.
I turn to the four points I want to raise and ask the Minister to comment on them. On recommendation 16, which is the drawing up of this new integrated agency, we are very concerned that English Nature should retain its independence to advise government, whatever the government of the day may be. It is to be merged with part of the Rural Development Service and some of the Countryside Agency. That, as the Minister said, will need primary legislation. What will happen in the mean time, because obviously the agency will develop? Who will be the lead person until the new legislation comes through?
In addition, we are told that a strategic group will be set up above those three agencies which will also include the chairs of the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission. Can the Minister tell us more about that? Will he comment on why the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, did not look at the Environment Agency? It employs a lot of people and its responsibilities interact directly with those providing rural services. The Haskins report also mentions the levy-funded organisations. Will the Minister comment on those?
Recommendation 27 refers to the whole farm approach. The Minister has clearly said as part of the Government's response to the report that it is not possible to accelerate that programme. Why is that so? What is holding us hack? Is it the fact that the IT systems required to integrate those services are not in place? Alternatively, are there other reasons which were not disclosed in the Government's response? Clearly, anything that will reduce red tape, regulation, costs and the numerous on-farm visits will be welcomed by those within the farming community. Will the Minister also tell us whether the farm management plan, as proposed, will be a condition of cross-compliance or is it to be a separate issue?
250
Recommendation 31 deals with the funding streams. As the Statement said, there are currently 100 schemes. The Government say that they will sweep away any unnecessary rules and regulations in the current schemes to leave just three major funding programmes. It is obviously recognised that there is a huge wastage in the current system. Will the Minister tell us how quickly those three new funding programmes will be set up?
The Statement said that an extra £27 million will be given to the RDAs. Will the Minister confirm that that is for one year only? Will that £27 million be divided equally between the RDAs or are any priorities envisaged? Will that money be ring-fenced for rural activities, as opposed to being swallowed up by other RDA responsibilities? As the Statement refers also to rural areas, will the Minister define his interpretation of "rural" as accepted across all government departmental divisions?
The Statement mentioned the importance of transport, of affordable housing, of broadband and of rural access. As the Minister will know, those are not uniformly available. Will there be any improvement and how soon will that be? Will the new IT systems which will be set up within the new agency and others be compatible? In other words, will they be interchangeable? We do not want information to be given and not then to be accessible.
Finally, the Statement refers only briefly to farming. As the Minister will know, farming represents only a small proportion of rural employment, but if it is not profitable, the rural changes which the Government wish to see will not take place. Although farming is a small but vital part, will the Minister address an issue which time does not permit me to dwell on longer? Will the Government grant us the courtesy of a fuller debate on the Haskins report?
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and also for having sent me the Defra document, Rural Strategy 2004, with an explanatory letter. It was very helpful to have that at the same time as the Statement. Indeed, having read the Statement, it was perhaps essential to the have the document. I may come back to that if I have time.
First, I welcome the Statement's recognition of the vital role that local authorities play, not only as deliverers of quality services, but also as community leaders. It is important that that is recognised. However, the Statement adopted a slightly different tone from that of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—whom I am glad to see in his place today—in Recommendation 14. It states that local authorities and local partnerships should assume the main responsibility for the delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. I shall not go further into that recommendation due to lack of time, but the Statement seems to lay more emphasis on the regional development agencies, although I recognise that that was in the context of economic development.

251
However, if the development is to be sustainable, the Minister will appreciate that the regional development agencies are not well-placed to undertake the local social or environmental development. For instance, they have only one rural member as of right on the board and as yet their emphasis in all regions has not been sufficiently rural.
Secondly, the Statement mentions voluntary and community sectors with which local authorities will work closely. It goes on to say how essential they are—a sentiment with which I fully concur. It also mentions that the money for this sector will be managed by government offices. Surely, that will introduce yet another strand of funding while the statement talks of reducing the 100 strands to just three. I had cause to worry about a few inconsistencies.
Thirdly, we welcome the integrated agency. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for initially identifying the fact that land should be managed not only for biodiversity, but also by taking into account environmental and economic issues. An integrated agency dealing with all land management issues is much better placed to do that.
The Statement talks in specific terms about the value of our seas, coasts and rivers, but I am concerned that the integrated agency is to address only land. However, as the Statement indicates, seas, coasts and rivers are very important. The Environment Agency has specific responsibilities under the water framework directive—for example, for eels and salmon—yet English Nature is left as the marine conservation body. Will the Government consider a more coherent approach for the near-shore coastal waters and estuaries?
The Statement makes no mention of young people. Indeed, the complete rural strategy mentions them only briefly. The Government, in the first instance, need to place a greater emphasis on the role that young people will play in retaining and developing the life of rural areas.
The comment about affordable housing is opaque:
"My Department will act as guardian"
for the sustainable housing money. I find that hard to disentangle. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that the money will not be spent in urban areas? Such a comment underlines some of the proposals that are well-meaning and well-founded, but at the end of the day mean little to me. I hope that the rural strategy will mean considerably more and that while I welcome the Statement I would like far greater clarity from the Government. I would welcome a debate in the near future on some of the issues we will not have time to address today.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank both Opposition Front Benches for the guarded welcome they gave to the Statement. As regards the delivery agents, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was rather too hostile to the role of the RDAs. I know that the Conservative Party has not supported the RDAs, but they are our main economic regeneration
252
instrument and it is important that they have a strong rural dimension. The changes implicit in the Statement and the funding channelled through the RDAs will mean that the agencies will have to pay far greater attention to the rural dimension than has previously been the case and fit it in with the overall regional perspective.
That seems very sensible. It would not be appropriate to diffuse that concentration either by having an entirely separate rural strand or by delivering entirely through local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, envisaged a great role for the RDAs, as do we. That is not to say that local authorities will not have a role—in response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Local authorities are also important in the delivery, although probably there has been a slight change of balance in favour of the RDAs. Nevertheless, local authorities will still have a significant role.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, repeated the calumny of my noble friend Lord Haskins that Defra was overblown and inefficient. Most of those inefficiencies are already being addressed, but it is important that the core policy department is reduced in size and that the delivery section of the department is consequently brought closer to those who benefit from it. That is why part of the plan is to shift some of the delivery mechanisms out of the centre of Defra into agency status, regional delivery or local delivery. That is certainly part of our approach and that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins.
The noble Baroness asked what will happen before we get legislation for the creation of the integrated agency. It is important that we are clear on the lines of responsibility and that English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service—the parts that will go into the integrated agency—work together closely in the period before legislation. It will be complicated because those organisations will retain their statutory responsibilities in that period, but the three organisations are already working together very closely. It is very important that an individual is in charge of the overarching body; we will appoint someone to that role.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, both asked about the interface between the integrated agency and the Environment Agency. It will be important that the two agencies work very closely together. It was excluded primarily from the Haskins inquiry because the Environment Agency has very wide responsibilities over industry in rural and urban areas. It would not be appropriate to see the Environment Agency as solely a rural delivery agency in the way that some of the other bodies addressed were.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the whole-farm approach; we are developing it as rapidly as possible. I remember responding to a Select Committee when one of my officials had advised that it would take 10 years. I have speeded up the process substantially already; as the result of my intervention, we will now deliver it within the next couple of years. A 10-year timetable did not seem appropriate, but we need to bring all the complex systems of regulation, inspection and enforcement into line.

253
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked what was included in cross-compliance and what was not. I am afraid that she will have to be slightly more patient: we intend to make a statement on cross-compliance very shortly. The noble Baroness also asked how the £27 million would be spent. It will be distributed between regional development agencies, not equally but according to the normal pattern of allocation.
On the timescale for the rationalisation of funding streams, by April 2005 we will have begun the simplification of schemes. We will also have provided money to Business Links to develop advice and information for rural businesses. By April 2007, we will have completed the replacement of the 100-plus current streams by the framework of three major funds.
The voluntary sector, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, is a very important feature of rural life that we wish to continue to nurture. The schemes that will go through the government office are those that formerly went through the Countryside Agency; they will be there for capacity building. Equivalent schemes under other funding streams will be delivered by the other agencies and through the RDAs, but the capacity-building schemes will go through the government office.
One of the features of deprivation in rural areas is the lack of affordable housing to keep workers in such areas. It is important that we build on the substantial measures that we have already taken to alleviate housing pressures in rural areas. The Housing Corporation, the Countryside Agency, Defra and other partners are involved in looking at how we can improve the availability of affordable housing. That is one of many elements in the strategy and the new delivery system that will be beneficial to younger people in rural areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is absolutely right that young people are the future of rural areas; they need to be attracted there, kept there and given jobs in those areas. To do that, we must deal with the issue of affordable housing. That will be one of the important priorities, not delivered directly by Defra but by other government departments, that will be the proof of our commitment and also the beneficiary of tighter rural-proofing through the new Countryside Agency and the other mechanisms that we have put in place.
I hope that I have covered most of the points made by the noble Baronesses; if not, I shall write to them.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: Is my noble friend aware of how welcome this long-awaited Statement is? It says that 55 per cent of households in rural areas are above the median household income. Does the Minister agree that it would have been equally helpful if the Statement had quoted the indices of rural poverty and deprivation that exist? Some years ago I was staggered to discover how many families in relatively affluent rural Wiltshire did not own a motorcar.
254
We certainly welcome the streamlining of the funding streams from 100 to three. My noble friend may be aware of the danger now in rural society of large numbers of people rushing around and banging into each other, all trying to lock into the plethora of rural funding schemes.
Obviously, there will be a transitional period for the setting up of the integrated agency, which we all welcome. My hunch is that it will be 2007 at the earliest before the agency is fully operational. Is my noble friend aware of the effect that that could have on staff morale in the agencies during the transitional period, when people will be concerned about their future? In particular, what steps will the Government take against the dilution of the expertise that exists in the agencies in the run-up to the integrated agency's coming on full stream?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's point on rural deprivation. Indeed, one of the themes of my right honourable friend's Statement was that the social problems of rural areas are not generalised; they are in certain areas and pockets within otherwise affluent areas. That is why we must have delivery mechanisms that target support more closely to the communities and industries involved.
It is very important that we maintain both expertise and morale during the transitional period until we have fully legislated for an integrated agency. We are already engaged with the management, staff and trade unions in those organisations to ensure that people recognise the direction of the future structure and the importance of their role within it, so that we move seamlessly from three separate agencies with somewhat separate traditions and structures to one agency with a very wide range of expertise. The maintenance and enhancement of that expertise and the interaction of different levels of expertise will be among the advantages of the integrated agency.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, the Minister did not mention the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about agriculture being the profitable underpin of the whole rural scene. Will he comment on that? It is vital to a healthy rural environment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Statement makes clear that farming continues to be a focus of a large part of rural activity. A large part of that approach to land management is reflected through all the delivery mechanisms that we are talking about here. Farming is central to that delivery. It is important to recognise the changes that we have introduced in the common agricultural policy. Free farming means that farmers can pursue the most profitable means of using land to maximise return. At the same time, it delivers environmental benefits which will themselves create and maintain a countryside that attracts more visitors and more money and develops rural tourism and other rural businesses.
Not only will that approach play the key role in ensuring a profitable and sustainable farming sector; it will contribute to the profitability of the rest of the rural

255
economy. Our proposals recognise both those factors. The more direct and larger part of the support that the Government give to farming is, of course, through the common agricultural policy. As I indicated, I intend to make a further statement on that shortly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I declare an interest as having been involved in the countryside all my life. Everyone seems to have welcomed the Statement. I do not welcome it for two reasons. First, its content is wholly bureaucratic. Secondly, its tone is wholly bureaucratic. The Government seem to think that they can organise the whole of the countryside, and that if they provide policies, the countryside will react to those policies. I was surprised when the noble Lord said:
"Fresh evidence we commissioned confirms that there is relative prosperity in rural areas".
He has only to look at what has happened to agriculture over the past seven to 10 years, and what has happened to forestry, to see that that is not so. Although he says that the profitability of farming is important, he will find that that is not what has happened.
When the noble Lord makes these Statements, could he make them in unbureaucratic language? For instance, the Statement says:
"The evidence shapes our approach to delivering sustainable communities and so puts a premium on policies and on delivery mechanisms that focus on that deprivation".
What on earth does that mean? It seems most extraordinary. He went on to say:
"I therefore intend to look at innovative mechanisms for devolving delivery even closer to rural communities".
That might be good Civil Service speak, and everyone in the Civil Service might understand it, but ask the average person in the countryside what that means, and they will say that it is complete mumbo-jumbo.
It is not as if it ends there, because the noble Lord went on to say:
"This package of policy and delivery reform is aimed at delivering services in a more streamlined and customer-friendly way, through radical devolution to regional and sub-regional partners".
That is all completely divorced from reality. People in the countryside are fed up with bureaucracy and with government intervention on every scale. Will the noble Lord see if he can try and make his Statements less bureaucratic, and if he can try to cut out such bureaucracy as there is and as is increasing in the countryside?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his textual critique of the Statement. It is pretty clear to me what it means. "Sustainability" means lasting; and one of the problems has been that we have not had lasting support. "Deprivation" means poor; and it is important that we focus the support that the State gives to rural areas on those who most need it and those industries that are most deserving of it. "Innovative" means new; in other words, we intend to provide new support systems which are more understandable and deliverable. If the terms of the Statement obscure that, there is something wrong with the Statement; but I thought that it was pretty clear.
256
In relation to profitable farming, as I said in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, profitable agriculture is obviously an important part of the jigsaw. It is not, however, the main employment source of the vast majority of people who live in the countryside, or the vast majority of poor people living in the countryside. It is an important contribution to getting them out of that situation, and an important area of government support.
With all the doom and gloom that the noble Lord referred to, it is important to recognise that, although profitability was very low three years ago, since I have been in this job the average income of farmers has increased very substantially. So he cannot blame me for it. I think that there has been a mood of greater optimism in farming. Although that is more pronounced in some sectors than in others, those sectors recognise that they have a much better future freed up from the kind of tightly written subsidies under the common agricultural policy, and now also with a broader-based system of support in the rest of the Government's rural measures.
I do not think that people in the countryside want government to disappear from the countryside; they want government to give the kind of help that is actually useful in developing their businesses and enhancing the landscape. That is exactly what these policy changes are intended to bring.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a positive Statement which was ambitious and recognised what is to be achieved. It is to be applauded that the Government have clearly identified the major priorities of rural areas; namely rural businesses, rural communities and the rural environment. I welcome the increase in the Budget for Business Links, and I underline to my noble friend the good work of the agricultural colleges in helping diversification and entrepreneurship. On the funding streams, can my noble friend confirm that this will be a major priority of all regions?
The Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance is a sub-regional body which is the enterprise hub of part of the north-west rural areas. The Northern Way programme helps to build on the strength of the great cities of the north, such as Manchester and Liverpool. There is concern that it might overlook the significant contribution that rural areas, such as Cheshire, make to the success of neighbouring cities. Will the Minister assure rural areas that this will not cut across delivery through the RDAs, and take full account of the need to improve infrastructure, which is so vital as a gateway to the north-west as a whole?
Defra has been recognised in rural areas as their champion. There might well be concern that the changing structure will loosen that association. Will the Minister outline how Defra will improve its interaction with farm businesses? Concerning the rural communities, will he confirm that the delivery strategy through local government will fully appreciate the priority of affordable houses in rural areas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already referred to the importance of affordable housing, which must be part of the wider government strategy for rural areas. On the importance of Business Links and the agricultural colleges, it is important to recognise that part of the plan is to ensure that rural businesses, farmers and others can receive advice from a single source, or at least guidance from a single source, rather than be faced with the plethora of a whole range of potential sources relating to how the Government provide help and advice to rural business. It is important that Business Links deliver a substantial part of that, but I also recognise the importance of agricultural colleges.
As to whether RDAs concentrate too much on the cities, Liverpool and Manchester are pretty important to the economic prosperity of the north-west. However, the fact that the RDAs are now being given substantial resources and a much clearer role in rural regeneration will ensure that Cheshire and other rural areas of the north-west receive equal and mutually supportive help as well.
As for the relationship with Defra, clearly there are a number of mechanisms by which Defra policies can be delivered. Not all of them are within the Defra family. Our most important relationship with farming businesses, and to some extent all rural businesses, is that we can provide a point of advice for the whole range of local, regional and national government schemes which will help their businesses rather than confuse them or impose too much red tape. As a result of the efforts of my noble friend Lord Haskins and our response in this Statement and elsewhere, we hope to go a long way down that road.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on whether he has any plans to do something about the stranglehold that the big stores such as Sainsbury's and Waitrose have on farmers, and the inability of farmers to fight them and to get a fair deal out of them? Unless that is tackled, farmers, particularly those with small farms—which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, says, I think are at the heart of the countryside—will find it very difficult to survive in the future.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, those farmers, with either small or large farms, who can change with the changing context in which we are operating to make themselves more market oriented and more respectful of the environment will survive. It is not a question of size; it is a question of seizing the opportunity and meeting the challenge.
Part of that includes farmers collaborating among themselves and with other elements in the food chain to ensure that they get the highest value for their products and a fair and equitable share of the value of their products. One of the problems has been that farmers within the food chain have been too fragmented and lacking in focus, which was identified in Sir Donald Curry's report. Quite a lot of work is
258
now being done to bring together farmers and the rest of the food chain in order to address those market issues.
In relation to supermarkets, it is also trite that the OFT is currently looking at allegations from the farming sector and others about trading practices that disadvantage small farming and processing enterprises. I look forward to the results of that.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, can the Minister indicate how many job losses will occur in Defra? Where will the axe fall—or will there be job redeployment into the regions? Indeed, the integrated agency can surely work only with good, efficient and effective IT. My understanding is that the IT systems are not yet in place. When does the Minister expect them to be?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps confusing a number of different things. As regards the reduction in the total number of the Defra family, there will be two different movements. There will be a movement away from the core Defra into the delivery agencies, some of which will also be geographical as a result of the relocation.
There will also be an absolute reduction in jobs over the coming few years, the vast majority of which are related to the improved IT system in the Rural Payments Agency, which is not of course covered by the Haskins report or the proposals today. The upgrading of IT is well on stream and should begin to deliver efficiency advantages, but it will also reduce the need for some employees. The other area of reduction of employment will be efficiency gains in various parts of the department. As I said in response to my noble friend Lord Carter, we will not be losing staff who have expertise in delivering the areas with which we are concerned today.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, perhaps I may say that there are things within it with which I entirely concur. I support the sentiment that rural England's natural beauty is an asset to be cherished and enhanced. The countryside provides us with the essentials of life. Will the Minister therefore impress on his colleagues in other departments that producing 20 per cent of our energy needs by the year 2020, mostly with wind power, will despoil whole areas of landscape? How can the Minister reconcile the claim that changes to the CAP,
"will enhance the positive and reduce the negative impact of farming methods and land management on the environment",
on the one hand, with the requirement for large-scale wind farms on shore, on the other hand?
Is it an oversight that renewable energy—wind turbines in particular—is not mentioned in the Statement on the Rural Strategy 2004? I have not had time to examine it in detail, but can the Minister point to where that important new development in the countryside is dealt with?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Viscount is correct that it is not referred to in this Statement. But

259
it has been referred to in a number of different contexts in this House regarding various policies where the main opposition party has seemed obsessed with stopping wind farm development. Wind farm development will be a significant contribution towards meeting our renewable energy requirements. That will improve the environment for all of us and, provided they are properly sited and go through the proper planning processes, they can also enhance rural areas. The utter opposition of those on the Benches opposite to wind farms seems to be hugely disingenuous, the worst form of Nimbyism and not doing a service to our countryside.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, that is a slightly incorrect statement.
Lord Haskins: My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a recent report on rural delivery and as a director of the Yorkshire Regional Development Agency. I was very impressed by the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about jargon. I sympathise with him entirely. However, I recommend that he reads the report in detail. Having fought a lifetime against Whitehall jargon, I was surprised at how concise and clear that is.
Obviously, one is pleased when 32 of one's recommendations are accepted—I shall come back to that point—but one hopes that the forces of darkness in Whitehall who do not want to let go will be persuaded to let go. Indeed, because the Government have accepted so many of my recommendations, I feel that perhaps I was not radical enough and that if I am getting too close to government there is something going wrong with me. However, if the aspirations that are in this Statement and the report are brought into reality, the Government will have done an excellent job in starting the process towards devolving power away from Whitehall to where the people are in this country.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support and endorsement of much of the phraseology of the Statement, albeit that no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has identified one or two infelicities in part of it. Most of it is fairly clear. Above all, I thank my noble friend for his original report. I certainly would not concur with anyone who said that my noble friend Lord Haskins had failed to be radical enough or—in some sense is sorry to say—that he was too close to government. But I think that he has given the Government a very clear and positive steer on this issue.
Ultimately, the result will be better delivery, a better outcome for our rural areas, a better relationship between the various agencies of government and those who live in our countryside, and, above all, a better, more prosperous and sustainable countryside for all who live in it and visit it.

Housing Bill
5.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Consultation with fire authorities in certain cases]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 7, line 33, leave out "listed" and insert "mentioned".
The noble Lord said: I think that I can be brief with this group of amendments. Amendment No. 28 is a minor drafting amendment and Amendment No. 33 relates to the latest print of the Bill. Apparently, Clauses 14 and 15 are the wrong way round, as can be seen from comparing the provisions relating to prohibition orders and the headings for paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. I hope that helps anyone who did not spot it. I cannot explain how that occurred but, clearly, your Lordships' House will expect us to put it right.
Schedules 2 sets out the procedures for the service of copies of prohibition orders, for the service of notices relating to revocation or variation orders and for appeals against orders. They are technical amendments intended to ensure that the categories of person on whom copies of orders must be served and who may appeal against orders do not overlap.
Finally, government Amendment No. 57 rectifies an omission and clarifies the time at which the sum demanded, if not recovered, becomes a local land charge. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: Can the Minister explain what is the legal difference between the words "listed" and "mentioned"? I do not want to be pedantic, but there appear to be quite clear lists set out in Clauses 5(2) and 7(2), so I cannot understand why the word "listed" is to be replaced with the word "mentioned". That word suggests something that comes and goes while "listing" is more permanent.
Perhaps we could start the day in the way we mean to go on with a quiet and clear explanation from the Minister of the reasoning behind this amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It will be a very quiet explanation because I do not have one. I am intrigued by the desire of the noble Baroness to focus on Amendment No. 28. As I have said, it is a minor drafting amendment. In essence I think it has been

261
tabled because we prefer the word "mentioned". I take the point that the word "listed" may sound crisp, but "mentioned" sounds more friendly to me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Contents of improvement notices]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 10, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Any construction works, undertaken as part of the remedial action specified in the improvement notice, shall benefit from a 5% rate of VAT."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the rate of VAT on construction work undertaken after an improvement notice. I gave notice to the Minister that I could have tabled this amendment to a number of other clauses in the Bill, but I want principally to raise the importance of this issue if we are concerned with improving the poor condition of many of our homes.
VAT on domestic repairs affects many of the poorest in our society. This has been shown by figures gathered by the English House Condition Survey. In the European context, this amendment would be consistent with Annex H of the Sixth VAT Directive because a reduced rate of VAT would then be available for housing as part of a housing policy, which is the important point. The Government did agree to an extension of the reduced rate experiment under Annex K of the Sixth VAT Directive, and therefore they seem to be in favour of a reduced rate of VAT for domestic building work—at least in principle.
The renovation of non-decent homes could greatly benefit from a reduction in VAT. The average cost of renovating a non-decent property is estimated at something over £7,000 excluding VAT. If VAT is charged at the standard rate, it adds something in the order of £1,200 to the total repair bill. If the rate of VAT were reduced to 5 per cent, the tax bill would fall by approximately £360 per property, considerably reducing the total cost of the repair. The difference suggests that for the renovation of every eight non-decent properties, one more property could be brought up to an adequate standard if we had a reduced rate of VAT.
VAT falls disproportionately on the poor. For a poor household with a monthly disposable income of only a few hundred pounds, adding £140 of VAT on to an £800 home repair job makes a significant difference. In some cases it will probably decide whether the repair is carried out. In complete contrast to the argument presented in the Barker review, it is often VAT that keeps the poor from being able to afford to carry out essential repairs. The findings of the English House Condition Survey show that substandard housing is concentrated in deprived areas, which strongly supports my view.
Present VAT policy on housing repair work, coupled with recent changes to local authority grant funding for poor and vulnerable households, is likely to prevent essential housing repairs being carried out.
This is likely further to undermine the condition of the existing housing stock. It also does nothing for social inclusion by widening the gap between economically well-to-do and deprived localities.
I am grateful to the National Home Improvement Council, of which I am a vice-president, and the Federation of Master Builders, which I should say is putting together quite a campaign on this issue, for their briefing. Indeed, I could talk about this for a considerable time. However, as I mentioned in our debate yesterday, some three-quarters of all properties in the private sector do not meet decent home standards, and it would cost something like £40 billion for them to do so.
If the Government are serious about decent home targets and serious about the condition of many of our private sector properties, we need to do something about VAT. That must make sense. While it is not easy, I think that it is possible. I should be interested to find out where the Government stand on this matter. Although they understand the problem, it is clear that they are concerned about the knock-on effects. However, given the important issues being addressed in this Bill, such as disrepair and the effort to improve housing standards, this amendment would go a long way to help. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I would like to support this amendment. In doing so I declare a pecuniary interest as the owner of a good quality house, built in the 1880s, but which is now in need of some £10,000 worth of ordinary running repairs. That is not an uncommon situation. Although I have a pecuniary interest, I believe myself to be speaking in the public interest, although that is a matter for the Committee to judge.
The case has been made many times before. I first encountered it as far back as 1965 when Lord Kennett was at the Ministry of Housing. The ministry commissioned a study in Rochdale, known as the Deeplish study. It found a very high proportion of old houses that were basically good and sound, many of them capable of lasting a lot longer than houses built during the 1930s. The study concluded that if you wanted to house more people, repairing the existing houses and keeping them in a good state of repair was much better value for money than pulling them down or allowing them to fall into an unsightly mess, and then building new ones. I see no reason to believe that that analysis has ceased to be true.
One can observe around any big town that the older houses are very much more reliable. The Victorians built houses to last, but they do not last without ordinary, standard maintenance. Of all the things from which people may be deterred by financial disinducements, repairing their homes comes high on the list. The costs are often considerable, usually unknown, and builders do not always keep to their estimates. It is very easy, for someone for whom money is tight, simply to leave their house unrepaired and let it deteriorate. However, when they do that, they are wasting a public asset, which is to the detriment of the whole public.

263
It then becomes necessary to build new houses, taking up more land and destroying green fields—which are not in that plentiful a supply—while leaving behind an unsightly mess in the old place. I do not believe that to be in the public interest. So, if we can diminish the disincentive of VAT on bills to repairing one's house, it would be in the public interest. I understand that that can be squared with the EU directive—I take other people's word on that—and I hope that the Minister can enlighten me further.
If we want to house more people at less cost and to do so comfortably, without all the upheaval of moving and without all the estate agents' commission, this seems to me a good, sensible, cost benefit-suitable way of doing it. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I appreciate that this is a probing amendment designed to draw attention to the cost of repairs and the way in which reduced VAT could, in some circumstances, help deal with improvement and repair, but there are implications in giving this activity the benefit of a 5 per cent VAT rating.
There is no doubt that reducing VAT on property repair and maintenance would encourage the improvement and repair of property, but it would come at a considerable cost—estimates from the Exchequer suggest that it would be some £700 million a year—and it would have the perverse effect of subsidising those who have the resources to make repairs and improvements to their homes themselves. The responsibility for improving and repairing private sector homes primarily rests, as is obvious, with the owner. Government support must be targeted to those who do not have the necessary resources to do the work themselves and who are at risk from living in poor conditions. In our estimation, this measure would not go very far towards helping that group of people.
The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, in any event, gave local authorities wide powers to provide assistance to vulnerable owners and tenants to repair and improve their properties—for example, through grants, loans, or more practical measures such as the provision of materials and labour. It provides authorities with the flexibility to devise tailor-made solutions that address the problems and priorities they face with poor condition property in their localities. We have allocated an additional £30 million in both 2004–05 and 2005–06 through the regional housing boards to boost local authorities' use of those powers. I am conscious that we will debate further home information packs, but it is perhaps worth reminding the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that a home condition report will make a real difference on property conditions, including measures to improve and assist energy efficiency.
We will make real inroads into the issue of disrepair in the private sector only if home owners take more responsibility for the condition of their home. Our aim is to help those who are least able to help themselves; for others, we need to raise awareness of the
264
importance of these matters generally. That is where the home condition reports will be of considerable importance.
The other issue with the amendment is the question of how the reduction would be applied. How would it work practically? What evidence would a person have to produce to justify a 5 per cent VAT rating? Who would produce the evidence—the person served with the notice or the contractor? This is a probing amendment and does not deal with any of those hard-nosed, practical questions, but this is a hard-nosed practical issue and, while I understand the interest of those who have moved the amendment, I believe that, at the very least, some further thought and reflection is needed on its practical application and how it will work. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: No doubt, the amendment requires further thought, but I cannot help feeling that the answer requires further thought also. The Minister said it would cost a great deal—yes, it would—but the important question is not how much it will cost but whether it will cost more or less than the alternatives.
The Government know that building new houses, with all the attendant confusion of planning permission, is a very expensive process—and we have a considerable net shortage of housing. So the alternatives are either to repair property that is at present perfectly habitable or to build new property. I do not think there is much question about which is the cheaper of those alternatives.
The Minister is right to say that nothing will be done until home owners are prepared to take responsibility for their own properties. The object of the amendment is to ensure that they shall not be deterred from so doing when they wish to do so. An extra 17.5 per cent on a four-figure bill is a considerable sum in most people's budget. People who are on the kind of margins on which most ordinary people live react to such costs at the margin. We are suggesting that the Government should simply refrain from deterring people from taking responsibility where they are willing to do so.
I do not think it is any use quoting deliberate and ad hoc grants, well intentioned though they may be. I am sure we all understand quite how little most of our fellow citizens—and, indeed, many of us—know about what the Government are actually doing in detail. If I went to my next-door neighbour and told him about this £30 million two-year scheme, I do not think—even though he is a builder and careful of his house—that he would know anything about it. Such schemes must be known before they can act as an incentive.
That is why we need a general rule. The Minister said: "To what should it apply?". I think the criterion is that it should apply to repairs. It is perfectly easy to distinguish a repair from an addition; it is perfectly easy to distinguish a repair from ornamentation; it is far easier than the kind of judgments that the courts make day by day.

265
So, before the Minister dismisses the amendment out of hand, he should consider the alternatives and whether they will get him into more trouble than this does. I hope that that thought will be productive.
Baroness Maddock: I am grateful for the support of my noble friend. The Minister criticised the amendment on several grounds with regard to how it would work. I thought I had made it fairly obvious when I moved the amendment that if I was serious about the Government accepting it and incorporating it into the Bill, it would not have been in this form.
People are interested in improvement and repair in general, and the Government should look at the issue of VAT. Indeed, the Minister referred to costs of £700 million a year. What cost-benefit analysis have the Government carried out on this issue? When I consider the problems caused for the health service by people who live in poor, cold and damp homes, I cannot totally accept what the Minister said about that.
At the moment, new house building enjoys zero-rated VAT, but for repair, maintenance and improvement work it is 17.5 per cent. I explained how that affects those who are the least well-off in our society—and, again, I do not accept the Minister's criticism on that issue.
It is important to note that a reduced rate of VAT on improvement and repair work would not interfere with new house building. In fact, it would probably reduce the pressure on land and industry. We shall discuss the issue of new properties, I hope, later in the Bill.
I agree that zero-rated VAT on new house building is necessary if the Government want to realise an expansion of the housing supply, as they have indicated they do. However, supporting new housing with fiscal incentives while penalising the upkeep of existing housing goes against the principles of sustainability. As my noble friend said, ultimately it is counter-productive to the economy as a whole. I hope that the Government will keep this issue at the forefront of their agenda because it supports much of what they want to do in their housing policy.
I made clear when I moved the amendment that I did not expect the Government to accept it. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Suspension of improvement notices]:
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29A:
Page 10, line 17, after "improvement" insert "or repair"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29A, I shall speak to a series of other amendments, the substantive elements of which are Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B. There are clearly a number of consequential amendments, not all of which are being moved in this block on the advice of the Clerk that it would clutter up the Marshalled List.
The purpose of the amendments, which is very simple, is to seek to ensure that existing local authority powers to tackle directly substantial disrepair in
266
private rented housing continue. As I understand it, the Bill repeals local authority powers under Section 190(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1985 to tackle substantial disrepair. The point made in the amendments is that the power is important to complement the housing health and safety rating system—HHSRS—powers. They would not supersede those duties, and when an authority had a duty under the HHSRS legislation, that duty would remain. But in some circumstances, the substantial disrepair powers are an invaluable option to address disrepair in private housing. Of course, they would assist in enabling the meeting of the decent homes targets for owned housing. Substantial disrepair powers would be a cost-effective addition to HHSRS powers—by, for example, avoiding repeat inspections.
The existing substantial disrepair powers enable local authorities to do things that are not possible under the HHSRS powers. In particular, under the substantial disrepair powers, which would disappear under this Bill but be reinstated to some extent by the amendments, local authorities can, after an inspection, request preventive action prior to deterioration when a defect becomes a hazard.
I have seen legal advice from Jan Luba QC, who I understand is the author of a standard text book on private sector disrepair, that those actions would not be possible under the HHSRS powers—that they do not allow that. That point brings us back to the debate that we have just been having about what is cost-effective under some circumstances. If local authorities do not have the power to intervene to prevent the deterioration of a property when a defect is at a fairly early stage, it could very soon become a major health and safety hazard, and the cost of dealing with it would be very much higher.
Also under the substantial disrepair powers, local authorities can ask for longer lasting works to avoid repeat inspections a year or so later. Again, the advice that I have seen suggests that without this amendment that would be possible only in category 1 hazards. The amendment would therefore widen the power to avoid repeat inspections and increased costs.
The substantial disrepair powers also permitted local authorities to ask for disrepair to be tackled on a range of items that are specifically not addressed under the HHSRS provisions. Those include perished external renderings, failed pointing or sills, and woodworm and dry rot that has not yet weakened the timber. In the spirit of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I should declare an interest, having recently discovered some dry rot in the house where I live. The items also include old electrical wiring that is not yet a fire or electrocution hazard but clearly could become so in future or fairly soon; external disrepair that does not already cause dampness or the risk of falling elements; and loose wall tiling and unkeyed wall plaster on solid walls. Those are all items that will not be covered without the amendment being passed.
The simple point is that substantial disrepair powers cover defects which are not hazards and do not fall under the HHSRS powers, but remedying such defects

267
would contribute to meeting the decent homes standard, which recognises the need to address disrepair likely to lead to structural failure or future hazards.
I would not wish to impugn my noble friend the Minister with unfortunate motives, but it looks as if the Government are setting local authorities a target for private sector decent homes and, at the same time, taking away an important power to help to deliver those standards.
It is also important to recognise that substantial disrepair powers are essential to achieve the upgrading of the rundown neighbourhoods envisaged in the area renewal powers. I understand that the London borough of Newham, for instance, is very concerned that the removal of the substantial disrepair powers will greatly detract from the effectiveness of the urban renewal in Forest Gate, which is part of a SRB funding project worth £20 million. If by removing the substantial disrepair powers we undermine the effectiveness of major regeneration projects, that is surely a false economy and not very helpful. It obviously has widespread implications for area renewal in low-demand areas. I understand that the ODPM Select Committee has also expressed concern about the abolition of those Section 190 powers. Under those circumstances, I find it slightly surprising that the Bill envisages their abolition.
If repealing the powers to tackle disrepair in Section 190 would adversely impact on local authority powers to secure the improvement of quality of housing, why are we doing this? The substantial disrepair powers that currently exist but would be removed by the Bill and reinstated by the amendment can be a cost-effective option that local authorities may wish to choose. In practice, they are invaluable for achieving decent homes in private rented housing. They are essential for private sector housing area renewal—and they complement and do not override duties under the new HHSRS powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's remarks, but I understand that there is some difference of opinion among environmental health officers in particular about whether such powers as he has described are needed. Some of those people are concerned that a parallel system of regulation could divert local authorities' attention away from the needs of occupiers towards the repairing of dwellings. Both are important, but the one important thing about the new system is that it is actually concerned with what is happening to the people as well.
There are concerns, however, that the housing health and safety rating system—gosh, we should be able to say that well by the end of the passage of the Bill—does not as currently proposed address all aspects of decent home standards. That is what the noble Lord has just said, and was something that we discussed yesterday, when he may not have been present. The Government's target of increasing the proportion of vulnerable people living in decent homes
268
will not be effective unless local authorities have the power to compel reluctant landlords to carry out necessary works.
I look forward to the Minister's response. We have a bit of a problem here, but we need to think carefully about how the two systems would run together.
Lord Rooker: At the beginning of the noble Baroness's speech, I said to myself, "She has got my notes". Unfortunately, I shall have to elaborate.
As my noble friend made clear, the group of amendments includes two new clauses, which are basically designed to retain the powers in Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985, in a modified form, together with some consequential amendments.
I know that key housing bodies support the replacement with the housing health and safety rating system—and I shall quote a few of them in a moment. We also know that some concerns have been expressed by a small number of stakeholders about the repeal of Section 190.
The purpose of the section was, as my noble friend said, to enable local authorities to deal with properties that were not unfit but needed substantial repairs to bring them up to reasonable standard. The housing health and safety rating system makes a significant difference to the position under fitness. Although HHSRS still has a threshold, it is not the same as the threshold between unfitness and fitness. Part 1 of the Bill gives powers and duties to authorities to deal with all hazards, however serious and however minor. Disrepair may feature in any hazard—the amendment overlooks this, which is a fundamental oversight.
The amendments would remove reference to fitness, but do not acknowledge the hazard rating system. Therefore, any retention of Section 190 in the terms of the amendments would seriously overlap with the new housing health and safety rating system on the treatment of disrepair and would, as the noble Baroness said, provide an alternative route for dealing with it. We are confident that the housing health and safety rating system will enable local authorities to take action to deal with properties needing repair, whether substantial or otherwise, and will be an invaluable tool in area renewal.
6 p.m.
It is clear that disrepair is capable of contributing to hazards that can be tackled under the housing health and safety rating system. Hazards from structural failure, fire, cold, falls, asbestos and electrical faults are set out in version 2 of the guidance and illustrate the kinds of disrepair that can give rise to these hazards and against which authorities will have either a duty or a wide discretionary power to take action.
We take local authority concerns seriously. The Bill has been around a long time, and we have consulted about the new system, but evidence that substantial disrepair would be left unattended following action against either category 1 or category 2 hazards has so far been absent from the debate over disrepair powers.
I must make it absolutely clear that the housing health and safety rating system enables authorities to go beyond simply removing a category 1 hazard. Clause 10(5) states that remedial action must, at a minimum, ensure the hazard ceases to be a category 1 hazard and that it may extend beyond such action. There is discretion for the authority to deal with a category 1 hazard. Authorities also have wide discretion to deal with all category 2 hazards. We intend to issue the final draft of the version 2 guidance later this summer. Alongside it, we will issue updated worked examples that illustrate the kind of deficiencies that give rise to category 1 and category 2 hazards.
Retention of the Section 190 powers in anything like these amendments would undermine the housing health and safety rating system, although I am sure that this is not my noble friend's intention. Bodies such as the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, as well as the British Medical Association, are in favour of the principle of the housing health and safety rating system. I doubt that they would want to see a parallel regime that undermines it and causes confusion.
Some authorities—I suspect that they are London authorities—have been concerned over the issue of disrepair that does not contribute to any hazards. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health suggested that we provide in the Bill that remedial works should ensure that hazards do not recur for a given number of years. We have no problem with that in principle, but we do not need to amend the Bill to achieve that. We are willing to look at clarifying in the enforcement guidance that, in dealing with hazards, local authorities can use their discretion where they are concerned about future deterioration and want to ensure that works are carried out to a good and lasting standard. That discretion includes consideration not only of when something is likely to happen but also of the consequences when it happens.
There might be a question of whether any defects might remain in a property once all category 1 and category 2 hazards had been dealt with. If some defects remain, they are likely to be minor, and it must be open to question whether, together, they would require substantial remedial works—whatever "substantial" means. As to the standard to which any works would be carried out, we are not sure what the standard would be. In this House and in the other place, we are aware of the criticism that the housing health and safety rating system deals with individual hazards and not the whole house. The safety rating system will take account of defects contributing to all hazards, wherever they occur in a dwelling. We debated that yesterday when we discussed the vicinity of a dwelling. Some hazards can only be assessed in relation to the whole house, for example, fire is a whole-house hazard. Equally, a major hazard such as risk of structural collapse would be regarded as relating to the whole of the property.
As the noble Baroness said, we debated the decent home standard yesterday. It is not a mandatory standard, with the exception of the fitness element that is in the future safety rating system. We do not support
270
making the decent home standard as a whole an enforcement standard. That would bring millions of dwellings within its scope, often for reasons that are not health and safety-related and that is a key justification in human rights legislation for intervention in people's property and homes. Given the attention paid to the Bill in scrutiny of regulatory impact and human rights, noble Lords might want to know what is meant by some of the issues such as "state of disrepair", "substantial repairs" and "reasonable standard". If those concepts are addressed outside of the housing health and safety rating system, it is legitimate to ask what they mean and how arbitrary judgments would be avoided. Yesterday, we discussed the fact that these are professional judgments based on risk, calculations and measurements. They are not arbitrary judgments but are the professional judgments of environmental health officers.
My noble friend has raised legitimate matters. However, this amendment would not fit in the Bill. We do not think that some of the major concerns expressed by some authorities are justified because they still have the discretion, even within the new system, to carry out the works to which my noble friend referred. We will look at the guidance—I mean what I said—to strengthen it so that there cannot be any doubt about that, but we do not need to do it in the Bill. The guidance will have the necessary effect.
Earl Russell: While the Minister was talking, it struck me that the amendments were framed in terms of compulsion, whereas Amendment No. 29, in the name of my noble friend Lady Maddock, was concerned with permissive action to allow people to do what they wanted to do. There is necessarily a place for compulsion, but it is an unpleasant, expensive and labour-intensive process that will not become easier while the Chancellor is engaged in reducing the number of civil servants. So where something can be done voluntarily and compulsion rendered unnecessary, it is a good thing. It is somewhat illogical to introduce a disincentive to do something immediately followed by a compulsion to do it. That is not letting the left hand know what the right hand doeth.
Lord Rooker: I do not accept the noble Earl's logic. We live in a property-owing democracy. People are responsible. They freely enter into owner-occupation and are responsible for the asset they own. I do not see that it is a disincentive that they have to pay VAT. I accept that sometimes the effects of the tax system seem to contradict other parts of policy. The noble Baroness mentioned a good example that we can come on to later in the debate about the construction of new properties on greenfield and brownfield sites. It is quite clear that the policy is construction on brown fields first and green fields second; yet, they are on a level playing field for taxation purposes, and everyone knows that it is cheaper to build on green fields. We have regular discussions with our colleagues in the Treasury about these issues, which were floated in the

271
Barker review. It is not as though this is the way we deal with it and this is the only chance we get. There are ongoing discussions about these issues.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The noble Earl has slightly complicated the issue that I wanted to have illuminated by this amendment. I am enormously grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the offer he has made to look at the form in which guidance will be given. It is particularly important that the issue of potential hazards is addressed. The Minister is clearly an able detective because he somehow guessed that some of the concerns were emanating from London local authorities. The concern of some local authorities is that they will be bereft of powers that they need to tackle issues where there are defects that have some degree of hazard but are not yet so major that a local authority feels it can properly intervene or where a local authority can see that there is going to be deterioration over time. They are not confident that a voluntary system will work, which is why they require these powers.
An example has been drawn to my attention of a property in Harrow Road in E6. This is a rented property where the entire back addition is subject to extensive subsidence. Although immediate health hazards could be addressed through patch and bodge methods, the work would only need to be repeated at regular intervals thus increasing the costs. The landlord has failed to come up with a plan to address the current failings and so the local authority concerned is likely to use the existing powers to require the demolition of the back addition and complete rebuilding to provide modern kitchen and bathroom facilities. At the end of that work the property would, of course, be fully compliant with the decent home standard. I hear what my noble friend says about not making that mandatory. However, the concern of that local authority is that those works would not be possible under the present Housing Bill. All that would be possible under the present Housing Bill would be a series of fairly minor actions to remedy the immediate hazards rather than the potential long-term hazards. The extra costs associated with that are, I think, clear and important.
I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at what form of guidance can be given to address the potential hazards and the more holistic issues that I have just described in terms of the property in E6. I hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill he will have been able to give us rather more detail on how that guidance might address this issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[[Amendment No. 29B not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 10, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 are grouped and are consequential upon each other. Amendment No. 30 is consequential upon the other two as it would remove the relevant timescale.
The aim of this important series of amendments is to build into the legislation a range of measures to protect landlords from the behaviour of irresponsible tenants where a notice is served. Amendment No. 31 is designed to clarify the position of landlords who are faced with obstructive or unco-operative tenants. It would be unwise for any of us to assume that that does not and could not happen. Under our amendment the landlord would not be liable for incomplete work, or being unable to undertake any of the work in the notice, if he was prevented from doing so by the tenants.
Amendment No. 32 attempts to clarify the status of improvement notices should the property revert from multiple to single occupation. This is to ensure that if a notice were issued to complete improvement work but the state of the property were to change in the interim—that is, should the landlord cease to rent out the property and decide to change it, say, to single occupancy—the authority could issue a fresh notice that was applicable to the property under its new status, and the status of the original improvement notice would be revised.
There are two elements to the amendments: first, where you have an unco-operative tenant who makes it almost impossible for the improvement work to be carried out; and, secondly, where the status of the property changes and the landlord is faced with an improvement notice but is about to undertake work to bring the house back into single occupation. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: If I may, I shall deal with Amendment No. 31 first as it is the main amendment.
Concerns were expressed in Committee in the other place about a tenant who may fail to co-operate with a landlord in the carrying out of remedial work required under an improvement notice. We can see why some may take the view that in those circumstances the improvement notice should be suspended until such time as the occupier allows the work to proceed or the landlord acquires vacant possession. However, we would be very reluctant to agree to a provision that relieves the person on whom the improvement notice is served of the responsibility for complying with it even if he or she is obstructive as regards carrying out the necessary remedial works.
There are two issues involved in this. First, an improvement notice that is suspended contains the conditions relating to the suspension; in other words, it is suspended for reasons that the local authority has already taken into account following its assessment of the hazard and its possible impact on the occupiers. Secondly, it cannot be in anyone's interest that the enforcement action which the authority will have embarked upon for good reason—an authority does not do this lightly—should be deferred simply because the person on whom the notice is served has run into some difficulty.
We are not altogether unsympathetic. However, while Clause 29 makes it an offence to fail to comply with an improvement notice that has come into

273
operation in any proceedings, it is a defence that the person on whom the notice was served had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it. In our view we must get the balance right. We need to bear in mind that the improvement notice has been served in order to deal with a hazard from which people—in most cases those occupying the premises—need protection.
As regards Amendment No. 32, the whole point of Clause 14 is that it enables a local authority to revoke an improvement notice. In the case of a notice served in response to a category 1 hazard, the authority may revoke that notice only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances which make it appropriate to revoke the notice. In the case of a notice served in response to a category 1 hazard in a house in multiple occupation, the local authority might well come to the view that reversion of the premises to a single household occupancy amounts to special circumstances. That would relieve the pressure on the occupier. There is a legal view on this but it is common sense that it is no longer a house in multiple occupation if it is occupied by a single family.
We cannot agree that Amendment No. 30 is needed. I accept what the noble Baroness said about its purpose but the intention appears to be that the operative date for the commencement of remedial works should not fall from 28 days to 21 when the suspension of a notice comes to an end. However, the owner does not need 28 days as he will already know about the notice and does not need as long to prepare the works. As I say, the central issue is that of tenants interfering with work to the property. However, the fact is that the work is more than likely intended to protect those people. We must get the balance right here.
Baroness Hanham: I hear what the Minister says. I am most concerned with Amendment No. 31 because I can see that the Minister sees some merit in Amendment No. 32 although I am not sure that he will accept it.
Amendment No. 31 concerns specifically the situation where you have a hazard of an obstructive tenant. We are talking about category 1 hazards. You may have a category 1 hazard of a tenant who is not prepared to allow works to go ahead. There may be umpteen reasons why that might not happen but equally there may be reasons why it would happen. Anyone who has anything to do with property knows that from time to time people come to very different views on what should be done to the property in which they live. It seems to me that the whole onus is still on the landlord to carry out the works in the face of obstruction. Such a situation renders it almost impossible for landlords to comply with the notice.
We need an escape clause here. I accept that both the amendments that I am discussing constitute escape clauses for the landlord which, judging from what the Minister said, I am not sure that the Government are happy to accept. In all fairness it is right that the landlord, if he cannot get the works done, has a reason for the notice to be suspended—there would have to be very clear and justifiable reasons—and the local
274
authority would have to recognise that reason. On the other hand, if there is not something in the Bill that allows that, no exceptions will be allowed. That also counts where a house ceases to be in multiple occupation after the notice has been served, and where the landlord may have vacant possession for some reason—one hopes, legally—and would ultimately be left with a house for which they put in planning permission.
In the light of my words about an escape clause, is the Minister happy to review the matter? If not, I would feel strongly about it.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I was not clear. I do not have a barrister's brief on the matter, but I was more or less saying that Amendment No. 32 is not necessary. That is because the local authority is allowed to revoke the improvement notice only if it is satisfied that special circumstances make that appropriate. If the dwelling has reverted from a house in multiple occupation to a single-family dwelling, those are special circumstances. Amendment No. 32 is not needed as the matter is more or less covered. I am happy to get legal opinion on that, because the local authority would see it as common sense that the house would not be in multiple occupation.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 31, life is full of people who will not co-operate or who have an axe to grind, but there are penalties in Clause 205 for obstruction. Of course, there is a defence for the person who fails to comply if he has a reasonable excuse. We might need to bear that in mind. I am happy to try to clarify the matter again. We feel that we have to get a balance in respect of not withdrawing a notice simply because there is a stroppy, destructive or obstructive tenant. There are penalties for obstruction, which could be used in the circumstances described.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that explanation and accept what he says about Amendment No. 32. However, it is still our view that there should be an escape clause, as provided in Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Fookes, B.

Attlee, E.

Fowler, L.

Byford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Geddes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Glentoran, L.

Colwyn, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Hanham, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Elton, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Feldman, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

275

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Palmer, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Kingsland, L.

Patten, L.

Laidlaw, L.

Peel, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Plumb, L.

Lindsay, E.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Liverpool, E.

Rawlings, B.

Lyell, L.

Reay, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Renton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mancroft, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sharples, B.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Stewartby, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ullswater, V.

Northesk, E.

Waddington, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Wilcox, B. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Addington, L.

Henig, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Andrews, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Avebury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Barker, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Best, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Borrie, L.

Jones, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brett, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Burlison, L.

Lipsey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter of Coles, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Christopher, L.

McDonagh, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McNally, L.

Crawley, B.

Maddock, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dholakia, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dixon, L.

Mitchell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Moser, L.

Dubs, L.

Neuberger, B.

Elder, L.

Newby, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Northover, B.

Falkender, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falkland, V.

Paul, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gale, B.

Prosser, B.

Garden, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Rennard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Gould of Brookwood, L.

Robertson of Port Ellen, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rooker, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roper, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rosser, L.

Haskel, L.

Rowlands, L.

Haskins, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Haworth, L.

Sawyer, L.

276

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Turnberg, L.

Sheldon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Simon, V.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walpole, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Warner, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wilkins, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Triesman, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Truscott, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.33 p.m.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Revocation and variation of improvement notices]:
[Amendments Nos. 31A and 32 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 33:
Transpose Clause 14 to after Clause 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B not moved.]
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Contents of prohibition orders]:
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 15, line 13, after "persons" insert "as identified by the local housing authority"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 merely seek to bring greater clarity to what are at present vague descriptions of the terms under use. The amendments are perhaps not as serious as others but are none the less designed to aid the legislative process. If the Minister can give us a strong assurance today then we shall happily not return to them.
Amendment No. 36 would ensure that the local authority identified the property in question to which people could not return. It might have been better if the amendment had been inserted after the word "premises" in line 12, but the amendment is still clear. Although this may be the present intention, the Bill does not say so.
Amendment No. 37 attempts to bring a little transparency to the process. "Particular descriptions of persons" does not seem to be a suitably adequate term for the possible issuing of a prohibition order that would effectively bar someone from what is, or possibly had

277
been, their home. I should welcome the Minister's assurance on these matters and seek to have line 14 include "specific individuals", rather than the vaguer term. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I should start with a few words of background to Clause 21. It sets out the mandatory contents of prohibition orders. The order must set out the nature of the hazard, the category into which it falls, the deficiency giving rise to it and the remedial action which, if carried out, would result in the revocation of the prohibition order by the local authority.
An order may prohibit the use of part or all of the premises for some or all purposes unless approved by the local authority, or occupation of the premises or part of them by a particular number of households or occupants, or by particular descriptions of persons, unless approved by the authority. That is how we see the clause working.
The amendments would appear to be intended to enable an authority to identify particular individuals for the purpose of prohibiting them from residential premises—although the noble Baroness put us right on that. The second amendment removes the possibility that descriptions of persons could be prohibited by an order. The amendments appear to be intended to enable authorities to use prohibition orders under Part 1 to identify specific individuals, perhaps with a view to preventing occupation by particular individuals who are thought to be likely to engage in anti-social behaviour. That was one thought we had regarding the proposed change of wording. If that was the intention of the noble Baroness, I cannot see that it would fall within the scope of Part 1 of the Bill, which primarily addresses concerns about housing conditions and the means by which hazards arising from deficiencies can be assessed and mitigated rather than the condition of certain individuals in a particular house.
The amendments also fail to take account of the basis on which an order has been made and why it may be necessary to prohibit particular classes of occupants. The assessment may or will have identified a hazard that cannot be removed by an improvement notice. It may therefore be necessary for the authority to prohibit occupation by those groups of people most vulnerable to the hazard—perhaps the elderly or young children.
It should be remembered that the purpose of prohibition orders is to protect people and households from the hazards to which they are vulnerable. These amendments appear to our way of thinking to turn that purpose on its head. While we understand that the noble Baroness wants to bring greater precision through the amendment, we believe that it would cause obfuscation.
In practice, an authority will not choose to remove current occupants, thereby possibly creating a rehousing issue for itself, unless the hazard poses an immediate risk. It might suspend the order until it is triggered by a chance of tenancy. Those are the sorts of issues that can be dealt with more precisely in
278
enforcement guidance. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I said at the outset that I was seeking to bring greater clarity to the clause through the amendment. I am not sure whether the Minister's response helped in that regard. It has slightly obfuscated what I was trying to do.
I turn to the identification of the "occupation of the premises" and the premises to be identified by the local authority. I make it clear that the prohibition would be brought about on a property identified by the local authority as the property in question, but perhaps that is not necessary. Paragraph (b) states,
"occupation of the premises or part by particular descriptions of persons".
Our approach involves the phrase "specific individuals".
Most properties are lived in by not a great number of people. I am not sure what "a particular description of persons" means. The Minister suggested that my amendment might involve a person associated with anti-social behaviour. However, that is not what this is all about. If there is a prohibition notice and one is effectively stopping people from living in a property, even for a short time, what would be a "particular description" of a person? Would it be that the person opposite had only one leg or was a mother with a pram? Particular descriptions appear to involve a group, but if one had to identify specific individuals one would have to name them and say, "Those people cannot live here" for whatever reason. I believe that our amendment is better but I hear what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Suspension of prohibition orders]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Revocation and variation of prohibition orders]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 17, line 18, at end insert ", or
(c) on an application made by the Member of Parliament for that district"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 39 would allow a local Member of Parliament effectively to petition the local authority to revoke or vary a prohibition order. The final decision would still be left with the local authority. However, it is possible that a Member of Parliament, following significant discussion with his or her constituents, would feel hard pressed not to do something to follow up their concerns.
I would imagine that such an action would be used very sparingly as a matter of last resort. The Member of Parliament in question would no doubt have taken due care and time to investigate the case before

279
deciding on such a course of action. None the less, perhaps the Minister should give some thought to that, because it would improve the linkages between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituents. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: This appears to involve a somewhat unprecedented position, but that may not be so. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would give some examples of other cases. Otherwise, it appears to be rather de trop because the local authority will be close to the ground on the matter and its initiative can have that result. I am not sure what else is needed.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am glad to echo the noble Lord's comments. This is a very peculiar amendment. I am all for Members of Parliament being thoroughly involved in constituency affairs. However, this is properly a housing authority matter and therefore a local government matter. At least, if we are to get into the question of local representations, one would have expected that local councillors would make representations on the issue. Frankly, it is hardly proper to put a Member of Parliament in such a privileged position in such a case.
I do not say that because I have anything personal against Members of Parliament; they are very worthy and honourable people and do very good jobs on behalf of their constituents. However, the amendment would give them too direct a right of intervention in affairs that are properly dealt with by a democratic authority that is specifically empowered to deal with the matter. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment or, if she intends to do something with it, that she will bring it back later with a proper mention of local democratic representatives. However, I suspect that the Minister will say that the whole approach is unnecessary.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is dangerous territory indeed—the amendment has provoked internecine warfare on the Benches opposite and there have been claims from our Back Benches that there is no precedent for the approach. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. My notes say that it is not quite clear what additional wisdom would be brought to the professional judgment of a local authority's environmental health officer by having a local Member of Parliament who is able to do that. I am not sure that I should go too far down that road; that might upset someone. I certainly would not want to upset many of my friends in another place. I have to be very careful with my noble friend Lord Rooker on the Front Bench; he spent many honourable years in another place and knows what it is to be a Member of Parliament representing his constituents, which he did very effectively.
The proposal is unprecedented and this is a rather strange amendment. In any event, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right: this issue is probably more properly located with a local councillor. However, elected Members of Parliament are
280
of course bound to make representations on behalf of constituents on particular issues. No doubt they would do so in any event by way of constituency casework. I do not believe that the amendment adds anything in practice. It is unnecessary and it would end up putting the local Member of Parliament in a rather difficult position from time to time when he or she was pressed by a constituent and he or she had to make a judgment. This is an extremely unwise departure from the accepted practice of simply making representations. Having heard that, I hope that the noble Baroness will think again and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: This amendment is not going anywhere with either side of the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Procedure and appeals relating to prohibition orders]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
Page 179, line 32, leave out "entitled or"
Page 180, line 8, leave out "entitled or"
Page 184, line 5, leave out "entitled or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Offence of failing to comply with improvement notice]:
[Amendments Nos. 42A to 42D not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 20, line 14, leave out "reasonable" and insert "genuinely adequate"
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 43 we are again trying to probe the Government on what they actually mean in their description of "reasonable excuse" when it comes to failing to comply with an improvement notice.
It seems that in theory every excuse could in one way or another be described as "reasonable". We would of course welcome the Minister's thoughts on that. Furthermore, who will actually judge what is reasonable? Will it be the local authority, where one view of reasonableness may change from place to place? Surely it would have been sensible to issue some national guidance on this. Perhaps the Government are planning to do that; I do not know. Our amendment attempts to do that by making it perfectly clear what an acceptable excuse is. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I cannot contain myself any longer. The term "reasonable" is well used in legal proceedings, and clearly what is reasonable must be judged at the time on the merits of the case in question, and so on. I hate to suggest that work should not be made for lawyers, but introducing what I see as an entirely innovative phrase would make work for

281
lawyers. Therefore, although I declare an interest as a practising solicitor, I do not think that the wording suggested in the amendment is a good idea.
Lord Borrie: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am not one of those who think that drafting cannot be improved from time to time, but if someone wants to move away from what is common form and is understood by lawyers and the courts to another phrase, which is what the amendment would do, a very good reason should be given for it. There are plenty of precedents for the phrase which is now in the legislation, and altering it would present something new, requiring fresh interpretation. The question was asked: who says whether this is so or not? In the end, the answer is that this is a defence in court. The courts are very familiar with this phrase, and I would leave it at that.
Lord Hanningfield: I do not think that either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness listened to what I said. I said at the start that I was trying to probe the Government on what was meant by the words "reasonable excuse". I did not say that I was pushing for the word "reasonable" to be changed. Clearly, we want to know the Government's thinking behind the term, and that is why the amendment was tabled. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's thinking rather than turn this into an argument about the use of the word "reasonable" and other expressions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have nothing to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Borrie said. They employed the argument that I was intending to use. "Reasonable excuse" is an understandable defence. It can be brought in a court of law, where it is understood. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the phrase "genuinely adequate" would be an entirely new concept in English law and would be completely inappropriate.
I do not think that this is a sensible amendment. It is completely inappropriate and totally unnecessary. It would undermine well established and understandable ways of working and presenting a defence in court. I see no merit in it at all. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that we are all ganging up on him, but I believe that he needs to take away this matter and think long and hard about it because it does not do anything for the Bill.
Lord Hanningfield: I did not think that anyone was ganging up on us. We have received a totally inadequate reply. What we want from the Government is an explanation of "failing to comply". This is a vague part of the Bill and we were trying to obtain an indication—or even, as I said later, some guidance—from the Government on what would be a reasonable excuse for not complying with a notice. However, in response, the Minister has simply talked about what is "reasonable" and not about what is a reasonable excuse for not complying with a notice.
282
We are entering rather difficult territory. We dealt with the same matter on a similar amendment yesterday. We need to think about the amendments and perhaps come back to them with a different approach at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43A to 43E not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Improvement notices: enforcement action by local housing authorities]:
[Amendment No. 43F not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Emergency remedial action]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 25, line 13, at end insert "reasonable"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 again attempt to probe the Government a little about the circumstances in which they believe emergency remedial action would be taken and how the local authority should, in effect, go about it. We have had some discussion on this matter before. Perhaps, as a start, the Minister could provide us with some examples of when he believes that such action would be appropriate. We are also attempting to ensure that greater effort is made to inform individuals who might be affected by such action and to ensure that they are fully informed and aware of such developments. Again, that issue was covered in a similar amendment yesterday.
With Amendment No. 44, we return to the word "reasonable", which, on this occasion, I am seeking to insert before the word "time". Without that change, it seems to me that a local authority could enter a premises at any time if it so wished, including in the middle of the night. We all understand the need for such possible powers of entry. However, I am sure that they would be covered in other legislation relating to gaining access in the event of an emergency. Have we not just spent some time on this matter debating the Fire and Rescue Services Bill? I am not entirely sure that such powers would be desirable in this case, but I shall bow to any explanation that the Minister may like to provide us with.
Amendment No. 45 would ensure that the owner, as well as the occupier, of a property was informed of the local authority's decision to undertake such action. It seems to me that many of the properties that could well be covered under this section are likely to be rented properties at the lower end of the market where the owner does not live on-site. I cannot believe that a local authority would not at least make an effort to contact the owner before commencing emergency work. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: Although, to be honest, I suspect that it would be a rare occurrence, it is envisaged that in this case the local authority could enter a property in the middle of the night. That is the whole point of the

283
exercise. Clause 39 is headed "Emergency remedial action" and that is defined in subsection (2) at the bottom of page 24 of the Bill:
"'Emergency remedial action' means such remedial action in respect of the hazard concerned as the authority consider immediately necessary in order to remove the imminent risk of serious harm".
In other words, we are dealing with a crisis or emergency situation. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, it might well be the case that a local authority would have to enter a property without any warning in the middle of the night. The noble Lord's amendment would mean that that power could be exercised at any "reasonable time".
Amendment No. 45 would enable the notice of entry to be served on the owner as an alternative to the occupiers. Such a proposal would simply slow down the action required under Clause 39. The actions taken under some other section would follow a different set of rules. These are emergency measures where there is an imminent risk of serious harm. Listening to the lawyers, I should imagine that that is a well known, tried and tested term. I certainly hope that it is. I have heard it before and am fairly certain that it is understandable.
We are talking about a crisis or a serious situation. These powers are intended to be used to tackle the hazards at the upper end of category 1—that is, hazards that need to be tackled immediately. Examples of that might be to prohibit the use of a staircase that is so rotten that someone might fall through it at any moment, to support a wall that is in imminent danger of collapse or to remove the danger of exposed electrical wiring. In those circumstances, the top priority is to alert with the utmost urgency those who are at risk from the hazards—that is, the occupiers of the premises—rather than the owner who lives elsewhere.
That does not mean that the owner of the property is disregarded. Subsection (7) requires the authority to serve a notice of emergency remedial action on the owner—and on the others on whom the notice, or a copy of one, would be served in the ordinary, less urgent cases—within seven days of taking the emergency action.
In addition, subsection (8) applies Clause 204—that is, warrants to authorise entry—to enable the authority to enter premises to take emergency remedial action. The justice of the peace to whom a warrant application is made must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the authority would not gain admission without a warrant. In other words, the provision is dealing with a crisis situation and, if we were to include the words "any reasonable time", that might be held to be within normal working hours. In such a situation, the restriction to normal working hours could put people at imminent risk of serious harm.
Lord Hanningfield: I do not know what the piece of legislation is, but I understand that legislation already exists to deal with emergency entry into buildings if
284
there is a real hazard—for example, as I mentioned during debate on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, if a place is on fire or flooded. I cannot see that in order to take remedial action to a property it will, or should, be necessary to disturb anyone living in a home in the middle of the night. I do not accept what the Minister said. That may be the case if something is dramatically wrong, such as, I repeat, a fire or flooding or something akin to that, but if it is something such as a wall that needs replacing, I do not think that it would be right for people to enter a house at two o'clock in the morning when a family was asleep. That would be more frightening and worrying to the family. I do not really accept what the Minister said. What I suggested was that there should at least be some reasonable time—I would not say normal working hours but some sort of reasonable hour—when one could enter a property.
I also suggested that it would be right at that time to try to inform the owner that that was to be done if the owner is responsible for the property. Even if a notice is to be served on the owner in due course, it would be right to try to inform the owner that the property is being entered. I do not think that I received a satisfactory reply from the Minister. Usually, he gives pretty good answers. I do not know whether he would like to reconsider this. Does he really think that families should be disturbed in the middle of the night for fairly minor things? I think that it is quite unreasonable.
7 p.m.
Lord Rooker: These are not "minor things". We are talking of being at,
"imminent risk of serious harm",
and I gave examples of such circumstances. What brings about those circumstances in out of work hours, I do not know. It might be a bit of "do it yourself" in the next door property. I was once being driven here on my way to work one morning and three buildings had fallen down in one of the poshest parts of London because someone had been working on a building next door. You cannot just leave things like that. This is,
"imminent risk of serious harm",
brought about by what and caused by what at unusual hours I do not know. If people in the property are at risk of serious harm, we cannot ring Timbuktu or Monte Carlo where the owner might live and say, "By the way, can we get cracking with this? Send us a fax", or, "We'll fly someone out to sign the papers". That is self-evident. I think that I have given a very good answer to this.
I have an even better one now. The Local Government Association—the noble Lord opposite is leader of a major council—is a key player in this. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health wants the powers. As has been said, the test for using such powers is very stiff.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that answer. We may consider this again, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 25, line 21, leave out ", but"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 continue the theme of publicising and informing the intent of a local authority to undertake emergency action on a property. This is a little like the previous amendment and some amendments we debated yesterday.
We believe that it is far from satisfactory for a notice to be served merely if it is pinned to a part of the building or a nearby lamppost. How many people read such notices? What about the effects of the weather? We see that all the time. This appears to be a rather haphazard way of going about things and would allow the local authority to do the bare necessity when it comes to making an effort to inform those affected of its decision to enter the premises and carry out work.
I stress, however, that I am in sympathy with the difficulty of what a local authority is being asked to do. No doubt the Minister will ask me what my alternative would be. However, that is, perhaps, not the intent of the amendment. Rather, it is designed to draw attention to an issue that we would otherwise have passed over. Amendment No. 46 is consequential to Amendment No. 47 in this regard. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I have tabled two amendments in this group. On Report in another place the Minister made it clear that local authorities can take action to deal with very urgent hazards regardless of whether an appeal is lodged against the improvement notice. However, there is a view that this clause does not make that entirely clear.
My amendments would ensure that frivolous or vexatious appeals against emergency enforcement action under Clause 44 do not unduly frustrate action by local authorities when they try to secure the removal of hazards which will represent an immediate risk to the health and safety of occupants. I hope that the Minister can address these concerns, which have been raised with me by members of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
Lord Rooker: If I may, I shall deal with the amendments in reverse order. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are certainly well intentioned; there is no question about that. They seek to prevent an appeal against emergency remedial action delaying the action and preventing the authority from getting on with the work. However, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
There is no provision for an appeal under Clause 44 to interfere with the operation of the remedial action under Clause 39. There is nothing to prevent the authority from carrying out the intended works. In practice, the works will have been carried out promptly. By definition, that is the nature of emergency measures. An appeal is more likely to consider whether the action was right rather
286
than just stop the work being done. So the amendments are well intentioned but unnecessary because the work can be done.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would remove the provision that enables a notice of entry to be regarded as served if it is fixed on a conspicuous part of the premises or building. It is necessary to have this provision in cases where the occupiers cannot be contacted or the premises are empty and the hazard is to other people such as neighbours. You would not put the notice on the part of the building that is about to collapse. It would have to be conspicuous but left standing; I accept that. It is not unknown that an owner cannot be contacted. There was a semidetached 1930s-type house in my constituency causing major problems—I can remember the road—and no one knew who the owner was. Trying to trace the owner was a serious problem. The local authority wanted to take action at a particular time and could not, and the matter was dealt with a long time afterwards. So, that is not unknown. Legally, you need to make some effort. You might have no address, no phone number and no key holder but the neighbours might be under threat and emergency measures might be required.
The amendments would place obstacles in the way of the local authority carrying out the emergency work. I stress, and repeat, that Clause 39 applies only in exceptional cases where there is an imminent risk of serious harm. This is not the ordinary type of case which is dealt with in Part 1. This is an exceptional part of the Bill. We really do believe that we need these reasonable powers.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that there has to be some immediate action and probably the only way forward at present is to post a notice on a nearby property or part of the house. One would hope with the advent of modern technology and as time moves on that there might be other ways of informing people, but probably that is a few years ahead. However, often these notices are very unsatisfactory. As I said earlier, when it pours with rain they are defaced. One sees that with planning applications. However, there is no other answer at present and I accept what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Appeals relating to emergency measures]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Demolition orders]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 29, line 30, leave out from first "in" to "the" in line 31 and insert "all of the flats in"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 50 would forbid a local authority to make a demolition order on an entire property unless the local authority could

287
show that under the rating system a category 1 hazard was present in all flats contained in the building. This is, in essence, another probing amendment designed to tease from the Government their understanding of what circumstances would prevail for a demolition order to be served.
In theory, a demolition order may be served if there is only one instance of a category 1 hazard present. That raises some interesting questions. Were that to happen, what would be the fate of other individuals living in adjoining flats? Would they be rehoused or simply expected to find other accommodation? How many such orders do the Government expect will be issued every year?
Subsection (9) states that compensation may be available in certain circumstances. Perhaps the noble Lord could confirm whether individuals living in adjoining flats would be covered, and covered in full, under this rather vague statement.
That leads me on to Amendment No. 52, which also tries to bring greater clarity to this area of compensation. Who would decide on the level of compensation and in which circumstances it would apply? We might end up with a mishmash of a system which varies from one authority to the next. Surely it would be better to have published guidance about compensation on a national level, as our amendment seeks to achieve.
The intent in Amendment No. 51 is similar to that in Amendment No. 52. They attempt to understand the Government's thinking when they say that different provisions may apply in different locations and circumstances. Again, I would welcome the Minister's thoughts. How can we have a scheme that applies in one area but not the other?
Clause 48 deals with the local authority's power to charge in cases of enforcement or possible enforcement action. While we can understand that there are situations in which a local authority may want to charge before issuing a notice, we are concerned that, as the Bill presently stands, an authority could still decide to charge although it does not actually serve an enforcement notice. Our Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 would therefore allow an authority to charge only where a notice had been served. That seems a more sensible approach.
These amendments would also appear to apply equally to subsection (3) in cases where an authority was deciding whether to take emergency remedial action. Again I am unsure about the justification or merit of that approach. I therefore look forward, as ever, to the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be able to enlighten me in the gloom and uncertainty surrounding many of these issues. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think I had better carefully take the Committee through this group of amendments and explain some of the background.
Clause 45 substitutes a new Section 265 of the Housing Act 1985 to align the demolition order provisions with the hazard assessment and enforcement provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. That retains the provisions on demolition in
288
the 1985 Act, of which I am sure the noble Lord is well aware as it was put on the statute book during the lifetime of his party's government. The device that we have used avoids the further lengthening of the current Bill.
Where a local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate enforcement action under Clause 5 in relation to a category 1 hazard in residential premises, making a demolition order is one of the courses of action available to it, unless the premises are the subject of an interim management order or final management order under Part 4. Clause 45 also gives a local authority discretion to make a demolition order if it is satisfied that a category 2 hazard exists, but only in circumstances that may be specified or described by the order.
Amendment No. 50, as the noble Lord has set it out, would prevent a local authority making a demolition order in respect of a building containing one or more flats unless a category 1 hazard existed in all of the flats in the building. I think that the Committee will recognise that that is an extremely stiff test and not one that we feel we can support at all. I recognise that a demolition order is a major step, and I think that the noble Lord will appreciate that these would be extreme circumstances. It is perhaps the most severe step that an authority can take in respect of a single building.
However, it is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that an authority, when confronted with a category 1 hazard, has a duty under Clause 5 to take the most appropriate form of action. In the case of such a hazard in a single flat or in a few of the flats in the building, it may be expected that the authority will be able to deal with the situation in some other way, probably by serving an improvement notice or perhaps by making an order to prohibit the use of a particular flat while the matter is dealt with.
I should also like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Section 269 of the 1985 Act which provides a right of appeal against a demolition order. Section 269A of the Act makes it a possible ground of appeal that the best course of action in the circumstances was not a demolition order but one of the other courses of action for which Part 1 provides.
It is clear, therefore, that there is redress against an authority that oversteps the mark by setting out to make a demolition order without considering very carefully whether another course of action would have been more appropriate and perhaps more proportionate in the circumstances.
Amendment No. 51 would effectively prevent a local authority making a demolition order in response to a category 2 hazard in a building containing one or more flats. The arguments that I deployed in response to the previous amendment also apply here. No authority in its right mind is going to demolish a building in response to a category 2 hazard if there is a better and easier solution to hand.
The Government's view is that such a solution is likely to be available in the majority of cases. However, we do not wish at this stage, or in the future, to remove the option of demolition entirely because it may well be appropriate in extremis. That is why Clause 45(4)(c)

289
limits such action to circumstances specified or described in an order made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
The Government have no immediate plans to bring forward such an order and would consult very carefully before doing so. We would need strong persuasion that such an order is necessary. Until such an order is made, it will not be possible for an authority to make a demolition order in the circumstances that are clearly troubling the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 52 would require the appropriate national authority to specify the circumstances in which compensation paid following the making of the demolition order may be repaid. This amendment would come into conflict with Section 58(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1985, which makes detailed provision for repayments and requires disputes to be referred to the Lands Tribunal. I do not feel that the intervention of the appropriate national authority in matters in which the Lands Tribunal has great expertise is likely to improve the wisdom of decisions to be made on the repayment of compensation.
Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 seem to intend to ensure that charges can be made only in respect of notices on orders that have actually been served or made. We do not think that those amendments are necessary at all as Clause 48(1) already has that effect. So that point is already covered.
I have spent some time going over the detail. I appreciate that the noble Lord was asking also for other information. I cannot provide figures, but we think that a relatively small proportion of a total of 50,000 annual enforcement actions of all kinds will fall into this category. Compensation will arise if the whole process, including any appeal procedure, is exhausted. However, I cannot provide much more information this evening on that point. I am quite happy to have further research undertaken and to write to the noble Lord on the issue.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that very lull response. I think he agreed with our sentiments that it is not very desirable to demolish a whole block of flats housing many occupants because of a problem in perhaps one flat. I am also grateful that he said he would look at my list of questions in detail and come back with answers to them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Clearance areas]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Power to charge for certain enforcement action]:
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Recovery of charge under section 48]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
"(6A) If such an appeal is brought and a decision is given on the appeal which confirms the underlying notice or order, the demand becomes operative at the time when—

(a) the period within which an appeal to the Lands Tribunal may be brought expires without such an appeal having been brought, or

(b) a decision is given on such an appeal which confirms the notice or order.

(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A)—

(a) the withdrawal of an appeal has the same effect as a decision which confirms the notice or order, and

(b) references to a decision which confirms the notice or order are to a decision which confirms it with or without variation.

(7) As from the time when the demand becomes operative, the sum recoverable by the authority is, until recovered, a charge on the premises concerned.
(8) The charge takes effect at that time as a legal charge which is a local land charge."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Licensing of HMOs to which this Part applies]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 36, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) any HMO in the authority's district of three storeys or above or in which at least five people live,"
The noble Baroness said: I have given notice to the Minister of my intention to degroup Amendment No. 58 from Amendments Nos. 58A, 62A and 65. I think that he is happy about that. Although all the amendments in the group concern one topic, I realised that it is a substantial group of amendments. I initially thought that we would manage, but in view of the approaching dinner hour it would be much more helpful for everybody if I were to address Amendment No. 58 separately.
Amendment No. 58 is a probing, but serious, amendment. It is designed to try to persuade Ministers to introduce a more inclusive mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme. The Bill provides for the threshold for mandatory licensing to be specified in regulations. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated it intends that those regulations will require only houses in multiple occupation with three or more storeys and five or more occupants to be licensed. The ODPM estimates that that will cover only 120,000 houses in multiple occupation, which is about 19 per cent of what we think are 638,000 houses in multiple occupation in England. Our key concern is that the proposed threshold will leave thousands of vulnerable tenants in unidentified and hazardous HMOs, because they will fall outside the scope of the mandatory licensing scheme.
Evidence from local authorities—I am grateful also to Shelter for briefing me on this matter—shows that a significant proportion of large, two-storey houses in multiple occupation and smaller shared dwellings are sub-standard and poorly managed. It is felt that all houses in multiple occupation with three or more storeys, and at least five occupants, should be licensed.
The area that I represented as a councillor in Southampton was close to the university. I saw many family houses go over to multiple occupation. We had all kinds of problems with them. I am sure that other Members of the Committee who have been councillors in those kinds of areas know the sort of problems that exist.
Evidence on fire risks, in particular, does not support the Government's thresholds. The 1996 Entec report on tire risk identified all three-storey houses in multiple occupation as high risk, regardless of their occupancy levels. In 1997, research by the ODPM's predecessor, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, found that 52 per cent of houses in multiple occupation fire deaths occurred in buildings of three or more storeys, even though only 16.5 per cent of households lived in such buildings. So a tenant who lives in a bedsit in a building of three or more storeys is almost 17 times more likely to be killed by a fire than an adult who lives in a single-occupancy building.
I have been lobbied also by various other houses in multiple occupation groups. Leeds HMO Lobby and the Nottingham Action Group referred particularly to student accommodation and they made similar comments to those that I have made.
Surveys of authorities by Shelter and the National HMO Network suggest that, at most, only half of local authorities will extend their license schemes to include smaller, but some still potentially hazardous, houses in multiple occupation. I know that the Government want to stick to their definition of HMOs, with local authorities being able to deal with other houses under other selected licensing arrangements. Another recent survey of local authorities demonstrates significant support among local authority environmental health departments for a more inclusive mandatory scheme.
The Government have said that local authorities can use the discretionary powers to extend the licensing of small houses in multiple occupation, but there are concerns about how the scheme will operate. The extended discretionary licensing scheme is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and it is limited to a period of five years. Local authorities will be required to consult interested parties on the needs for additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation. Landlords are likely to be the main respondents and in many cases they might oppose the additional licensing for human reasons.
House in multiple occupation tenants in poor housing are an extremely hard-to-reach group who may fear eviction if they complain too loudly to the council The process will have to be repeated every
292
five years. There are concerns that perhaps a future Secretary of State who objects to the principle of houses in multiple occupation licensing will be able to reject a local authority's application to extend the scheme, irrespective of its merits. It is therefore essential that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at least publishes guidance setting out the factors to which it will have regard in reaching a decision about such an application.
The proposed threshold for mandatory licensing of only large houses in multiple occupation of three or more storeys and five or more occupants is overcautious and inadequate. It will not cover the majority of smaller, dangerous, poorly managed houses in multiple occupation in which living conditions for tenants can be pretty bad. There is a desperate need for intervention to ensure that basic minimum health standards are met for tenants in such properties. Without mandatory licensing, they are unlikely to be identified and the problems are unlikely to be tackled.
Shelter is most concerned about the position, as are the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Officers and various houses in multiple occupation groups. I therefore hope that the Minister can give us some comfort. I realise that it is difficult, knowing the Government's view, but I believe that there is a good case for widening the provision. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. She made a strong case for many more houses in multiple occupation than those covered by the intended government regulation. As she indicated, that will apply to only 19 per cent of the total number of homes in multiple occupation.
The noble Baroness said that the Government were being over-cautious. I have no doubt that the Government are being cautious and one reason the noble Baroness did not mention was resources. The resources of the local authority to deal with this real problem will no doubt improve and increase as time goes by. However, current and near-future resources are limited. Above all, it would be wrong to put on the face of the Bill anything like what is proposed by the noble Baroness, as distinct from a provision made by regulation, which is the Government's intention. It may be that the government intention to use a regulation at the beginning may be over-cautious. But it can be changed. If something in the legislation is not inappropriate now—as I suggest that it is—it could in any case become inappropriate as time goes by. Surely the Government's method of approach, by making the definition about what applies in the regulation, is much better than including it in the Bill.
Lord Best: This is a crucial part of the Bill, and I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, puts his finger precisely on the point at issue: how far can one go, how much at this stage can one say, in seeking to improve standards and bring this fairly forceful set of regulations to bear on landlords whose tenants are the most vulnerable and in the worst circumstances? That

293
balance is what we are discussing. No one wants to drive landlords so hard that we diminish the supply even of appalling accommodation, because we have acute shortages of homes to rent. Even the worst landlords are putting a roof over people's heads.
So the balance must always be: how far can we go without doing more harm than good in regulating the sector. I think that we can go further than saying that mandatory licensing would apply only to those cases where there are houses of three storeys or more that contain five people within them.
Courtesy of the Brent Private Tenants' Rights Group, I visited a number of properties in north London, in the Brent, Harlesden and Wembley areas. In particular, I looked at those properties that would not be covered by mandatory licensing, because, for example, they consisted of only two storeys but were awful properties in which there might be seven or eight people. I went to see houses in Harlesden with long back additions where people were living in conditions that I well remember visiting in the 1960s, which we have been led to believe are a thing of the past. No, slums with landlords who harass their tenants are still out there; landlords still behave badly—and not only in properties that are three storeys high.
The difficulty here is getting the balance right. Because of the pressures on resources for environmental health officers and more generally in local government, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, local authorities will not be willing or able to do more than is imposed on them as a duty. Therefore, where one draws the line of mandatory licensing and where one leaves it to the local authorities to go further at their discretion, is important. I believe that we can go further than this fairly timid and cautious approach and be firm on the worst of landlords.
As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie says, this represents 19 per cent of houses in multiple occupation—that is, about 120,000 properties out of about 640,000 houses in multiple occupation. Those 640,000 are a relatively small part of all the homes let by private landlords, which number about 2 million. So we are down to a very small proportion of the sector as a whole—just 19 per cent of part of the sector and the question is whether being tough, getting involved with that part of the whole, is going too far and whether we should be more or less cautious.
Even if these matters are the subject of regulation, will the Minister consider keeping an open mind about whether the "three storeys and five people within the home" provision is really going far enough? Might there be a chance of persuading him to agree to a slightly bolder version of the regulations when we see the small print later?
Baroness Hanham: I shall join the debate only briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made my blood run cold with his perfectly apt description of some of the houses in the north parts of Kensington and Brent.
294
However, we must be careful here not to put our foot on this part of the market completely. All landlords and people who run houses in multiple occupation are not rogues or presiding over houses in a terrible state of disrepair. So I urge a bit of caution here. In fact, the provision concerning a house of three floors with five tenants will bring into the regulations a substantial number of properties which may or may not be necessary.
We cannot support the amendment as it stands. I suggest that we remember that, although there are terrible landlords, some are also very good, doing a good job and supporting the people who are living with them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose that I should start by saying that I have sympathy with the point being made. I used to represent a ward with many students who lived in terraced houses of only two storeys. Yes, more than five people were living in them. But, on the other hand, from a great deal of contact with students living in those circumstances—as a student, I lived in not dissimilar circumstances—I have to question the proportionality of the measure proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
I start by reminding the Committee exactly what the Government propose and shall then return to the points that have been raised. Clause 54 requires houses in multiple occupation falling within the definition set out in the clause to be licensed by local authorities. The definition of an HMO in the clause is: any HMO falling within a description to be prescribed by order by the appropriate national authority. The Government's intention is to prescribe that the definition be: houses of three storeys and above in which at least five people live who form more than one household; and any HMO situated in an area designated by a local authority as subject to additional licensing under Clause 55 and which is of the description set out in the designation. That is how it will work.
As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 58 would insert in the Bill the definition of an HMO to which mandatory licensing should apply as: any HMO of three storeys or above, regardless of occupancy, or any HMO, regardless of the number of storeys, that is occupied by at least five persons. So that would be a fixed, rigorous definition in the Bill, without the flexibility that we require.
Amendments similar to these were tabled and extensively debated in another place. Of course there was a divergence of opinion as to when the requirement for mandatory licensing should apply. Our scope for mandatory licensing of HMOs is those of three stories or more occupied by five or more persons. We have always made clear that we have adopted three-storey HMOs as the starting point for mandatory licensing because we take the view—there is evidence to support it—that the greatest risk from injury or death affects those properties. I doubt

295
whether there is any dispute about that. Of course, one can argue about the configuration of properties—the point was made about properties with extensive back additions, and so on.
The number of occupants in each dwelling is also an important factor to be considered. The greater the number of storeys in an HMO, the higher the number of occupants is likely to be, so we would expect the risk of fire to increase in such a building. We are aware that there are many HMOs of fewer than three storeys occupied by five people more, but those persons are far less vulnerable to injury from fire than those in three-storey houses.
I also appreciate that there are some HMOs of three storeys occupied by four persons, but it is far more likely that a three-storey building will house more people. I can only reiterate that the greater the number of people living in a property, the higher the risk of fire.
We take the view that a line must be drawn somewhere on where HMO mandatory licensing applies. The Government believe that that line should be drawn at houses, as we have set out. We recognise that licensing will impose burdens on landlords and local authorities. It is therefore, in our view, unreasonable to impose licensing where it is not needed. The Government do not believe in excessive or undue regulation. Therefore, we have made mandatory licensing a targeted measure. That is why we have adopted this route. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made the point for us. We must attack the problem where it is worst and be proportionate in the use and distribution of the resource that we apply to it.
Local authorities have, and will continue to have, discretionary powers to license problematic categories of HMOs within their areas. The very circumstances about which the noble Baroness is concerned can be addressed by the local authority using its discretion. If a local authority establishes that there are management problems with all HMOs of, say, three storeys or more occupied by four people, or all HMOs occupied by five persons, which justifies licensing, we are giving them the facility and tools to do so through additional licensing.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked about our future intentions. It is our firm intention to carry out a review of licensing within three years of its introduction. The reason why the scope of mandatory licensing is not on the face of the Bill is so that the scope can be changed if necessary through secondary legislation. So if the review finds that licensing should apply to a wider, or perhaps narrower, range of houses in multiple occupation, we have the power to implement that finding. We have the flexibility required if a wider band of houses in multiple occupation is an evident problem.
So the local authority has discretion to act and we have left ourselves scope to adapt and fine tune the range of HMOs that could be caught within the
296
legislation through a secondary legislative route. I certainly understand and appreciate where the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is coming from and have seen the sorts of problems that she describes. But we have left sufficient flexibility to address that issue and we think that the local authority will have sufficient flexibility to act if it identifies a problem.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that very full answer and other noble Lords who have commented on the amendment. I recognise the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that it would not be very wise to include this provision in the Bill. However, as he will appreciate, it is very difficult to amend secondary legislation. Therefore, the only mechanism at my disposal is to raise the matter here. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Best, that it is important that we get the balance right. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that not all landlords are bad landlords.
Nevertheless, there is a problem. The Minister talked about the discretionary powers for supplementary licensing. As I pointed out, those powers are not easy to use. I am conscious of the hour, so perhaps we can return to the matter later. Perhaps we can reach a compromise whereby we widen the scope a little. I appreciate the assurance that the Government will keep the matter under review; I hope that they will. The Minister talked about the number of three-storey properties with four occupants. I do not have figures on that, but if there are any such properties, perhaps we should look at them before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage not begin again before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
Baroness Amos: I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
Baroness Amos: I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29 June be approved. — (Baroness Amos.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
Baroness Amos: I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
Baroness Amos: I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this short order is to increase the existing borrowing power of which the Law Society of Northern Ireland can avail itself in relation to its compensation fund from £100,000 to £1 million. The existing level was set in 1976 and no longer reflects the needs of the Law Society. The figure of £1 million has been arrived at as representing a much more satisfactory borrowing limit.
In order to allow reviews of the limit to take place without the need to amend the primary legislation, reviews may be undertaken in future by the use of secondary legislation. The order will be beneficial to the Law Society of Northern Ireland in its management of this important fund. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for outlining this order. Based on a quick calculation, it appears that to jump from £100,000 in 1976 to £1 million in 2004 is to do little more than keep up with inflation. I thought at first that perhaps the use of the society's fund had grown so much that there was a serious problem, but when I did some elementary mathematics I found myself quite content with the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for outlining this brief order. I have three questions. Why are government funds used for this purpose? I do not believe that they are used for that purpose in England and Wales, although I am prepared to be corrected on that. Why is insurance not used? The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says that the increase is keeping pace with inflation; I respectfully suggest that it is keeping pace with legal inflation. If I am reincarnated, I hope that I return as a lawyer in Ireland because I will be as rich as Croesus. Such legal inflation is unbelievable. Why are the Government funding this in the first place? Why cannot insurance be used? What is the position in England and Wales?
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I have no objection to the order in principle but I am slightly concerned that it will change the procedure for dealing with this kind of proposal from an affirmative to a negative resolution. Why is such change necessary? We suffer from a deficit of governance in Northern Ireland. Surely this further change by the Department of Finance and Personnel will make that deficit even worse.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify that this is not government funding. The fund is made up from contributions from solicitors themselves. Perhaps I can give the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, an example of the way in which the fund is used, which would help to explain it.
The fund is used to provide grants in circumstances of loss arising from a solicitor's dishonesty. A common example would be during a house purchase transaction. A solicitor might have a large amount of his or her client's funds in a client account during the purchase. If that is misappropriated, the client could be placed in an extremely difficult financial situation if immediate redress is not effected. The fund is then used in that way.
With respect to the negative resolution procedure, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, it is normal practice for primary legislation—which is in effect what this order is—to contain powers to vary monetary limits placed on them. This is a sensible measure that allows reasonably straightforward changes to be made in circumstances where limits become outdated, without the need to produce another piece of primary legislation. I think that that

299
was just overlooked in 1976, when the original legislation was enacted. It would not normally be the case that with respect to something that had monetary implications and monetary limits placed on it, there was no ability to review without going through the whole primary legislation process.
There is a similar fund for England and Wales. There are a lot more solicitors on the roll in England and Wales, and there is a higher levy than in Northern Ireland. The limit in England and Wales is much smaller. I do not need to address the point on insurance, because I have already addressed it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2004
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, copies of this order have been laid before the House. The order is made under Section 75(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The purpose of the draft order is to make the bodies listed in the Order "public authorities" for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They are the Electoral Commission; the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission; the Office of Communications; the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company; the Social Fund Commissioner and the Ilex Urban Regeneration Company Limited. Those public authorities will be subject to the statutory duties set out in Sections 75(1) and 75(2) of the Act, requiring them to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between specific groups.
Section 75(1) of the Northern Ireland Act requires all public authorities to,
"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; between men and women generally; between persons with a disability and persons without; and between persons with dependants and persons without".
In addition, and without prejudice to those obligations, public authorities are required under Section 75(2) to,
"have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group".
In order to demonstrate its commitment, each public authority is required to produce an equality scheme that sets out how it will fulfil these duties. The schemes will cover the full range of the organisation's functions in Northern Ireland. As required by the guidelines approved by the Secretary of State, each will include arrangements for policy appraisal; public consultation; public access to information and services; monitoring; and timetables. These schemes will be submitted to the Equality Commission for approval. The Equality Commission will advise on
300
preparation and validate and monitor the Section 75 statutory obligation and will investigate complaints of default.
The Government intend that the statutory duty should, in time, embrace as many bodies as possible. This is not the end of the process, and we will bring forward further designation orders as and when required. We remain determined to build a society where the active promotion of equality and good relations is seen as an integral part of public life. Section 75 is the key to that goal, and I am pleased to be able to extend its reach to these further organisations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for that brief and clear statement of what the order is about. I understand, like, I suspect, everyone else in the Chamber, that this is part of the Belfast agreement cost. Of course I, and I am sure most noble Lords, agree with the thinking and with promoting equality of opportunity and all that goes with it. However, the longer it goes on, and the longer this list and other similar lists grow, the more difficult I find it to come to terms with what, when totalled together, is a huge bureaucratic burden on a small society.
The Government have said that the order—I am not accusing anyone of lying—that there are no identifiable costs to the public or the Exchequer and that the order has no regulatory impact. With a directive such as this, an organisation must produce a plan or a document or a series of documents proving that it has met what the Government has passed in legislation. It also must be prepared to challenge any criticisms, complaints and answers. Again, I just do not believe that these organisations, or any of the other 120 that there are, can actually achieve that at no cost. It may be a change of cost or a change of emphasis, but I do not understand how you prepare yourself to meet the requirements that the Lord President read out just now when she was introducing the order for no cost. I would like a little further education on that.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, points to a significant factor in all of this. However, the reason that we support the passage of this order is that, unfortunately, it is necessary to give robust signals to all organisations that they must behave in a decent and reasonable way. While it undoubtedly adds to the amount of regulation in an over-regulated society, which I readily admit, it is nevertheless necessary.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The Explanatory Notes to the order state that there is no identifiable cost to the public or the Exchequer. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the cost to the public authorities, and I do

301
not just mean financial costs. Drawing up an equality scheme will require a considerable amount of research, time and energy, all of which will have to be drawn from other areas of a public authority. It can be an extremely bureaucratic process. How can we be sure that while concentrating on the requirements of this order a public authority is not using expertise and eating into time that could be better employed for the public good?
Perhaps the noble Baroness could comment on whether she feels that there might be a cost to the quality of service offered by a public authority by its compliance with this order. Moreover, will the noble Baroness say something about how equality of opportunity or the promotion of good relations can and has been measured? How are outcomes monitored? Is such information fed back to the public authorities to improve equality schemes? Finally, what recourse will those new public authorities have to learning from other bodies already designated? Can they pick up best practice?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I entirely appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Rogan, with respect to the burden that may be placed on public authorities. Of course equality schemes require some effort from designated organisations. But the Equality Commission is sensitive to the size of an organisation and the breadth of its activities in Northern Ireland.
From my own experience working in this area for a number of years, I would also say that it very important for organisations that want to demonstrate best practice—not just with respect to issues relating to equality but also in relation to their personnel and other practices—to use that kind of process. Organisations very often find it helpful when looking overall at their processes and practices and at improving the way in which they work in general, not just in relation to areas of equality or opportunity.
Many organisations have well developed equality policies already in existence, which can form a basis for the scheme. Where policies and functions do not adversely affect equality—many or most do not—they may be screened out from the need to produce equality impact assessments.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that part of the process is about sending a robust signal. It is about encouraging organisations to operate in the right way. But I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that there is a great deal of learning that can be done by other organisations which have gone down this road before.
Regarding how it will be monitored, that is something on which the Equality Commission is currently consulting; that is, whether the monitoring process should be qualitative, whether it should be quantitative and the best ways in which these issues can be addressed.
302
I am happy to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, receives information about that consultation process in case he would like to contribute to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2004
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 July be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, once again, the absence of a devolved Assembly obliges us to bring before your Lordships provision to extend the power to legislate by Order in Council for Northern Ireland until April 2005. The order would cease to have any effect once devolution was restored. I very much hope that it would not run its full course. There has been much discussion in recent months about arrangements by which stable, inclusive devolved government could be restored in a context where paramilitary activity is entirely ended.
That has been the focus of the review of the operation of the Good Friday agreement and a broader dialogue energetically animated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, which culminated with discussions at Lancaster House on 25 June. Following those discussions, the Government recognised the constructive spirit in which the parties had approached them. But they also made clear that the effort needed to be stepped up. Intensive political dialogue will resume at the beginning of September.
During suspension of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, we remain committed as a government to providing good governance to the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have taken matters forward in the broad direction set by the devolved executive.
However valiant our efforts to provide good administration in Northern Ireland, by common consent an executive of Ministers drawn from Northern Ireland answerable to the Assembly elected there is better placed to do the job they did between 1999 and 2002 than Ministers answerable here. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, the opportunity must be seized in the dialogue in September to restore devolved government in a context entirely free of paramilitary activity. Drift is not an option.
I hope that this occasion will be the last on which we seek your Lordships' consent to extend these exceptional powers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 July be approved [26th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for that explanation. I strongly agree with her last sentiments: we, too, hope

303
that this is the last time the Government will need to come to the House for a renewal. I do not intend to go over some of the ground that we have covered on each occasion that an order similar to this has come before your Lordships. But I would like to make a couple of the points that we have been making over the past day or two.
I do not believe that there will be a sudden change of heart and that by October of this year we shall suddenly have devolved government again. That is unreal. We have some serious elections ahead. Political parties are as occupied electioneering as they are negotiating and looking to do deals with each other. Noble Lords will know better than me that running up to an election is not a time when political parties work together—rather the opposite—particularly when we have two parties that are poles apart and at opposite ends of the spectrum.
My purpose in giving that background refers to the debates that we had last night. The noble Baroness the Lord President knows very well from the tone of those debates and from discussions that we have had in private that we on this side of the House feel that the Government cannot go on administering Northern Ireland in the way that now applies. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made very clear his views, which summed up those of my own and my party very well.
The time has come to face reality, to think laterally, to get a grip and to remember that the people of Northern Ireland deserve respect and democracy. It is not the fault of the majority that they are in this state. It is not their fault that we happen to have the two most powerful parties as the two extreme parties. I believe it is high time that this Government took serious measures to change the process by which the Province is governed until, at some point in the future, we are able to reach joint agreements whereby full devolution can be arrived at.
It saddens me to say that. I know that too often when addressing Northern Ireland affairs I come to this Dispatch Box being pessimistic, and I take no pride in the fact that so far I have been proved right. I wish that it were different. But it is so and it is now time to acknowledge that drift, to use the expression of the noble Baroness, is no longer an option where administration in Northern Ireland is concerned.
I beg the Government to take that seriously. I can assure the noble Baroness that we would like to be party to any initiatives that have been worked on in the review and we will do our best to be supportive and helpful. I have made that clear to the noble Baroness both in private and to my honourable friend in another place, David Lidington.
Let us hope that if the worst happens and in the future we have to face another extension of this order, at least by that time we will have a different system of government as a result of some serious, courageous actions and lateral thinking. In the mean time, I support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of this order. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, when he says
304
that the present political impasse is not the fault of the people of Northern Ireland. After all, they did hold an election which created a polarised situation and produced something that has to be dealt with. That should not be taken from them.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the noble Lord always finds some reason to take issue with me, and I am delighted to hear his opinion.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, logic is on my side tonight, as always.
One way or the other, this should be the last order. It had better be sent up to the polarised politicians of Northern Ireland that this is to be the last order. We cannot go on and on drifting—I too use the word of the noble Baroness.
A month ago the Prime Minister echoed a point I have been making for a long time: that we cannot go on paying the MLAs just for sitting there. I ask the Minister this: if by October nothing happens in a positive way, is it the intention of the Secretary of State to reduce their salaries to nil? I ask that because unless they are doing the work, I do not think that they should get the money. It has been going on for nearly two years and, as the Prime Minister implied, enough is enough.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, although with different nuances. While I do not seek an assurance, I would advise the Northern Ireland Office that there had better be a plan B. We saw in Grand Committee yesterday what we have seen previously. Even though we took rather more time than has been the case in the past discussing something as important as the Northern Ireland budget, we still spent less time on it than would be spent by a major local authority in this country—a point often made by my noble friend Lord Shutt. That does no service to the people of Northern Ireland and is totally inadequate in terms of holding Civil Service rule to account. I do not blame civil servants since they have had to pick this up faut de mieux.
I hope that the Northern Ireland Office, with its usual imagination, will be working on a plan B so that, if the worst comes to the worst and a form of direct rule—I do not think that it will be the status quo ante; I have always said that it will be a form of de facto condominium between Westminster and Dublin—is to be continued and imposed because time has run out so far as devolution for this generation is concerned—something I would deeply regret because I want to see the devolved institutions up and running as soon as possible—we shall need an alternative to the present rather ad hoc system.
In looking at that development, noble Lords on these Benches would be happy to be consulted by the Northern Ireland Office as to what form it should take. Moreover, if it is made known that a plan is being worked on, perhaps that will concentrate the minds of the elected Members to the Northern Ireland Assembly to get a move on. The one message that must go out tonight—as it has repeatedly from the

305
Governments of both Ireland and the United Kingdom—is that we must resolve this issue once and for all, one way or the other.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I should also like to thank the Minister and to express the hope that this is the last occasion on which we discuss such an order in this House. I intend to speak for somewhat longer to this order than was the case for the previous two.
It is almost two years since the devolved institutions were suspended, after the exposure of an IRA spy ring at Stormont. Following that, my party's subsequent attempts to re-establish devolution with republicans were met with gamesmanship and intransigence over the decommissioning issue and reluctance on the Government's part to take any serious steps to pressurise those republicans to honour their commitments under the Belfast agreement. However, as such criticism has constantly fallen upon deaf ears, I am grateful for the opportunity today to make a point that the Government should seriously address.
It appears that the DUP will do a political deal with IRA/Sinn Fein in the autumn. It will be a highly spun revamp of the political partnership that my party engaged in with the SDLP. That suggests to me that the Government have thrown their hands in the air and said, "Well, we almost stabilised things and delivered devolution through the moderate parties. It didn't work. Never mind. Let's keep the peace and give the extremists their share of the cake and see what happens next".
8.15 p.m.
That kind of short-term thinking will lead to further communal polarisation and instability in Northern Ireland. The Government are deluded, if they seriously think that an exclusive deal between the DUP and IRA/Sinn Fein will have a positive effect on the prospects of consolidating devolution.
The year 1998 was not the political endgame that many thought it was. In fact, it was the beginning of a transitory process aimed at establishing firm devolution. That process needed to be nurtured, balanced and managed by the two Governments. The failure of the republicans to engage honestly and with transparency in a democratic sense has resulted in the collapse of that process.
People are now asking why the two Governments sat back and allowed that to happen. I believe that the answer is very simple: the Governments were afraid that Sinn Fein/IRA will carry out its threat and return to violence. That threat has determined the pace of political development in Northern Ireland since 1998 and undermined the hard work that led to the Belfast agreement. In real terms, they have given Sinn Fein/IRA a de facto veto over the democratic process. That is exactly why the unionist community—my community—has lost faith in this process and in the Government's handling of it.
Consequently, we have a situation in Northern Ireland where fear rather than hope is once again the determining factor in how people vote and form their political opinions. One has only to look at last year's
306
Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey to understand that. The results indicate that most Protestants think that nationalists benefited at their expense from the Belfast agreement. Consequently, their disenchantment with the 1998 agreement has steadily increased. There can be no more obvious illustration of this point than the paradoxical finding that, for the first time, more Protestants than Catholics—32 per cent compared with 26 per cent—actually think that a united Ireland is either "quite likely" or "very likely" to happen in the next couple of decades.
There are some very simple reasons for that—namely, the scaremongering and misinformation that has emanated from the DUP since 1998; the fact that Sinn Fein/IRA has got away with and benefited electorally from abandoning its commitment to full decommissioning; and, crucially, the Government's unwillingness to punish it for doing so while those who took risks for peace are constantly let down by the Government for having done so.
When the Belfast agreement was signed in 1998, many people lent it their support because they accepted the word of the Prime Minister when he said that he would make good on his promises: Sinn Fein/IRA would decommission and there would be a level playing field on which devolution could become firmly established in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister will no doubt feel a certain sense of political déjà vu from the echo of this critique. There are always long-term consequences of taking serious constitutional and international decisions based on short-term political goals. I implore him to learn from the mistakes over the past six years because it is not too late to get it right.
The electoral interests of the republican movement must not be allowed to hold our political future to ransom. Should it continue to foster the threat of violence and paramilitarism that hangs over the political process, the two Governments should consider alternative means of consolidating devolution in Northern Ireland.
Lord Eames: My Lords, I do not come to this discussion to represent any particular political philosophy, but from my knowledge of those who are working day and night on the streets and in the towns of Northern Ireland. While I have found a great deal to agree with in what I have listened to in this debate, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that there are two aspects to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
There is the political level, which has engaged most of us in this discussion so far. There is also the attitude of the ordinary men and women on the street in Northern Ireland. What worries and concerns me at this time is not just that we may see one more chapter in the legislative responsibility of this House and the other place for Northern Ireland, but the fact that there is widespread disillusionment with the whole political process because people feel that it is getting absolutely nowhere.
In addition to that, one of the cardinal reasons for that alienation is that people feel that they are getting on with their lives and existence and that what is

307
happening at the level that you, Minister, and others are concerned with, has less relevance to their lives than it had even a few years ago. For that reason, I seriously urge, and join with those who have already urged, Her Majesty's Government to let it be known that there is a plan B. Let it be known that there is an alternative to our situation at the moment, and that we are not going on with the circus of endless talks while the people of Northern Ireland go on with their lives and feel a growing gap with their experience and the experience which is no doubt happening in political circles.
I pay tribute to the efforts of the two governments—the British Government and the Irish Government—and I pay tribute to the respective Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. But I also make a very strong plea, and not from a purely party political stance but from my knowledge over many years of working in this situation. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the need to take on board the fact that once that alienation between what is achievable and what is the reality on the ground becomes wider and the gap widens, we have a very serious problem in Northern Ireland.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I wonder if I might interject at this point, following the most reverend Lord Eames. One of the saddest things that I heard yesterday was the decrying of the Civic Forum, and the idea that it was something that ought not to be continued. Following on from the remarks of the most reverend Lord Eames, not only would I institute the Civic Forum, I would create a multitude of them—for education, health and transport. Indeed, I would have a cross-border civic forum.
If the politicians will not get involved, let the people get involved. I encourage the idea of thinking about a plan B. If we cannot cope with politicians, let us go direct to the people and give them lots of opportunity for involvement.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken have acknowledged the complexity of the situation in Northern Ireland. I believe that we would all agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the people of Northern Ireland deserve respect and democracy. That is absolutely what we have been working towards.
I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord Eames when he refers to the two aspects of the peace process—
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I spent some time persuading the Procedure Committee to give the style and dignity to the noble Lord, Lord Eames, of "most reverend", which was otherwise previously given only to the Archbishops of York and Canterbury. We have for the first time in your Lordships' House an active
308
Archbishop, and for the time he is in that role the Procedure Committee agreed that he would be referred to as "most reverend".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise. I misadvised the noble Baroness the Lord President.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can apologise on my own behalf. Having checked in the Companion to the Standing Orders, I see that we have got it wrong, so we will change the Standing Orders.
I entirely agree that there are two aspects of the peace progress: the political level and the attitudes on the streets of Northern Ireland. I have listened with a degree of concern to the comments made by noble Lords about the perception that there is now greater marginalisation and a feeling of disillusionment with the peace process. If that is the case, it is a matter of serious concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was concerned that an agreement should not be made between just two parties. I assure the noble Lord that we seek the widest possible measure of inclusion in government. In the review of the operation of the agreement, we have sought to talk to all parties and we shall continue to do that. I acknowledge that there are risks of the communities drawing apart but it is clear that stable, inclusive partnership government is the best way of addressing them in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will know that the meetings that have been held between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach—and between the parties in Northern Ireland—have been guided by two fundamental objectives: the need to see an end to all forms of paramilitary activity and the imperative of restoring a stable and inclusive devolved government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Intensive political dialogue, led by the two Governments, will resume at the beginning of September with the aim of concluding this phase of the process. I recognise that reaching agreement will not be easy but we cannot have further delay because we need to put first the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
There are four key issues that need to be resolved: a definitive and conclusive end to all paramilitary activity; the decommissioning, through the IICD, of all paramilitary weapons on an early time-scale and on a convincing basis; a clear commitment on all sides to the stability of the political institutions and to any changes of their operation agreed within the review; and support for policing from all sides of the community and for an agreed framework for the devolution policing.
There were a number of questions about what happens next and what happens if it does not work. It is our view that we must remain focused on achieving the right outcome. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at Lancaster House on 25 June, if we find that we cannot make this process work we must conclude that we cannot continue in the way envisaged. The Taoiseach agreed with that view. The

309
negotiations have not been easy but all parties have a shared understanding of the issues and are doing their best to achieve a political settlement. We have urged the parties to maintain their engagement over the summer. We will do all we can to lay the groundwork for success in September.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked specifically about what would happen to MLA salaries. The salaries and allowances are kept under regular review. That means that the Secretary of State will look at them again very closely on the outcome of the political discussions that will follow the summer break.
I recognise the strong feeling around the House that this will be the last time that we have to consider such an order. I share that view. In the discussions that we had in Grand Committee yesterday, I was very conscious of the amount of detail on which we are asking noble Lords to comment. We do not think that this situation is satisfactory. I recognise that noble Lords do not consider that it is satisfactory. We will continue to do all we can to try to work to a situation where we can restore devolved government in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.45 p.m.]

Housing Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 54.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 58A:
Page 36, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) The appropriate national authority may by order prescribe descriptions of HMOs for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) to which this Part does not apply."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 58A, which yesterday was tabled as Amendment No. 65A. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62A, which yesterday was tabled as Amendment No. 65B, and also to Amendment No. 65.
The first two amendments deal with the meaning of "house in multiple occupation" and consider the removal of some exemptions. Clause 217(5) excludes houses in multiple occupation that are owned or managed by bodies listed in Schedule 11 from the meaning or definition of "a house in multiple occupation" except for the purpose of Part 1 relating to HHSRS. This has the effect of excluding many high risk properties in multiple occupation that are currently defined as houses in multiple occupation, including buildings controlled or managed by local housing authorities, registered social landlords, educational establishments and religious communities, from the new houses in multiple occupation definition, for the purposes of the mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing regime
310
introduced in Part 2, for the purposes of any local discretionary extension to the mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme under Part 2, and all statutory management requirements relating to houses in multiple occupation. These include not only those introduced by Clause 66 in Part 2—licence conditions—and Schedule 4—mandatory licensing conditions—but also those contained in Clauses 197 and 198 of Part 7—approved codes of practice and management regulations in respect of houses in multiple occupation.
This might be somewhat of a retrograde step as the current Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990, introduced under Section 369 of the Housing Act 1985, apply to all houses in multiple occupation regardless of which body is responsible for controlling or managing them. These amendments would ensure that the statutory meaning of a house in multiple occupation would apply to all houses in multiple occupation meeting the tests of multiple occupancy as set out in Clauses 217 to 222 regardless of the status of the current landlord. This would ensure that the definition of a house in multiple occupation reflected solely the nature of its occupancy and the inherent health and safety risks of that type of occupancy rather than the owner or manager of the premises. It would ensure that the approved codes of practice and management regulations relating to houses in multiple occupation in Part 7 would apply to all those responsible for managing a house in multiple occupation, including local housing authorities, registered social landlords, private landlords, educational establishments, including private contractors, and voluntary bodies. This would create a level playing field for houses in multiple occupation management with the aim of ensuring the health and safety of all those residing in accommodation in multiple occupation.
The amendment would also allow local housing authorities to extend local discretionary housing for multiple-occupation licensing to properties that might be exempt from the mandatory scheme under Clause 54(3). They also might wish to license them under Clause 55 powers. For example, if an authority considered that a significant proportion of university houses in multiple occupation in its locality were inadequately managed and that that had an adverse effect on the residents or the local community, it could designate those houses in multiple occupation for additional licensing.
The Bill is the first legislation to exclude such a wide range of accommodation from the meaning of "house in multiple occupation" on the basis of who the landlord is, rather than the physical nature of the accommodation and occupancy arrangements. The Bill repeals the 1985 Act provisions and directly links minimum management standards to houses in multiple-occupation licensing, so that only licensable houses in multiple occupation are subject to the standards.
As drafted, the Bill represents a retrograde step in relation to the housing management standards arid the associated health and safety risk to residents of some

311
houses in multiple occupation. A better approach would be to exempt certain categories of house in multiple occupation from licensing through secondary legislation, in cases where alternative regulatory regimes are more appropriate. An example would be registered social landlords regulated by the Housing Corporation. It does not make sense to exempt them from the legal minimum management standards for houses in multiple occupation altogether.
Despite being pressed on the issue when it was discussed, the Housing Minister in another place did not explain why the Government had changed their position on that since their 1999 consultation on the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about that.
A number of people are concerned about the issue. The amendment has the support of Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Houses in Multiple Occupation Network and the National Union of Students. I hope that we can persuade Ministers to delete Clause 217(5) and Schedule 11—the amendment has been de-grouped, but we can deal with it later—and to introduce a power to exempt HMOs owned by particular types of landlord from the licensing scheme. We would like to see that disappear. Amendment No. 65, which is grouped with the amendment, is slightly different. However, it is again about different categories of houses in multiple occupation. It concerns self-contained flats. I am grateful to the British Property Federation for bringing the issue to my attention. Clause 220 includes, in the definition of houses in multiple occupation, self-contained flats that are conversions that do not meet the 1991 building regulations. There is a further qualification that blocks of flats where at least two thirds are held on long leases and are owner-occupied will be exempt, but by definition not if more than one third are let or sub-let on short tenancies.
The evidence in the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill discussed only bed-sits, not self-contained flats. Very few respondents to the consultation exercise on the Bill specifically lobbied for the inclusion of self-contained flats; only 11 out of 410 respondents mentioned the issue. The inclusion of self-contained flats will be fraught with difficulties, particularly when we look at enforcement. For example, the occupants of blocks of flats can change very quickly, so the property could drop either side of the two-thirds threshold, perhaps quite regularly. Therefore, sometimes there will need to be a licence and sometimes there will not. Very often in a block, there is no specific obligation by anyone in it to monitor who occupies the flats. That creates the problems.
Perhaps the Minister can answer some questions on this matter. Who will be prosecuted if there is a failure to obtain a licence when there are long leaseholders in a property? Are the Government seriously suggesting that leaseholders who exercise their right to manage their block under the Commonhold and Leasehold
312
Reform Act 2002—which this House discussed at length—can be fined up to £20,000 for their failure to obtain a licence?
At present, local authority houses in multiple occupation registration schemes are based on a one-third threshold and the Government have not given their reasons for changing that to two-thirds in the Bill. In the Commons the Minister stressed that the amendment took away protection introduced in the Housing Act 1996. Apparently that was not the case and officials have since admitted that there was an error. I think that the confusion arose because existing registration schemes work on the basis of exempting blocks of converted flats when at least a third are held on long leases. The Bill specifies that blocks will be included in licensing where less than two-thirds are on long leases. It should be amended so that blocks are included when less than a third are let on long leases, as proposed in the amendment. In other words, if a third are held on long leases the block will be exempt—the same as under the existing registration schemes. The amendment would mean that the new licensing regime would mirror the current schemes of local authorities. Another of the various questions on this matter is what would the transitional arrangements be for properties which are already part of a local house in multiple occupation licensing scheme when this part of the Bill is enacted?
These technical amendments involve a great deal of background. I hope that the Minister will accept them on the basis that I am trying to probe how such issues will work and whether we can improve matters to ensure that houses which we wish to see included are not left out. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: This whole issue of defining what is a house in multiple occupation is fraught and is one of the areas about which we have received most correspondence. The Bill's definitions of who owns and who lives in flats, as described in Clause 221, are specific. Our attention has been drawn to the situation of students in cases where, for example, a parent buys a flat in a university town and five or six students rent it or pay the rent. Usually the flat will be well maintained because there is an investment in it and one of the reasons why the parents bought it was to ensure that the students could live in decent circumstances. However, such flats could be caught by these regulations.
So we need to unpick this matter in some detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. She has opened the door and we would be interested to hear the Minister's reply. Whatever he says and whatever the noble Baroness says, we need to return to this matter.
Lord Rooker: As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, some of this is technical. Much of what she said initially is also covered by Schedule 11. Although I am happy to deal with that now, we may need more time to deal with it. As that provision has its own grouping, I will, if I may, deal now with Amendments Nos. 58A, 62 and 65. It would be better if I left anything that related to Schedule 11 until we consider that group. That will also avoid repetition.

313
Clause 54 provides for local authorities to licence two groups of HMOs including those that fall within the scope of mandatory licensing as defined by the order. Subsection (3) enables the appropriate national authority to make an order setting out the scope of mandatory licensing for houses in multiple occupation. Our intention is to prescribe for the mandatory licensing of HMOs of three storeys and above in which at least five people live who form more than one household. The other group involves HMOs designated by a local authority as subject to additional licensing under Clause 55.
Amendment No. 58A would allow the appropriate national authority to prescribe descriptions of HMOs which should be excluded from mandatory licensing provisions under Part 2. We believe that the amendment is superfluous. A house in multiple occupation would fall within the mandatory licensing provision only if the appropriate national authority made an order that caught it in the first place. So Wit wishes to exclude any category of HMO all it needs to do is ensure that it is not brought within the order.
That is a fairly technical way of putting the matter. The Government oppose the amendment because we consider that Schedule 11 should be the eleventh schedule to the Bill. The amendment would allow local housing authorities to apply additional licensing to a wide range of HMOs such as its own stock, registered social landlords, university accommodation, buildings otherwise regulated and even owner-occupied dwellings. That is somewhat different from the argument that has been advanced that low-level regulation should be available to deal with specific problems of management failures where they arise in public sector HMOs.
Amendment No. 62A seeks to remove Clause 217(5), which will give effect to Schedule 11. We will deal with that when we come to the Question whether Schedule 11 should be the eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Amendment No. 65 would amend Clause 220 to change the ratio of owner-occupiers to short-term tenants so that only buildings where less than one-third of the flats are owner-occupied, and more than two-thirds are short term tenants, will fall within the definition of HMO.
The current definition of HMOs in the Housing Act 1985 applies to all converted houses, regardless of the standard of conversion or the tenure of occupancy. Clearly, this is not appropriate, since the legislation is primarily intended to target poorer quality accommodation providing homes for some of the most vulnerable members of the community. We have therefore taken the opportunity in this Bill to narrow the definition of HMO to include poorer quality properties occupied by a substantial number of short lease holders or tenants.
The issue of the ratio of owner-occupiers required to exempt a converted building as an HMO was debated in another place but we are convinced that the ratio we have set in this clause is the correct one. Perhaps I should say that it is the one that we favour or prefer; "the correct one" is a pretty bold statement.
314
Adopting the ratio proposed by this amendment would mean that a block of 12 flats would not be an HMO even where seven of the 12 flats are occupied by tenants. We would expect that in this sort of situation where the majority of the occupants are tenants, there would be issues of management in such properties, and it is therefore important to classify these properties as HMOs in order to provide adequate protection for the tenants.
The Government believe that owner-occupiers are in a position to exercise their contractual rights and require minimum standards to be enforced. Where they are not happy with the management arrangements they can apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal to appoint a manager of the block.
Tenants, on the other hand, are not in the same position. In fact, many problems associated with HMOs, such as poor maintenance and management, are as a direct result of the absence of the "landlord" leaseholder. But, of course, many blocks at which the legislation is aimed are owned by single individuals or companies, were converted many years ago and are occupied by elderly or other vulnerable people. It is often these blocks which are a cause for concern in terms of the health and safety of the occupiers. Often those houses are not fitted with adequate smoke detection equipment. The Building Regulations 1991 require alarms to be mains fitted and thus always working.
According to government research into fire safety, published in 1997, persons living in houses converted into self-contained flats are twice as likely to die from fire as those living in comparable single-occupancy houses. That must be a compelling reason to ensure that legislation on houses in multiple occupation is available to protect tenants living in these poor conversions.
However, we do not agree that the legislation should apply only where fewer than one-third of the flats are owner occupied. The Government are aiming to achieve the protection of tenants living in houses in multiple occupation where a substantial proportion of the flats are let on short tenancies. The amendment would be contrary to that. We shall have several debates about the definition of houses in multiple occupation and what it should cover.
I want, if I can, to stick to the narrow point of the amendment each time. In some ways, we can sweep up some of the issues that we have not dealt with in discussing the technicalities of the amendments when we debate whether Schedule 11 should stand part of the Bill.
I have one other point to make. I was asked whether the long leaseholder would be prosecuted for failing to get a licence. The answer is that the freeholder would be prosecuted. The question was also raised as to whether leaseholders who exercise the right to manage are liable to prosecution if they fail to get a licence. The answer is yes. I was also asked about the power to modify applications of the Bill in the case of blocks of flats. We recognise the difficulties involved in that respect but we do not intend to extend mandatory

315
licensing to blocks of flats. I hope that that is a satisfactory response to the specific questions asked by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that reply. As he said, these are fairly technical matters and I shall look in a little more detail at what the Minister said. With regard to Amendments Nos. 58A and 62A, there is a concern that a better approach than that adopted in the Bill would be to have a broad definition to exempt through secondary legislation certain categories of houses in multiple occupation from licensing, particularly in cases where alternative regulatory regimes are more appropriate. We shall discuss those in later debates on the Bill. I am concerned that, as the Bill stands, houses in multiple occupation owned or managed by certain bodies are exempted from the definition and from the legal minimum required for houses in multiple occupation. However, I shall look at what the Minister said and it is possible that we may need to return to this matter.
With regard to Amendment No. 65, I hear what the Minister says. Before the dinner break, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the Government would monitor how things work out. I think that the leasehold aspect may be an area that will need to be monitored. I find the subject of leasehold incredibly complicated and shall take advice on that. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his careful explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 36, line 29, at end insert "; and
( ) to adopt a co-ordinated approach in connection with dealing with homelessness, empty properties and antisocial behaviour affecting the private rented sector—

(i) as regards combining licensing under this Part with the other courses of action available to them;

(ii) as regards combining licensing with measures taken by other persons; and

(iii) as regards its homelessness strategy and the provision of advice and assistance to those likely to be affected by the licensing regime."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 88. Amendments Nos. 59 and 62 go together, more or less, and deal with aspects of homelessness. One matter of concern, particularly to those who work with the homeless, is that tenants could be left homeless as a result of landlords withdrawing from the market, especially when refused a licence under the scheme. We believe that measures to regulate houses in multiple occupation must take account of the risk that, in response, landlords may choose to end a tenancy or stop letting altogether.
At present, the Bill contains no measures to help tenants in that situation. We believe that that should be remedied by linking houses in multiple occupation licensing more closely with the local homelessness strategies. I hope that we can persuade Ministers—perhaps they are planning this—to issue guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to work strategically to prevent and alleviate homelessness caused as a result of houses in multiple occupation licensing.
Clause 54 introduces mandatory licensing of larger, high-risk houses in multiple occupation. Clauses 55 and 56 will allow discretionary licensing if a housing authority wants to extend the licensing regime to other houses in multiple occupation in certain circumstances. Clause 56(3) requires an authority introducing additional houses in multiple occupation licensing or selective licensing to adopt a co-ordinated approach to dealing with homelessness affecting the private rented sector.
This group of amendments was around when the Bill was discussed at the other end. However, as the Minister and I know, whereas here we choose to debate every amendment, down the other end they are selected and sometimes amendments fall out. The issue was raised, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Yvette Cooper, made a statement to the effect that those who became homeless unintentionally were clearly already covered by the local authority's usual obligations for support for homelessness, which include advice and assistance. As Clause 56 mentions explicitly the importance of homelessness and links it with the homelessness work of local authorities, she felt that the amendments were unnecessary.
It may be that the amendments are not quite what we need. However, local authorities must be aware of the impact of licensing on homelessness in their area. We hope that the Minister will give a commitment that the guidance accompanying the Bill will encourage councils to be proactive in working to ensure that tenants from houses in multiple occupation are prevented from being made homeless where possible and are offered the advice and assistance that they need.
It is essential that local authorities plan carefully how they introduce licensing to ensure that they have the capacity to deal with the properties that need to be improved to meet licensing requirements. Indeed, we talked about proportionality in this area earlier this evening.
Amendment No. 88 is slightly different. Again, at this stage we are probing some of the issues. I really wanted to press the Minister on the Government's intention regarding the use of references. Schedule 4 states that a licence must include conditions requiring the licence holder to demand references from persons who wish to occupy the house. Again, this was another amendment which was not debated in another place. Everyone accepts that one of the reasons for selective licensing is to prevent anti-social behaviour and that vetting tenants may be one way to do that. However, we should like the Minister to clarify exactly how he

317
sees that working out. Many of us know that some of the most vulnerable tenants end up being housed in some of the worst housing. It is always possible that some people will be excluded and have nowhere to go. So, we need to think carefully about this, and I have one or two questions to ask. What types of reference do the Government think would be sufficient? Who would be accepted as appropriate referees: employers, doctors, holders of finance records, support workers? This is important with vulnerable tenants. What is the intention of the measure? Is it to help flag up the support that some vulnerable tenants might need? If so, how can we ensure that they receive the support services they need? If vulnerable tenants cannot supply references, would that mean that there will be problems, in general, with their housing?
I hope that the Minister will accept these again as probing some of the issues that surround what is quite technical and complicated legislation. I look forward to hearing his response. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 59 imposes a general duty on local housing authorities to ensure that licensing would form part of a co-ordinated approach to dealing with the wider housing issues, including homelessness, empty properties and, indeed, antisocial behaviour in the private sector.
Amendment No. 59 is inconsistent with the intention of Clause 54, which is to require the licensing of certain categories of houses in multiple occupation by local housing authorities. Where a property falls within the scope of mandatory licensing, the local housing authority will have no option but to license it. We do not think there should be scope for the local housing authority to consider if licensing the HMO under Clause 54 would be in line with its approach to homelessness, empty properties and anti-social behaviour.
The Government have always stressed that the main reason for introducing the HMO licensing scheme is to ensure that there are adequate standards of management in HMOs and therefore provide protection for the occupants who are often the most vulnerable in the society.
Mandatory licensing is aimed at the most high-risk properties of three or more storeys and occupied by five or more persons who form more than one household. We believe that occupiers of these sorts of properties need the protection that would be provided without a doubt by licensing, which is why we have provided that they should be compulsorily licensed. The local housing authority should not have any discretion when licensing an HMO under Clause 54, which would be implied by Amendment 59.
However, we appreciate the fact that the pressure on housing is not the same in every area of the country. HMOs are not the same in every area of the country, but the general point about the safety aspect of people living in HMOs is a nationwide issue. It is therefore important that local housing authorities consider ways of co-ordinating licensing with the local housing needs
318
in the area. That is why Clauses 56(3) and 78(3) provide that in making designations for additional and selective licensing, local housing authorities take their wider housing issues such as homelessness and antisocial behaviour into consideration.
Additionally, the local housing authority is required to be satisfied that no available tool could be used to deal with the identified problem in the relevant areas without the need to resort to licensing.
Amendment No. 62 is a technical amendment. I shall not go over that as it just provides the definition.
Amendment No. 88 would have the effect of removing the requirement to demand references from a potential tenant from the mandatory conditions of a Part 3 licence and instead allow local authority discretion as to whether it attaches this condition to a licence granted under Part 3. We do not think that it is an unreasonable requirement of a landlord. Most landlords letting properties in high-demand areas already require references. While selective licensing will be applied in areas which are low demand, and accordingly have fewer potential applicants, the failure of a tenant to provide a reference or the provision of a negative reference should alert the landlord that by accepting the applicant as a tenant the landlord may need to be prepared actively to address any anti-social behaviour.
There is no reciprocal requirement that a potential tenant should supply references in response to this demand, nor does the clause specify that the reference must be derived from a previous landlord. For that reason we do not accept the contention that the request for references could exacerbate the situation of those who experience social exclusion. In any case, we are not convinced that a perception that some potential tenants might have legitimate problems in obtaining references should lead to the conclusion that landlords should be relieved of an obligation to ask for them.
The amendment, if accepted, would produce the unusual result of it being mandatory for the local authority to impose a reference condition upon selectively licensed landlords, but only if it wished to do so. It is our belief that this is an important step towards better standards of management in selectively licensed areas and it should retain its mandatory status to ensure uniformity across the country. This is a new exercise. It is not an unreasonable requirement of a landlord, because it is the norm for the vast majority of people. We are moving into a technical area of the legislation.
Amendment No. 87 is grouped on my list with those to which I have just spoken, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did not mention it because it is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I shall not respond to it because it has not been spoken to.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. The amendments were moved in a probing spirit. With regard to my Amendment No. 59, vulnerable people need protection. I was hoping that the Minister would assure us that local authorities would be made aware in guidance of the problems that

319
could occur and thereby be ready to deal with them. That is not to say that I do not think that the situation should be as the Minister described.
With regard to Amendment No. 88, it is not unreasonable that people should have to provide a reference. I asked what types of reference would be required. Perhaps that will be explained in guidance and the Minister does not know, but it would be helpful if he could look at the questions that I asked and give me an answer at some point. We may need to return to the matter.
Lord Rooker: I would be more than happy to take advice on that question and write to the noble Baroness about the kind of reference required. However, I made it clear that the reference would not necessarily be from the previous landlord. There is obviously some scope in the legislation, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness before the next stage of the Bill, so we should have plenty of time.
Baroness Maddock: That would be very helpful. As I have said, these issues have been raised with me by Shelter and others who work with homeless people. They are concerned that things could happen. In regulating houses that are not well managed or looked after, they want to ensure that we do not make people fall off the end, so to speak, as a result of our enthusiasm to deal with such housing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 87 is grouped on its own much further down the list. I am sorry that I looked slightly blank when the Minister mentioned it. It is way down the list, after Amendment No. 86.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): It may be of assistance to the Committee if I point out that Amendment No. 87 is indeed grouped on its own, in chronological order, over the page, between Amendments Nos. 86 and 89. There appears to be a typographical error in its being grouped with Amendment No. 59. It appears twice on the list and I imagine that it will be spoken to on its own in its correct place.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 36, line 37, leave out "5 years" and insert "12 months"
The noble Baroness said: I hope that Members of the Committee are not too bored by my moving amendments. I shall stop at some point. I shall be a little more brief on this amendment.
This issue was raised by members of the Local Government Association, although they would frame it in a different measure. The amendment relates to the time that landlords have to deal with category 1 hazards. As the Bill stands, landlords can have, in extremis, five years to deal with those hazards. The Local Government Association thought that they should perhaps have three years, but the one year that
320
we have specified in the amendment is in line with the wishes of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
The amendment reflects the concern that houses which are licensed by local authorities and which contain a serious category 1 hazard could, in theory, remain occupied for up to five years without any action being taken to require the removal of the hazard. I am sure that the Government do not intend that to happen and that there are caveats that the Minister can explain.
We are trying to reduce the period in which local authorities must have satisfied themselves that there is no Part 1 function to be exercised. Local councils must take action against seriously unsatisfactory living conditions, category 1 hazards and poor management. Given that we are talking about the vulnerability of clients in houses of multiple occupation, a five-year time frame is too long. A local authority should be able to assess and deal with such properties in a much shorter time.
I hope that the Government are minded to look carefully at the matter. Perhaps the Minister will convince me that somehow such circumstances will not arise very often, but it is a great concern. Despite our earlier discussion about whether people should be able to go in the middle of the night to deal with hazards, in this provision we are enabling local authorities to leave some cases for five years. I hope that the Minister will respond suitably. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: During our debate on the previous group of amendments, a comment was made about amendments in the other place. Every amendment is selected in the other place if it is in order, although it may not always be debated. We do not have such a process in this House, but we try to debate the amendments that the other place has not debated. I give advance notice that both amendments in this group were debated in the other place in Committee and on Report, so my answer should not be new. I hope that it is exactly the same as the one that my ministerial colleagues used in the other place.
As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 60 would substitute a period of one year for the five years specified in the Bill. The amendments were debated in the other place, following which we did not think that it was worth changing the period at present.
Clause 54(5)(c) makes clear that local authorities should aim to determine those matters well within the five-year maximum period. We send that signal to local authorities by the use of the words,
"as soon as reasonably practicable".
Local authorities know the properties in their areas and can decide how best to carry out this duty. They should be able to prioritise cases on the basis of information supplied to them at the time the application is made.
There should be no surprises for local authorities regarding the properties that they have. One of the most successful ways of collecting tax in this country is taxing property, because it does not move—whether it

321
be through rates or council tax, the property does not move. There are therefore no grounds for arguing that local authorities cannot make a plan to prioritise.
Due to the concentration of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in certain areas, some local authorities may not have the resources to inspect all HMOs subject to licensing within the first few years of the operation of the scheme. We would not wish to add to the burden of all local authorities by imposing a shorter period. However, we are confident that the pressure on local authorities, not least from private tenants, will be to achieve the shortest possible time-scale. It makes sense that local authorities target high-risk properties first—there should be no surprise regarding what those properties are.
If local authorities carry out their duty to consider health and safety issues diligently and as quickly as they reasonably can, category 1 hazards will be progressively eliminated from houses in multiple occupation. We expect that, for the highest-risk properties, prioritisation will ensure that that happens at the earliest opportunity.
A key purpose of licensing houses in multiple occupation is to ensure that landlords are "fit and proper" persons and follow a code of management practice that the Bill will prescribe. The other aspect of mandatory licensing will identify where the most at-risk HMOs are and ensure that they are targeted by the new housing health and safety rating system. We would all agree that, ideally, we want all properties to be properly managed and free of hazards. That is a reasonable expectation for everyone. The proposals in the Bill are a sensible attempt to get the best possible result.
9.30 p.m.
Licences will last for a maximum of five years, and it is a requirement on local authorities to consider the health and safety aspects of every house in multiple occupation as early as possible and at least during the lifetime of the licence, with priority given to high-risk properties. We expect local authorities to have the necessary resources to carry out checks on their stock within 12 months. They ought to be able to do that as it would be practicable to take the matter sensibly and literally prioritise those at high risk.
Amendment No. 61 would allow a local authority to apply to the appropriate national authority to extend the 12-month period proposed in Amendment No. 60. The local housing authority would have to demonstrate good cause why an extension is necessary. Although Amendment No. 61 would mitigate the impact of Amendment No. 60 by allowing local authorities to seek an extension of the period, that, frankly, is overly bureaucratic.
I know that we are regulating in a new area, but we genuinely want it to be as practical, least bureaucratic and light touch as practically possible. Some 20 years ago old Labour, if I can use the term, would have probably gone for a wholesale licensing of every property regardless of risk. We would have taken a
322
blunderbuss approach with lots of red tape and bureaucracy. We do not do that these days: we are a much more practical, listening Government.
Therefore, we want to have as light a touch as is consistent with making sure that we have decent safety standards for people in houses in multiple occupation. It is not sensible to ask all localising authorities that cannot meet such a shortened deadline as 12 months for assessing all HMOs in their area to make an application to the appropriate national authority. That is one less piece of red tape. I accept the reasons why the noble Baroness made this point. We think that it is better to provide that they should do so within five years of the licence, and that they will deal first with those at high risk well within a five-year period. If they do not, many local people will ask why not.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am not sure that he did not convince me even more that 12 months was the right answer. It is interesting, because the Local Government Association has been asking for it to be reduced to three years, and it is at the front end. I will look carefully at what the Minister said and consult with others. We may return to this amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 217 [Meaning of "house in multiple occupation"]:
[Amendment No. 62A not moved.]
Clause 217 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Buildings which are not HMOs (except in Part 1)]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 226, line 5, at end insert "or section (Duty of care for those having control or managing a HMO)"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 63 is grouped with Amendment No. 174. These amendments concern the duty of care on landlords of houses in multiple occupation. Amendment No. 174 introduces a general duty of care on all landlords of houses in multiple occupation, as defined by Clause 213. The duty applies to all houses in multiple occupation, including houses—such as houses owned or managed by a registered social landlord and universities—that are currently excluded from the houses in multiple occupation definition in Clause 213(2) and Schedule 11. The wording of the duty is based on the existing duty of care in the Defective Premises Act 1972 arising from defects in a property.
The amendment would ensure that landlords who breached the duty faced a criminal sanction. It would also place local housing authorities under a duty to have regard to the general duty of care when assessing health and safety conditions relating to interim management orders under Clause 99(4). In addition, by its nature as a statutory duty, ally breach of a duty of care would allow the resident of a house in multiple occupation to bring a civil action for damages and/or all injunction.
Amendment No. 63 applies to Schedule 11. It disapplies the schedule in respect of the duty of care. Can the Minister explain why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has changed its view on the duty of care in houses in multiple occupation since it consulted on this in 1999? The duty of care remedy is vital to tenants in houses in multiple occupation, especially if they wish to take their own action against their landlord to prevent risks to their health and safety, including their safety in the event of fire, which is another issue that we discussed earlier. It is also vital to prevent the Bill being a retrograde step for tenants in houses in multiple occupation who are all currently entitled to live in homes that meet the fire safety standards in Part XI of the Housing Act 1985, which this Bill repeals.
There has been extensive discussion on this in another place, but without the proposed amendments many tenants in houses in multiple occupation will have no remedy with which to take direct action against their landlord in order to prevent risk to their health and safety, particularly in the event of fire. That is particularly true for tenants in houses in multiple occupation that are managed by local housing authorities, social landlords and universities.
As I said, the Bill is a retrograde step. It goes back on the duty of care that exists. I hope that the Minister can explain precisely why the Government are doing that. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The meat of this group of amendments is built around Amendment No. 174. Amendment No. 63 is technical and consequential.
Amendment No. 174 inserts a new clause after Clause 128 that would impose a duty of care on landlords of houses in multiple occupation to require them to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the occupiers of the HMO were reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. It is not at all clear in subsection (1) of the new clause what the duty of care is in respect of. Is it in respect of management failures that could give rise to injury or damage? Is it concerned with the structure or physical characteristics of the HMO in question? Is it both of those, or is it intended to impose a criminal liability in respect of any act of negligence?
The vagueness of this provision, which is open to wide interpretation but could nevertheless result in landlords being prosecuted for breach of a duty of care—the nature of which they could not possibly ascertain in advance—is one reason why I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. But the amendment is also unnecessary and would impose a criminal sanction where a civil remedy is already available. By and large, it is civil remedies that work well in housing legislation.
I am referring to the Defective Premises Act 1972 that applies to all residential premises, including HMOs, where the landlord is under an obligation to maintain or repair those premises. Under Section 4, a
324
landlord is under a duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that occupiers and visitors are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect. A relevant defect is defined as being one for which a landlord is responsible because of his or her obligation to repair that defect.
I would also remind noble Lords that under the provision in Part 1, local housing authorities will be under a duty to take enforcement action in respect of all residential property, including HMOs, which are in such a condition that they pose a risk to the health and safety of the occupiers.
The current HMO management regulations—the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990—apply to all houses occupied by persons who do not form a single household. Paragraph 13 of those regulations places a duty on HMO managers to ensure that adequate precautions are taken to prevent injury to residents arising by reason of the design or structural conditions of the HMO. It is the Government's intention to re-enact this provision in the new management regulations to be made under Clause 198. This will apply to all HMOs as defined in the Bill other than those listed in Schedule 11. I think that that probably answers the question posed by the noble Baroness during her contribution about our view on the duty of care remedy.
Paragraph 13 itself imposes a public law duty on the manager because most residents of traditional HMOs will not in practice have recourse to their private law rights to sue their landlord for breach of his statutory duty under Section 4. They may fear retaliatory action, such as eviction, if they do so. That is why we accept that it is necessary to retain this provision to protect those persons. I think that we are probably at one on that point.
However, I find it difficult to agree with the notion that a public law duty should be imposed for every type of HMO, which subsection (5)(a) would create by including those HMOs listed in Schedule 11 within the scope of the duty. Public sector tenants such as those occupying local authority or registered social landlord housing have in general security of tenure and do not risk being evicted because they sue their landlords for breach of statutory duty. Moreover, public sector landlords are controlled by the legal requirement that they act reasonably. Other landlords listed in Schedule 11, such as universities as well as public sector landlords, have a formal complaints procedure to deal with housing condition disputes.
If matters are unresolved, there are procedures to complain to an ombudsman or adjudicator. None of this is available to private tenants living in traditional HMOs. Furthermore, what is proposed will impose a duty of care on freeholders to their long leaseholders if Schedule 11 HMOs were to be included. That duty would not simply be a civil one, which a freeholder does not have to his leaseholder, but one backed by criminal penalties. Perhaps that is not the intention of

325
the amendment, but it would be its consequence. Perhaps the noble Baroness will take on board that point.
We think that we have got it right, although I certainly understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. However, I hope that I have answered her points in my lengthy explanation and that the major issue has been satisfied.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. I know that Ministers do this all the time, but given the lateness of the hour and the number of amendments I have moved consecutively, I shall have to read carefully what he has said. I am still concerned that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has changed its mind on this matter. I did mention the 1999 consultation when moving the amendment. It concluded that powers under housing legislation to deal with multi-occupancy problems were necessary and should run in parallel with the licensing scheme. Indeed, when the draft housing Bill was published in July 2003, the Select Committee that deals with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recommended that landlords should be given a duty of care to maintain their properties to certain standards and conditions in order to protect the health and safety of occupiers, and that the Government should consider how the enforcement regime could be framed to give effect to such a duty.
The Minister has answered some of my questions, but I shall first read carefully all he has said. It may be that I shall need to put further questions to him when we reach the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 226, line 31, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 64 is concerned particularly with university halls of residence. I am aware that Universities UK does not like it very much, and I am sure that many noble Lords have received that information.
As we discussed, Clause 217(5) excludes certain categories of property from the meaning of "house in multiple occupation". Originally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister favoured a much broader definition but, since that time, the universities have obviously persuaded the Government that they should not come under the scheme. However, a number of people have expressed concern about the issue, and I hope that the Government will look at it again. Halls of residence are not covered and, although the Minister in another place said that he did not believe that they should be covered, if we are not going to cover them we will need to look at a way of ensuring that standards of management and so on are adhered to. So, in a sense, I am again raising the issue.
For many young students, the move to university is their first experience of independent living, and yet local authorities and student unions have frequently expressed concerns that university accommodation is often poor and even dangerous. I speak from the experience of having had a daughter at university in Cambridge in one of the old colleges, some of which have among the worst accommodation. She was accommodated on the top floor, and I am not quite sure how she would have got out in the event of fire. I do not think there was even a smoke alarm. We need to address the problem. If such accommodation is not licensed in the same way as houses in multiple occupation, we need to ensure that there are reasonable standards.
I have received a great deal of briefing but, given the time of night, I have probably said enough to give a flavour of why we should address the issue. As I have said, I do not insist on the same regime as that applying to houses in multiple occupation, but we cannot afford to ignore it. We need to have something in the Bill to ensure good management and safety.
Another area of concern is that, as with many other organisations, the universities are now using people in the private sector to take over and manage property; the universities are not doing it themselves. I am aware that the universities are worried about the costs, particularly if they go in for this kind of licensing. It is a problem that we need to address.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the amendment in the spirit in which I tabled it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, addressed herself to paragraph 4(b); I should like to touch on paragraph 4(a) because I am sitting on two sides of a coin here—heads and tails. The heads relates to university accommodation which is privately owned but which is not accommodation such as a hall of residence. Most students live in houses in which they rent a room; or several rent a house and move in together.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I have had children who were students at university, and I know the standard of some of the accommodation. I worry slightly whether it is intended to remove from the Bill the kind of accommodation where someone owns 10 or 15 houses and lets them out to 250 students; where the management is zilch and the ability of students to get hold of anyone is non-existent.
The other side of the coin relates to whether paragraph 4(a) covers the kind of accommodation to which I referred previously, where the parents buy a flat and, presumably, then put themselves in the position of being a landlord to other students if they let them out. Would they be exempted under paragraph 4(a), or would they be caught under other parts of the Bill? That is important, because that accommodation is often extremely good and is let by rather kind-hearted people, who take no advantage of students but make it possible for students to live as tenants of other students or of their parents.

327
Neither part of the proposal has been explained entirely. I worry about the standards of some student accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may know from his experience in Brighton of similar problems.
Earl Russell: The amendment draws attention to the fact that the interface between housing law and university housing, like Topsy, has grown—and has done so in a somewhat illogical way. In relation to multiple occupation, universities are outside the system of controls; but in relation to rents, under the Housing Act 1988, universities are inside it. It is possible to argue that that is back to front. Whether one accepts that argument or not, it is about time that someone considered the problem in the round and saw whether they could come up with a logical solution.
The question of houses in multiple occupation is one that I have not seen any need for in times past, but it could well be different in a situation of rapid expansion, which I am told is to come. The expansion in the reign of Elizabeth I, although my wife has persuaded me that it was on a much smaller scale than hitherto supposed, led to considerable tension in student housing: overcrowding, unsuitable accommodation in lofts, lack of ventilation and lack of space. The pressure is obvious, especially if the income depends on packing in more and more students like sardines. If university policy goes on in this way, it may be that there will be a need for this amendment that has not yet occurred.
On the other hand, with rents, one gets a quite different picture. Under the Housing Act 1988, it is absolutely forbidden for universities to subsidise the rent of their halls of residence. The Government thought that they were council houses—this was at the height of Thatcherite dominance. The result is that they must by law charge market rents.
My own college, King's College, London, has a central London site, with a few halls that are suitably close to the college, but those halls must charge central London rents. There is one place where the rents that the students are charged amount to more than the whole of the student loan. The college takes a great deal of flak for that—absolutely unfairly because, legally, the college has no choice in the matter. I have explained that to students year after year, but I cannot get it home to them.
The one issue needs to be looked at with the other, and I hope that we may come up with a somewhat more rational solution than the one we have at present. What we have is a mishmash, for which I can see no possible logical justification. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This discussion has been valuable, because it enables the Government from their perspective to clarify how we see the situation operating with regard to HMOs and student accommodation.
328
Amendment No. 64 would remove from the HMO exemption, as provided in dear old Schedule 11, properties managed or controlled by universities and occupied by their students. I should make it clear from the off that paragraph 4, which the amendment proposes to remove, does not provide a blanket exemption from the definition, and thus the HMO-specific regulation provided for in the Bill. Indeed, universities and for that matter other providers of student accommodation will be exempted only if they are specified in regulations made under that paragraph. Even if a university has been exempted by regulation and standards subsequently fall below what is acceptable for the management of a house in multiple occupation, the regulation can be revoked, and the statutory provisions will then apply.
At this point I shall deal with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about whether private landlords of students—which is effectively what a parent would be—are exempted under Paragraph 4(1)(a). I have reread the way in which that works and taken some more advice on it and the answer is no. Both Paragraphs 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) must be satisfied. The word "and" is the clue.
To deal with the issue at large, at present the Government do not want to impose statutory regulation on universities and other educational institutions. We do not believe that it is necessary and we do not want to place unnecessary burdens on these bodies, the cost of which will ultimately be passed on to the students. Universities are, by and large, responsible bodies and take the health, safety and welfare of their students very seriously, whether in the lecture hall or in accommodation on or off campus. Where a student has a complaint about accommodation, it should be addressed to the university in the first instance and, if not promptly resolved, the matter can be referred to the independent university complaints adjudicator. It is worth reminding the Committee that that facility is not available to all private tenants. They do not have recourse to that form of intervention.
We are aware of the recent National Union of Students campaign highlighting the difficulties that some students in England and Wales have experienced in relation to their accommodation in some halls of residence. We are not convinced that HMO regulation is a solution to those problems. For a start, there is little indication of the scale of the problems, most of which appear to be about physical conditions. Those are issues that can be addressed through Part 1 of the Bill—the health and safety rating system applies to all residential property—and could not in any case be dealt with through licensing of other HMO forms of regulation. If students have grounds for complaint on management issues, they ought to take them to the university authorities in the first instance and thereafter to the complaints ombudsman.

329
The Government are not persuaded that there is a sufficiently strong case for statutory regulation of university-managed accommodation. That goes back to the points I made when we initiated the debate on HMOs about focusing and targeting the effect of licensing on those properties that are most likely to be in the worst condition and to be used by the most vulnerable.
It is worth saying a bit more about this. First, the Government do not intend to exclude other providers, even specialist providers of accommodation, from HMO regulation. Secondly, on Report in the other place, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning brought forward an important amendment to provide that only university-managed or controlled accommodation was exempted from the definition, as opposed to university-owned accommodation. That was in response to concerns that in some cases universities were letting halls out on long leases and transferring the management to the lessee. The amendment puts beyond doubt that the property will be exempted by Schedule 11 only if the university receives the rent from the student tenants, whether or not through an agent.
The Local Government Association and Universities UK have also agreed to set up a project to review best practice in the management of student accommodation in the context of the wider community. Universities UK is also looking into the feasibility of a national approved code of practice for the management of student housing provided by universities. These are positive initiatives. In a sense, they will provide us with what we want. We had some discussion yesterday, I think, about concordat, best practice and working voluntarily as part of partnerships to ensure that we raise standards. That is where the LGA and Universities UK are coming from. I think that that is the best way to deal longer term with issues relating to the physical conditions of buildings.
We understand and appreciate the problem. We are grateful to the National Union of Students for the research it has undertaken and for raising the issue in this way. We do not think that by extending the HMO regime in the way suggested in the amendment is the best way of tackling and dealing with the problem. We think that there are other more appropriate ways of dealing with it and other more appropriate remedies.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised other issues which are a little wide of the matter that we are discussing and related more to rents and rent levels. One has every sympathy with students and parents who provide for them. I suspect that I shall probably fall into that category in the not-too-distant future—I shall apply an advance warning in that regard—so one well understands some of the dilemmas that are faced by students and their parents, when the former live in areas where rents are high. That said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I appreciate that he was entirely unprovided with any warning of the point about the Housing Act 1988. This morning I did not know that I was going to make it myself. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could take it away and think about it because it is causing quite considerable hardship.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I heard what the noble Earl said. I am grateful to him for bringing the point before the Committee. We shall read carefully what he said and reflect on it.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. It is particularly helpful to hear of the steps being taken by the Local Government Association and Universities UK in considering some kind of national code. However, I remain concerned, particularly about fire. With regard to what I said about my daughter, I remember that the way out three floors up was via a rope ladder. The rope ladder was in the kitchen and that was how she got out. However, I did not mention the relevant university.
The Minister did not mention the scale of the problem. I am not sure that we have considered carefully facts and figures regarding the scale of the problem. I hope that Universities UK and the Local Government Association will give us some idea of its scale. One of the pieces of information that came my way when I prepared for the debate was quite frightening. Manchester University owns and manages about 50 halls of residence that are HMOs around the city. The majority of them are purpose built, are at least three storeys high and go back some 50 years. In 1997, in preparation for using this accommodation for the Commonwealth Games, the local authority undertook a comprehensive inspection programme and discovered large-scale disrepair and that much of it related to the management of fire safety precautions.
I recognise that that is a difficult matter as when I was a student young men delighted in getting out the hoses. The disrepair included inadequate or missing fire alarms and the replacement of fire doors with inadequate alternatives. There is an issue here. I shall read what the Minister has said and hope that the situation will improve. The Minister said that where standards fall below the required level for exemption, action would be taken. However, it is not clear to me how the statutory provisions will kick in. I may have more questions at another stage but given the lateness of the hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment to Lords amendments consequential on Commons amendments agreed to without amendment.
Energy Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with an amendment to a Commons amendment and amendments made to words so restored to the Bill agreed to without amendment.

Draft Mental Health Bill
A message was brought from the Commons, that they concur with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be
332
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 shall report on the draft Bill by 31 March 2005; and have ordered:
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; and

That the quorum of the committee shall be two.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.

  Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Teams
  Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Teams
  Armed Forces: Deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan
  Armed Forces: Deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan
  Universities: Japanese and Chinese Studies
  Universities: Japanese and Chinese Studies
  Higher Education: Diploma Supplement
  Higher Education: Diploma Supplement
  Higher Education: Erasmus Mundus
  Higher Education: Erasmus Mundus
  Local Authority Building Control Departments
  Local Authority Building Control Departments
  Focus Groups
  Focus Groups
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  UK Olympic Medals
  UK Olympic Medals
  Women's Cricket
  Women's Cricket
  Playing Fields: Planning Applications
  Playing Fields: Planning Applications
  School Sport
  School Sport
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Sport: Priority Groups
  Sport: Priority Groups
  Paralympics
  Paralympics
  Athletics: World Class Performance Funding
  Athletics: World Class Performance Funding
  Athletics Commission
  Athletics Commission
  Sport: National Governing Bodies
  Sport: National Governing Bodies
  Endangered Species: Imports
  Endangered Species: Imports
  European Parliamentary Elections
  European Parliamentary Elections
  Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria
  Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria
  A27
  A27
  Segway Human Transporter
  Segway Human Transporter

  Public Bills: Exchanges Between the Houses
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  On 11 May I moved a Motion, "That it is desirable to vary the normal practice of the House when considering Commons reasons and amendments, whereby no further consideration of a Bill can take place in the event that

  (i) the Lords insists on an amendment;

  (ii) the Commons insists on its disagreement to that amendment; and

  (iii) neither House has offered alternative proposals;

  to allow the House to consider the Commons reason and amendment to the [Planning and Compulsory Purchase] Bill".

  This Motion was necessary because, in the final stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, it appeared that, unintentionally, a "double insistence" had been reached on one Lords amendment. In moving this Motion, I stated that "I have invited the Clerks of both Houses and Parliamentary Counsel to consider jointly the lessons learnt from this episode and how best to avoid such a situation in the future. In particular, they will look at the practice of considering amendments in the other House in groups or packages and the procedural consequences which can follow". I undertook to report back to the House. This Statement fulfils that undertaking. Following consideration by a working group of Clerks and Parliamentary Counsel, the Clerks of both Houses have agreed the following statement of position:

  Before a Bill can become an Act of Parliament, the two Houses have to agree on the text. The procedure for reaching agreement appears simple in concept, but can become extremely complicated in practice because of the political context. It may involve, for example, one House having to back away from an entrenched position.

  Following Third Reading and passing of the Bill in the second House, a list of amendments made by that House is compiled and sent back to the first House for their consideration. If the first House agrees to all of the amendments made in the second House, the Bill is ready for Royal Assent. If it does not, it returns the Bill to the second House, with reasons for disagreeing to the amendments, and/or with further amendments. The second House then considers the reasons and amendments offered by the first House. The exchanges between the two Houses continue until

  (a) agreement is reached, or

  (b) the Session is brought to an end, without agreement having been reached, or

  (c) "double insistence" is reached, which normally results in the Bill being lost.

  WS 20
  The term "double insistence" is used to describe a situation where one House insists on an amendment to which the other has disagreed, and the other House insists on its disagreement. If this point is reached, and neither House has offered alternatives, the Bill is lost. This doctrine is set out in Erskine May, 23rd edition, page 639, which, however, goes on to say "there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save the Bill, some variation in the proceedings maybe devised in order to effect this object".

  In the case of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, two amendments (Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 3) were still under discussion in the final exchanges between the two Houses. In the Commons, the two amendments were treated as forming a package, and a single amendment (1C) was considered by the Commons to be an amendment in lieu of both Lords amendments. But the reason given for disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 3 made no mention of the link between Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 3. Accordingly, the Lords Clerks advised that double insistence had been reached on Amendment No. 3, and they advised the Government that it would be necessary to move a Motion to vary the normal practice of the House, and thus allow further consideration of the Bill. A Motion was agreed to on 11 May.

  We have been asked to consider the lessons which can be learnt from these exchanges.

  By way of background, we note that the speed and complexity of exchanges between the two Houses has increased markedly in recent years. This is due partly to political circumstances, and partly to technical advances in text handling, which have made possible extremely rapid turnaround of Bills. Increased speed inevitably carries the risk of misunderstanding or error, and reduces the time available for consideration of the possible consequences of each House's decisions.

  Particularly in the Commons, the practice has developed of packaging and grouping amendments during these final stages1. Packaging and grouping are useful ways of signalling perceived connections between amendments. But these are techniques for organising debate within each House: neither House can be expected either to discover, or to feel bound to follow, arrangements made by the other for the consideration of amendments. Messages between the two Houses, and reasons for disagreement, are ways of communicating perceived connections between amendments, but these in turn depend upon the terms of the Motions in each House. We consider that the wording of Motions could be improved, in order to make clearer the links between the different elements of a "package" of amendments. We also think that the wording should be improved, in order to make the action of one House clearer to the other and, where necessary, to identify any package.

  1 In this note, "grouping" refers to the practice (in both Houses) whereby related amendments are debated together, but the fate of individual amendments in the group is decided separately. "Packaging" refers to the practice (currently used only in the House of Commons), in the final stages of a Bill's passage, where a number of related amendments may be grouped together for the purposes of both debate and decision. So, for example, a motion on a "package" might invite the House to agree to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to a Bill, in lieu of Lords Amendments 42 to 44 and 61.
  WS 21
  As an example, in a case where one House insists on disagreement to more than one amendment and offers an alternative only to one, intending that single alternative to encourage the other House to reconsider all the relevant amendments, the most certain way of avoiding the need in future for a Motion disapplying the double insistence rule will be to ensure that a single Motion to disagree is laid before the House along the lines of "that this House insists on its disagreement to Amendments Nos. 1,2 and 3 but proposes the following amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 1". The other House will then be able to identify the group of amendments as a package.

  We are in agreement that in such a case the resultant message to the other House would not amount to a double insistence, whether or not the House receiving it chose to "unpackage" the amendments for the purposes of debate.

  From a practical point of view, we consider that the packaging of amendments has advantages, and that there could be benefits from bringing the practices of the two Houses more closely together in this respect. With this in mind, the Clerk of the Parliaments will invite the Lords Procedure Committee to consider changes to the practice of the House, to allow more flexibility in dealing with Commons amendments which have been packaged.

  Although, in many cases, it is likely that the two Houses will be prepared to consider as a whole a package of amendments which has been received from the other House, there will be other cases when either House may wish to consider the elements of a package separately for political reasons. It is not the purpose of procedure to provide political solutions, but rather to facilitate the consideration of options. Each House remains the master of its own procedures, and where there is disagreement about packaging, it will be possible, as at present, for the other House to consider amendments separately to the extent desired".

  Gender Equality Strategy
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I wish to advise the House that on 14 August 2004, I will announce a public consultation exercise in respect of a proposed gender equality strategy, the Government's high-level policy for tackling gender inequalities in Northern Ireland.

  This consultation follows our fulfilment of a commitment given by the previous Northern Ireland Executive, in its Programme for Government (2001–04) to bringing forward and implementing a cross-departmental strategy to tackle gender inequalities.

  Copies of the Consultation Paper Gender Matters—Towards a Goss Departmental Strategic Framework to Promote Gender Equality for Women and Men 2005–2015 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland: Corporate Plan and Business Plans
  Baroness Amos
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I have today arranged for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland corporate plan 2004–07 and business plan 2004–05 document to be placed in the House Libraries. This document will also be made available on the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland website at www.osni.gov.uk.

  Invest Northern Ireland: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Baroness Amos
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  The annual report and accounts of Invest Northern Ireland for the financial year ending 31 March 2003 were deposited in the Libraries of the House today.

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland: Accounts 2001–02
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  The 2001–02 accounts of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 21 July 2004.

  Northern Ireland: Insolvency Service Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Baroness Amos
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  In accordance with Articles 372 and 358(4) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 copies of the Insolvency Service annual report and accounts for year ending 31 March 2003 have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Tourism Ireland
  Baroness Amos
  I have today placed in the Library papers relating to decisions that have been taken during the period 1 October 2003 to 5 July 2004 which relate to the North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd under the terms of the Exchange of Notes of 19 November 2002 (Cmnd 5708).

  Military Low Flying
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK low flying system (UKLFS) during the training year April 2003 to March 2004 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. The number of low flying training hours booked in the UKLFS (excluding the rotary wing dedicated user areas, where different booking arrangements apply) decreased by 1,996 hours, in comparison with the previous training year.

  We are committed to ensuring that low flying training is spread as widely as is practically possible across the UK so that no single area is too burdened. However, due to a variety of reasons, population distribution and geographical and climate restrictions, it is unavoidable that some areas of the country may experience more activity than others.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a report giving a detailed account of the low flying training that has taken place in the UK low flying system for the training year April 2003 to March 2004. The report is also available on the MoD website: www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying.

  Defence Housing Overseas
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Last year, the Ministry of Defence carried out a business process review of the management and delivery of defence housing. The review recommended merger between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive, the agency responsible for the management and delivery of defence family housing in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland or abroad. As phase 2 of the study, following the above merger, a further review is being undertaken of the management and delivery of family housing for UK forces overseas and in Northern Ireland.

  The aim of the review is to examine the function, role, operation, funding and organisation of defence housing in Northern Ireland and overseas. It will seek to identify the most efficient and effective process to support the management and delivery of defence housing in those areas.

  The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including single-Service customers, trade unions, other government departments and other relevant bodies. The Ministry of Defence is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those
  WS 24
  Wishing to do so should send their contribution by 31 August 2004 to:

  Review Team for the Management and Delivery of Defence Housing Overseas

  Ministry of Defence

  Directorate of Management and Consultancy Services

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  SW1A 2HB

  Or by e-mail to pat.rodger614@mod.uk.

  I will advise Parliament of the outcome of this consultation and of any final decisions that are reached.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The following key targets have been set for the Duke of York's Royal Military School for financial year 2004–05.

  1. To achieve an average GCSE points score per 15 year-old pupil of 61.

  2. To achieve 90 per cent of 15 year-old pupils gaining five or more passes graded A* to C at GCSE.

  3. To achieve 30 per cent of GCSE passes at grades A* or A.

  4. To achieve an average GCE points score per candidate of 268.

  5. To achieve 35 per cent of GCE passes at grades A or B.

  6. To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,545.

  7. To generate income of at least £800,000.

  8. To achieve at least 310 applications for September 2004 intake.

  Armed Forces' Pay Review Body
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce that I have reappointed Dr Anne Wright as a member of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body for a second three-year term, commencing March 2005. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to public bodies.

  Woolwich Station
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence ( Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  A review has been undertaken of the defence requirement for the retention of Woolwich station. The review took account of our future ground-based air defence requirements, of the strategy for the rationalisation of the defence estate and of the recommendations of the Lyons review. It has concluded that the Ministry of Defence should relocate units currently based in Woolwich to sites yet to be decided. This will allow the Woolwich site to be made available for non-defence use. Further work is now needed on implementing this decision. All personnel affected have today been advised of our intention and they and their union representatives will be consulted fully as our plans develop.

  Project ISOLUS
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 4 February 2004 I informed the House of Commons that Ministry of Defence-owned coastal sites were being considered for their suitability to store radioactive material from nuclear-powered submarines under Project ISOLUS. That exercise is now complete and one site, the Royal Armaments Depot (RNAD) at Coulport in Dumbartonshire, has been found suitable in principle. One of the industry bidders, SERCO Assurance, in partnership with Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd and RWE Nukem Ltd, is seeking to use an MoD site in its proposal and will now be asked if it wishes to incorporate Coulport into its bid, as will the other bidders.

  I want to make it clear that this does not mean that Coulport has been selected as the storage location—there is still much work to be done before a final decision is made. Nor does it mean that industry has to incorporate the site in any bid. It does, however, mean that those other coastal sites included in the review, some of which have been the subject of considerable speculation, have been assessed as unsuitable and are not storage options.

  Coulport has, of course, previously been named in an industry bid, and is one of the sites on which we consulted the public last year. I do not envisage setting in train further consultation at this stage. If, however, any of the proposals from industry change in substance as a result of the inclusion of Coulport we will instigate a further public consultation exercise. As at all stages of the ISOLUS process, safety, in terms of the general public, the workforce and the environment, will be a key factor in all of our decisions. The concerns expressed by the public during the events at the various sites named in each of the industry bids have been captured by
  WS 26
  the 50 recommendations contained in the Lancaster University report on the consultation exercise. These recommendations are currently being considered and, following consultation with other government departments and devolved administrations, a government response will be published later this year.

  The exercise to identify potential MoD sites has concentrated on those by the coast in view of the current preferred option of land storage of cut out intact reactor compartments. One hundred and eighteen sites were assessed against the following criteria: sufficient spare capacity to accommodate a storage facility; long-term security of tenure; development of a storage facility that is feasible and cost-effective, would not breach existing agreements with MoD, NATO or other countries, and would not inhibit the site's current principal operational function; access from the sea, capable of accepting heavy loads; and no safety hazard, such as flooding, coastal erosion and whether the site is used for handling and storing explosives, or where unexploded ordnance has been identified, for which there is no cost-effective engineering solution.

  In parallel with the detailed consideration of the outcome of the public consultation, and informed by the recommendations flowing from it, evaluation of the various industry outline proposals will be completed. We expect to be able to announce early next year how the project will be taken forward. Moreover, the Government remain committed to a further round of public consultation before any final decisions are taken.

  Quick Reaction Alert Aircraft
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 23 April 2004 (Official Report, cols. 30–31WS) my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that Typhoon aircraft would be based at RAF Coningsby, FAR Leeming and RAF Leuchars. I have now decided that RAF Leuchars will be the second Typhoon base after RAF Coningsby. This is in order to meet the requirement for quick reaction alert (interceptor) aircraft cover for the UK. RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars are already established as bases for this purpose, which will continue after Typhoon is introduced.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual report and accounts have been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Medicines Commission and Medicines Act Advisory Bodies: Annual Reports 2003
  Lord Warner
  We have received the annual report of the Medicines Commission and Medicines Act advisory bodies for 2003, which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 2003 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Independent Review Panel on Advertising, the Independent Panel for Borderline Products and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970: Section 22 Report
  Lord Warner
  My honourable Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Community has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The annual report for 2003 is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The report covers research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any government department in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled people.

  The current report places such research in the context of the National Health Service improvement plan, and outlines the role of assistive technology in making independent living easier for older people and people with disabilities. The report describes the wide range of government-funded projects supporting the development, introduction and evaluation of assistive technology.

  NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  I have approved the National Health Service Pensions Agency annual report and accounts for 2003–04, which have today been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Lord Warner
  We have received the annual report and accounts of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for 2003–04 which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Lord Warner
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The 2003–04 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service were laid before Parliament today.

  Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not take place for another 6 to 9 weeks, pending preparation of a version in the Welsh language, as required by the Welsh Language Act.

  Health Service Bodies: Accounts 2003–04
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr John Hutton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  For the health service bodies listed as follows, their annual accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General reports have today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to Section 98(1C) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Dental Practice Board

  Dental Vocational Training Authority

  Family Health Services Appeal Authority

  Health Development Agency

  Health Protection Agency

  National Blood Authority

  National Clinical Assessment Authority

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence

  National Patient Safety Agency

  National Treatment Agency

  NHS Appointments Commission

  NHS Information Authority

  NHS Litigation Authority

  NHS Logistics Authority

  NHSU

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  Retained Organs Commission

  UK Transplant

  Health and Social Care Standards: Planning Framework 2005–08
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has tabled the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  I am publishing today National Standards, Local Action: Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework 2005–06–2007–08, incorporating Standards for Better Health. This will support the National Health Service and social care in taking forward the agenda set out in the NHS Improvement Plan, setting out a framework for continuing quality improvement.

  Much progress has already been made across the NHS. Waiting times are falling, mortality rates for the major diseases are down and there are more NHS staff treating NHS patients. The development of clinical governance, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the publication of national service frameworks and the establishment of independent inspectorates for health and for social care have set a framework for safe, high-quality care. This is underpinned by the NHS Improvement Plan, which sets out a programme for further progress and clear improvements in health outcomes and patient care.

  Standards for Better Health and National Standards, Local Action together set out a new approach that will deliver this agenda, with reduced national targets underpinned by robust standards to drive up quality and safety. NHS patients are entitled to care that is safe and effective and Standards for Better Health sets out the standards that all providers and commissioners of NHS care are expected to meet to deliver safe and effective care.

  The standards-driven approach set out in these two documents establishes an integrated framework for performance improvement, setting the parameters for local plans and targets, independent inspection by the Healthcare Commission and CSCI and performance assessment and ratings.

  Standards for Better Health is published by the Secretary of State for Health under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. Standards for Better Health follows a formal consultation on draft proposals in the spring and defines standards covering the full spectrum of healthcare from public health through to acute care, which have been developed with two principal objectives. First, they include a set of core standards which provide a common set of requirements applying across all healthcare organisations to ensure that the health services that are provided are both safe and of an acceptable quality.

  Secondly, there is a set of developmental standards providing a framework for continuous improvement in the overall quality of care people receive. Setting developmental standards in this way ensures that the extra resources being directed to the NHS are used to help to raise the level of performance measurably year on year.
  WS 30
  Standards for Better Health will apply with immediate effect to all healthcare organisations in England, including NHS foundation trusts. All those providing or commissioning NHS healthcare in England will have to take them into account when planning or commissioning healthcare services.

  The Healthcare Commission will measure performance against the standards and take progress against national and local targets developed in line with National Standards, Local Action into account in its annual reviews and assessments of healthcare by (and for) each NHS body in England, including NHS foundation trusts. By delivering on targets that relate directly to healthcare standards, NHS bodies will be able to demonstrate to the commission that they are performing well against those standards.

  In Standards for Better Health, for the first time the Government are setting out a comprehensive statement of the standards that NHS bodies and providers of NHS care are expected to meet. Standards for Better Health will act as a key driver for quality improvement throughout the NHS, but one aim has been to clarify and to reduce the large number of requirements and standards that have in the past been set centrally, either directly from the department itself or by its arm's length bodies. Some of the department's own standards and requirements are currently under review and the review of arm's length bodies will provide an opportunity to change some of the requirements that they currently impose.

  The development of the new high-level standards represents the first step toward simplifying and rationalising the expectations on the service. Taken alongside the reduced requirements in National Standards, Local Action this will give organisations greater flexibility for local innovation, underpinned by a strong focus on safe, effective healthcare and improvements in the outcomes that matter most for patients and service users driving forward the programme set out in the NHS Improvement Plan.

  Copies of National Standards, Local Action have been placed in the Library.

  Building Regulations
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today published two consultation documents. The first of these covers our proposals for amending the building regulations energy efficiency provisions (Part L) and implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). The second describes our proposals for amending the guidance in Approved Document F that supports Part F, Ventilation, of the building regulations. Both consultation documents contain draft regulatory impact assessments.
  WS 31
  Driving up the energy efficiency of our buildings is critical to our success in achieving the carbon emission reduction targets in the energy White Paper and our energy efficiency action plan and will contribute to our goals for developing more sustainable communities.

  Raising performance standards and introducing requirements for efficiency in the use of boilers and air conditioning systems will not only make a difference in the drive to tackle climate change, they will also help to create warmer, healthier homes and more comfortable and productive workplaces.

  The proposals for building energy performance certification requirements will enable prospective purchasers and tenants to be more aware of energy performance whenever buildings are constructed, sold or rented out.

  Energy used in buildings is responsible for roughly half the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. Wasting energy costs money whereas measures such as loft insulation, boiler replacements and more effective controls often pay for themselves within a few years.

  One of the cornerstones of saving energy is to make building structures more airtight to minimise heating or cooling energy losses due to air leaking through gaps in the structure. This is addressed in the amendments to Part L. However, it is also essential to ensure there is sufficient controlled ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality to protect the health of the building's occupants. This is one of the roles of Part F, and is why Approved Document F has been revised in conjunction with Part L.

  The guidance on ventilation systems has been expanded to cover more options, and changed from a prescriptive to a performance-based approach that should encourage innovation.

  A new section in the proposed guidance deals with the design of smoking rooms in workplaces. The new edition of the approved document will also take into account the commitments made in the public health White Paper to be published later this year.

  The consultation documents will be sent to several hundred organisations that have an interest in the energy efficiency of buildings and/or ventilation. Paper copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords, and the text can be downloaded from the ODPM website.

  The consultation period for both sets of proposals closes on Friday 22 October 2004. Following this my officials will work with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider how the proposals might need to be modified to take account of the opinions expressed in the consultations, and (for Part F) the commitments that may be made in the public health White Paper. I am aiming, however, to lay the legislation needed to implement the directive and amend the building regulations and approved documents by July next year, and to achieve our goal of bringing them into effect by the end of December 2005.

  Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  This Statement is being made on a joint basis, together with my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families, the Department for Education and Skills, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Women and Equality, the Department for Trade and Industry.

  I am pleased to report that consultation document Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities (Cm 6273) is today being presented to Parliament.

  Parental separation affects many children and their families. When handled well the adverse impact on their children can be minimised. When things go badly the effects can be very damaging for children, both in the short and longer terms. These risks can be reduced if parents can resolve parenting issues in an amicable fashion. Because of social changes, more children experience parental relationship breakdown than a generation ago: 150,000 to 200,000 parental couples separate each year. In addition, fathers are, in general, more actively involved in caring for and helping to raise their children.

  Currently, only 10 per cent of separating couples with children have had their contact arrangements ordered by the courts, though the number of court applications for contact is rising each year, with the courts in England and Wales making 67,000 contact orders last year. The majority of applications are made by fathers, reflecting the fact that most children live with their mothers following separation.

  I am clear that there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which the family justice system, together with its associated services, deal with contact disputes. This view is widely shared among judges, legal practitioners and voluntary organisations. Some fathers' groups assert that the courts and the law are biased against them. I do not accept this view. However, what I do accept is that major changes are needed, in order to ensure that court and other interventions into family life become much more effective in helping to secure effective resolutions which are in the interests of the child. I strongly believe that in most cases it is very much in the interests of the child to have an on-going relationship with both parents. By improving the system, the Government can make their proper contribution to enabling more non-resident parents to enjoy meaningful ongoing relationships with their children.

  Following the most careful consideration across government, we have determined that it would not be helpful, in any practical sense, to revise the principles that currently underpin the central piece of legislation—the Children Act 1989, in particular, the "paramountcy" principle, which makes the child's welfare the court's first consideration. This primary legislation, as interpreted and defined by the case law, already makes clear that

  WS 33
  both parents are equal and that both should continue to have a meaningful relationship with their children after parental separation, so long as it is safe. We fully accept that we need to make changes to the current system, and to support parents in settling their disputes, by providing more effective help for them to do so.

  This consultation document puts forward proposals which are intended to help those undergoing parental separation to resolve their disputes more effectively so that children's needs are better met. They are based on the recognition that the primary responsibility for caring for children rests with parents rather than with the state. Their aims are three-fold. First, they aim to minimise conflict and support good outcomes, both for children and their parents, preferably without recourse to the courts. Secondly, they aim to improve parental access to those services which can enable them to reach agreements. Thirdly, they aim to improve legal processes and service delivery for those who do go to court. While most of our proposals are focused on the 10 per cent of parents who turn to the courts, a number of them are intended to be relevant to all parents who separate.

  In developing these proposals, we have listened carefully to what parents and children have said. The consumer strategy work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs involved drawing together evidence from research and conducting workshops and focus groups with parents. The key message from the parents was that they wanted help and support to navigate the emotional and practical issues they faced during the breakdown of their relationship.

  We have also consulted widely with the key stakeholders, including parents' groups, academics, voluntary organisations and service providers, including the judiciary, legal professionals and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is this approach that will ensure rapid improvements at local level. Alongside the publication of this consultation document, the president of the Family Division and the chief executives of the Court Service and of CAFCASS are today writing to all judges, court service staff and CAFCASS officers to begin the process of change.

  The consultation period, which begins today, will run until 1 November 2004. Comments and discussions about the proposals will be welcome. The Government plan to implement many of these proposals quickly and robustly and to pursue the legislation that is needed as soon as possible.

  Spending Review 2004: Meeting Regional Priorities
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My honourable friend the Economic Secretary (Mr John Healey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  2004 Spending Review: Meeting Regional Priorities is being published today and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  This document meets the Treasury's commitment to set out how the 2004 Spending Review, announced to Parliament on 12 July 2004, responds to the issues and priorities identified in the regional emphasis documents jointly prepared by the Government Office, regional development agency and regional chamber in each English region.

  The document reaffirms the Government's commitment to improving regional economic performance. It summarises the next steps the Government are taking to ensure that the evidence base supports the Government's regional policy agenda, and sets out the SR04 response to input from the regions as well as plans for devolving further resources and responsibilities in every region.

  National Statistics: Annual Report 2003–04
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  My honourable friend the Financial Secretary (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The National Statistics annual report has been published today. A number of copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report can also be obtained free of charge on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/national_statistics/documentation.asp.

  Office for National Statistics: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  My honourable friend the Financial Secretary (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Office for National Statistics annual report and accounts for 2003–04 are being laid before Parliament today. They contain an assessment of how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2003–04. Electronic copies are freely available on the National Statistics website and a number of copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.